The 7-10: Palmer on Politics

On Shirley Sherrod and Sarah Palin's Missed Opportunity

2010-07-22T20:43:00.000-04:00

The Shirley Sherrod saga has crowded other stories out of the media over the past few days. The details of the saga are well known and easily available on other Web sites. The 7-10, however, wishes to focus on an unreported political angle to the story.

Many politicians, particularly those who do not hail from safe congressional districts, have understandably been a bit gun shy about responding to this story. Expressing condemnation at Andrew Breitbart, the conservative activist whose edited video served as the catalyst for this story, would presumably lead to criticism among other conservatives who feel that politician is "siding with the NAACP" or is somehow "against Whites." Expressing support for Sherrod may lead a politician to be seen as "playing the race card" or "being in lockstep with the NAACP."

These types of political calculations are understandable, but unfortunate. However, that's the state of today's political and media climate. But this story also affords a few gutsy politicians, particularly those with presidential ambitions, a unique opportunity to distinguish themselves for the right reasons. Sarah Palin in particular could easily increase her political capital by coming to Sherrod's defense. After all, Palin commonly ridicules the "lamestream media" and enjoys her freedom to criticize and avoid them:

"With the shackles off, I relish my freedom to call it like I see it, while starving the media beast that was devouring the false reports about me, my staff and my loved ones."

"The lamestream media is no longer a cornerstone of democracy in America. They need help. They need to regain their credibility and some respect. There are some pretty sick puppies in the industry today. They really need help."

Based on this quote, Palin and Sherrod have a lot in common. While some of the critical stories about Palin may have merit, such as her awkward interview with Katie Couric, Palin is right to be offended at the media frenzy that surrounded her daughter's pregnancy.

Being a public figure, Palin naturally commanded (and still commands) public attention. Sherrod, however, did not seek the media spotlight and has had her character and identity destroyed by an influential conservative activist whose personal vendetta against the NAACP renders her as nothing more than collateral damage. If Palin was a victim of the "lamestream media," then Sherrod certainly was too even though some conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, believe the media are at fault for going too easy on Sherrod, whom he believes is "playing the race card."

Should Palin courageously come to Sherrod's defense and criticize Breitbart and the media outlets that piled onto her, she would show her independence, a sense of leadership, and her willingness to "defend what is right," not just what is convenient. It would also earn her a lot of respect from Black voters, moderates, and uncommitted Republicans who may be skeptical about Palin's ideology and political loyalties. Given that Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, and other potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates have not exactly been making significant inroads with Black voters, this presents a fantastic opportunity for Palin to separate herself from her rivals and earn plaudits from voters who may not have been inclined to vote for her in the first place.

This story is on the verge of leaving the front pages and will likely be finished by the start of next week. There's still an opportunity though for politicians to take a political risk by defending Sherrod and criticizing those who sought her ouster. Palin likely stands to benefit the most from doing so on the GOP side, but as long as she remains silent on this matter, she will be unable to expand her base of support beyond people who are already fervently in her camp.

An Altnernative View of Obama's Poll Numbers

2010-07-21T10:03:00.000-04:00

Quinnipiac released a new poll showing that President Obama's approval rating has fallen to 44%, which is a record low for the second-year president. This has led to increased chatter among the media about how Obama is politically threatened, losing support among independents, and even trailing potential Republican challengers in hypothetical 2012 matchups.

This news is surely encouraging for Republican presidential hopefuls, Republicans seeking to recapture control of Congress, and conservative allies seeking to boost their fundraising. However, a threat to these gleeful Republicans is not that this polling is inaccurate, but rather that this polling lacks sufficient context about why Obama is politically weak to begin with. Weakness on behalf of President Obama does not translate into strength on behalf of his political rivals. President Obama is not weak because of a lack of legislative accomplishments or because he is personally unpopular. He is weakened because those who are attacking him have nothing of their own to defend.

Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee and other 2012 presidential contenders are getting a free pass right now, and that is what limits the value of these polls. None of these candidates, save for Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, currently holds public office. As a result, these potential candidates have little for which to be held accountable. They can reflexively bash the president for anything he does without having to make any decisions of their own that they must defend. They can appear before friendly audiences, grant interviews to friendly media outlets, give speeches and not take any questions, or simply not take a definitive position at all on the major political issues of the day (e.g., bailouts, illegal immigration, health care reform, financial regulation, spending cuts) and get away with it.

Obama is taking heat from Republicans and conservatives who claim he is spending too much money, growing government too fast, and taking the nation too far to the left. While Obama can respond to these criticisms, he cannot respond to his critics, at least not directly, because increasing their visibility would not be politically prudent. One rule of politics is that you should never shoot down. In other words, it is common for a governor to attack the president. But it is much less common for a president to attack a governor because that would elevate the governor and diminish the president at the same time. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, for example, is faring a lot better politically after getting into a tussle with President Obama over her state's tough new illegal immigration bill.

Similarly, should Obama respond directly to Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, for example, it would show that his rivals are getting under his skin. This would generate more media coverage that could only be a net positive for his opponents' coffers. Further compounding this is the fact that Obama is politically isolated in that he has few people on whom he can rely to defend him and his accomplishments. Congress, currently controlled by Democrats, has an approval rating of about 20%.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cannot take a more active role in defending the president because he has his own re-election concerns in Nevada. He is effectively making his race against Tea Party conservative Sharron Angle a referendum on her and her ideology, so the last thing he wants to do is change the focus of the race to Obama and defending the Obama record.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a bogeyman whose name is commonly invoked by conservatives who don't like her "[liberal] San Francisco values." Her taking a more public role in defending the president might do more harm than good in that she may alienate moderates who reluctantly voted for Democrats because they disliked their Republican alternatives. She would also give conservative activists more fodder they can use to gin up their own base.

Other liberal-leaning organizations have branding problems that limit their effectiveness beyond their bases. The NAACP, for example, is viewed with suspicion by many Whites who fear the civil rights organization plays the "race card" too often and seeks to advance the agenda of Blacks at the expense of Whites. MoveOn.org released their infamous General BetrayUs advertisement in 2007 which harshly criticized General David Petraeus, who is possibly the most respected person in uniform today. Environmental groups may have a bit more credibility with the electorate in light of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, but public skepticism of climate change legislation and reminding voters of the public perception that Obama mishandled the BP disaster could blunt their messages' effectiveness.

Republicans have the mobilized Tea Party, the influential National Rifle Association, the well funded Chamber of Commerce, conservative talk radio, and a vocal minority in Congress with no legislative responsibility that all get to attack President Obama and his agenda with impunity. The Republican Party's approval ratings are actually worse than the Democrats' and Obama's approval ratings. But by relentlessly attacking the president and the majority party, the Republican Party and their allies are making Obama look increasingly unattractive and increasingly unelectable.

But despite this, Obama (and congressional Democrats by extension) should find solace in the fact that Obama will be running against exactly one Republican opponent in 2012. And that opponent will have to articulate his or her own policy proposals that go beyond the usual bromides of "smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending." Republicans criticized Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign for not offering specifics beyond "hope" and "change," so it would seem hard for them to get away with taking the same approach in 2012. Until a credible Republican begins to put forth specific policy proposals of his or her own, Obama will retain a political advantage regardless of how vulnerable his poll numbers may make him appear now--two years before the next presidential election.

In short, Obama's poll numbers seem more a reflection of his opponents' piling on him without having to worry about taking a hit themselves for not offering any solutions of their own. In addition, despite his legislative accomplishments, until the unemployment rate begins to fall and oily water stops spoiling the beaches and marshes along the Gulf Coast, Obama should expect to have great difficulty seizing control of his political narrative. This combination of external events and the lack of accountability that comes with not holding any elective office or being in the congressional minority should make Obama's poll numbers appear artificially low while his opponents' poll numbers appear artificially high.

Lessons on Governance from the MA Senate Race

2010-01-19T10:04:00.001-05:00

Polls in the Massachusetts Senate race are showing Republican Scott Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley. The fact that a Republican has a legitimate chance of winning Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts has Democrats running scared because this could mean the end of health care reform.

A Coakley victory would maintain the Democrats' 60-seat supermajority that would allow them to continue to stop Republican filibusters in the Senate. A Brown victory, however, would put the health care bill in serious jeopardy by forcing Democrats to pursue one of the following options:

1. Force the Democrats to finish their negotiations before Brown is sworn in. This means Democrats only have a few days left in order to hammer out their differences. That's not enough time.

2. Find a Republican to provide the 60th vote. The most obvious candidate would be Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, the most moderate Republican in the upper chamber. However, Snowe would be less inclined to throw her support behind a bill that even Democrats in nearby Massachusetts rejected by proxy. Another candidate would be Sennator George Voinovich in Ohio because he's retiring and has nothing to lose.

3. Have the House of Representatives pass the Senate bill as is. This means there would be no need for a conference committee or another Senate vote, thus meaning 59 votes are as good as 60 as far as this bill is concerned.

4. Use the budget reconciliation process to pass health care. This would only require a bare majority of 51 votes, but it would also blow up the Senate in that it would set a new precedent that Republicans would be certain to use the next time they regain control of the upper chamber.

5. Kill the bill. This would destroy Democrats because it Republicans won't give them any credit for stopping the bill and Democratic voters will have what little enthusiasm they have be knocked right out of them for the 2010 elections. Republicans would argue that even with their large majorities, they are incapable of governing. The Democrats won't be able to counter this. Even worse, losing health care would be a major defeat for Barack Obama because this is his last best chance of getting this bill passed. Passing health care will only be much more difficult with 53 or 55 Senate seats as opposed to 60.

But regardless of how the Massachusetts race turns out and which of the five aforementioned scenarios pans out, there are three major lessons that congressmen from both parties should learn. Democrats in particular should heed these warnings because, as the party in power, they have the most to lose in the next election.

1. Legislators should take their legislation seriously. Should Brown defeat Coakley in the Massachusetts race, one of the options available to Democrats regarding health care reform is to have the House pass the Senate bill as is. However, the Senate bill has several controversial provisions in it, such as the provision allowing Nebraska to have its Medicaid costs be covered by the other 49 states. This could introduce many legal challenges. The lesson for senators (and representatives) is to draft good and defensible legislation because you never know when you will have to rely on the bill you wrote. Relying on conference committees to make legislation more palatable may not be an option, as the current situation has proved.

2. Senate Republicans have set a dangerous precedent in that major legislation from either party will be impossible to pass in the future. Senate Democrats have had to almost exclusively rely on the votes of their own caucus in order to advance legislation because of unified Republican opposition. But if a 60-seat supermajority is required in order to stop a filibuster and advance any legislation in the Senate, then that ensures legislative paralysis. It is rare for any political party to have a 60-seat Senate majority. Should Republicans ever regain control of the upper chamber with 50-something seats, they will almost certainly regret the precedent they set with health care.

3. The public might not understand how Washington works, but they are still paying attention. The public might not understand the purpose of Committee X, but they do know what secret, closed-door negotiations are. The public might not know why Conference Y is needed, but they do know what constitutes basic fairness. Congress, particularly congressional Democrats, may have had to do all the heavy lifting because of a lack of Republican cooperation, but they did themselves no favors by not openly communicating with the public about legislation that will significantly affect their lives. The American public is inherently suspicious of Washington, but Democrats did nothing to reduce this suspicion.

A lot of people are genuinely scared about what is happening in America concerning war, terrorism, the economy, the environment, immigration and the budget. They don't have the tools to tackle most of these issues on their own, so they need the government to help. But special deals and a lack of transparency have combined to present the government as not acting in good faith to help the public.

Republicans certainly stand to gain from the Democrats' political tone-deafness in 2010. However, the real threat lies in the potential rise of an independent or third party because Washington cannot continue to function this way.

Debating Health Care: A Lack of Republican Credibility

2009-12-22T02:53:00.002-05:00

The Republican Party's approach to the health care debate has been fraught with inconsistencies and self-defeating posturing.

Warnings about death panels, socialized medicine, and health care rationing aside, when the Senate first took up health care, Republicans first argued that the Democrats' health care bill threatened seniors by cutting Medicare spending. This seems strange because Republicans commonly talk about the need to curb spending, especially as it pertains to government programs. One would think Republicans would embrace decreasing Medicare spending.

Next, when the Democrats reached a tentative compromise allowing people over 55 to buy into Medicare (before Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's about face), Republicans complained that the Democrats wanted to grow government and increase spending by adding more people to the same inefficient government program they just warned seniors the Democrats were going to cut.

And in terms of process, when the first health care vote took place in the Senate just to allow debate, Republicans unanimously voted against it. In other words, they didn't want to debate it at all. But if they had better ideas for health care reform, why would they want to end the debate before they even had a chance to articulate their principles and attempt to get some of their ideas into the bill?

Curiously, now that it's time to vote on whether to end debate, Republicans are again unanimous in their opposition. In other words, they don't want to end the very same debate they didn't even want to begin a few weeks earlier. But since they have already committed to not supporting a bill that the Democrats have enough votes to pass, why would they want to drag the process out indefinitely at the expense of handling other important business?

And finally, over the overall course of the health care debate, rather than offering amendments to make the bill more to their liking, they decided to marginalize themselves by sitting the debate out by opposing everything. They have even taken to engaging in absurd practices designed to delay the process, such as having amendments hundreds of pages long be read aloud. As a result, they showed that they cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse called Republicans out on this on the Senate floor:

The unsavory legislative process may have made Democrats look divided or perhaps unethical because of the dealmaking that took place behind the scenes and because of how difficult it was to bring moderate Democrats on board. However, Republicans have marginalized themselves by making hypocritical arguments and not displaying a level of maturity towards the process of actual governance.

Despite the bill's shortcomings, should the Democrats pass health care, it will be a significant legislative achievement for President Obama and the Democratic Party. However, as the New York Times' Russ Douthat argues, Republicans had many chances to steal this issue from the Democrats when they had Congress and the White House during George W. Bush's presidency. Their failure to solve this problem using their own ideas when they had the votes allowed the Democrats to have the chance to solve it themselves.

In politics, it is rare to beat something with nothing. And to the Republicans' discredit, nothing is exactly what the Republicans have offered during the course of this debate.

Of course, given the absurdity of the delay tactics senators can employ, the disproportionate power of small states in the Senate, the abject selfishness of some senators and congressmen, and the practice of cutting deals that force some states to subsidize other states shows how dysfunctional the American system of government has become.

CNN: A Network in Crisis

2009-11-07T21:02:00.003-05:00

CNN has earned a reputation for being the place to go for major breaking news stories. It has consistently been seen as the most credible of the cable news stations, although its credibility ratings, like those of the other cable networks, have declined in recent years. Its network of global resources and positioning as a newsier alternative to its more opinion-based competitors, Fox News and MSNBC, may be responsible for CNN's heightened credibility scores.

Unfortunately, although CNN may be seen as the station to watch for major breaking news stories, it is also seen as the network that cannot hold onto its audience when these news stories subside. This has led to the dubbing of CNN as the "Crisis News Network." But despite its slumping ratings, CNN President Jon Klein has maintained that the network will avoid the "cartoons" that characterize its rivals and keep its news focus.

While CNN's desire to position itself as a strictly news network is understandable, CNN's executives should be concerned about the Atlanta-based network's ratings during the most recent major news story, the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. According to the ratings of the day the story broke, CNN finished behind Fox News. In fact, Fox News more than doubled CNN's ratings not just in the 25-54 demographic sought by advertisers, but also in the overall audience. CNN did not just lose to Fox News. It lost badly. And it lost badly on a day on which in which it was supposed to dominate.

CNN's problems, which are not limited to this particular story, are obvious.

1. Most people already know the major headlines of the day by the time it's 8 p.m. Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric and countless Web sites ensure that people already know what's happening in the world by the time Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs hit the airwaves. By this time, people are looking for expert opinion and analysis, not a recap of what they already know.

2. Even though CNN President Jon Klein and the network's promos state that CNN is a news network, its hosts blur the lines between news and opinion and end up coming across as less compelling in both areas. Viewers know what they are going to get when they turn on Sean Hannity, Charlie Gibson, Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly. But Campbell Brown, for example, is a newswoman who undermines her own news credibility by giving her opinions. In addition to sabotaging her credibility as a newswoman, she is an uncompelling opinion leader because her newswoman role forces her to temper the opinions she expresses. She is part-Jim Lehrer and part-Chris Matthews, which causes her to be unsuccessful in both endeavors. This is the same problem that hampers Lou Dobbs and, to a lesser extent, Anderson Cooper.

3. There is little continuity in its prime-time lineup. The primary culprit here is Larry King's 9 p.m. show. While King may be a talented interviewer who can land major guests, his show kills the momentum Campbell Brown and Lou Dobbs had built up, thus weakening Anderson Cooper's lead-in. Lou Dobbs may talk about illegal immigration and economic policy at 7. Campbell Brown may talk about the day's political events at 8. Then Larry King interviews some actor or philanthropist at 9. This leaves audiences searching for their remotes. When Anderson Cooper is ready to discuss news and politics at 10, it's as if he has to start from scratch with his audience because the people who wanted to watch King's interview with Richard Simmons or Rhianna are not the people who want to listen to David Gergen's insight regarding presidential leadership.

4. CNN needs new talent, particularly on the liberal side. James Carville and Paul Begala, for example, are clearly veteran political strategists. However, their ties to the Clintons make them very predictable. The end result is too much spin and not enough analysis. Roland Martin is also difficult to watch because he seems out of his depth when discussing serious issues. When providing analysis for last week's election coverage, for example, Martin referred to the Democrats' depressed turnout as "Pookie not going to the polls" or something similarly absurd. He also has an annoying tendency to laugh at his counterparts' arguments during interviews, which is childish. CNN's conservative pundits are more interesting to listen to because they sound more serious, more thoughtful and more professional. Their liberal pundits, however, sound more sophomoric and are less watchable as a result.

This is not to say that there is no place for a news alternative to Fox News and MSNBC. However, CNN needs to decide if it wants to be one or the other with its talent rather than marginalizing them by having them dabble in news and opinion and succeeding at neither. Should CNN seek to create a political opinion show similar to the now-defunct "Crossfire," it should ensure that whoever participates in it is both mature and engaging. There is a market for sophisticated analysis on cable television, as opposed to the rants, mockery and reflexive partisanship that can be found on "Countdown" or "Hannity." However, CNN's analysts, especially on the Democratic and liberal sides, are not disciplined and sophisticated enough to fill this niche.

CNN would be wise to stop pursuing its current formula because it is clearly not working, as the Fort Hood story's ratings indicate. Continuing its current approach threatens its very brand image, and that is more important than any ratings victory.

The Chicago Olympics and Health Care

2009-10-02T14:25:00.002-04:00

The International Olympic Committee announced today that Rio de Janeiro will host the 2016 Summer Olympics. Along with Tokyo and Madrid, Chicago had also been vying to host the Games. President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama took the unique step of flying to Copenhagen, Denmark, to make Chicago's case. Many analysts and pundits believed that the final decision would come down between Chicago and Rio, but Chicago was eliminated after the first round of voting.

Obama came under criticism from Republicans who questioned whether it was a good use of the president's time to fly across the Atlantic to spend a few hours trying to persuade the IOC to select Chicago. And now that Obama's overtures were not enough to sway the IOC, he is coming under criticism again for not being able to use his appeal to bring the Games to his hometown. The Drudge Report is taking a shot at Obama by claiming "the ego has landed." Obama's opponents are also taking to various blogs to laugh at the president and his coming home empty-handed. Some major conservative groups even cheered the news.

While Obama and Chicagoans may be disappointed with the results, there is a lesson to be learned here. Lost in the taunts and analyses is the fact that it was not simply Chicago that was on the line. It was the United States. Obama was advocating on America's behalf. For American citizens and American politicians to mock Obama's trip or to laugh at his perceived failure shows a distinct lack of patriotism. If these critics were criticizing Obama and Chicago, who were they wanting to succeed? Was Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele hoping that Madrid won the Games? It is quite probable that many of the president's detractors are the same people who criticized him for not wearing a flag pin or not being patriotic enough. These criticisms reflect nothing more than opposition for the sake of opposition.

Why does this relate to health care, as the title of this blog post suggests? It matters because it suggests that a lot of the president's opposition is not negotiating in good faith. If Republicans are going to mock Obama for trying to bring the Olympics to the United States and laugh at him for coming up short, can they really be trusted to play a constructive role in health care reform legislation?

The Democrats are in danger of frittering away their majorities because they are too busy trying to make nice with people who have demonstrated they have no interest in their success. The result is legislative paralysis and more time for Republicans to argue that anything Obama and congressional Democrats propose is bad for America. It is unlikely that Democrats will have majorities this large after 2010, so they would be wise to stop lending so much credibility to a childish opposition that has shown it does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Obama vs. Wilson: A Public Relations Perspective

2009-09-10T00:34:00.002-04:00

President Obama delivered an hour long address to a joint session of Congress tonight. In his speech, he spoke with greater specificity regarding which elements he wanted included in his vision of health care and health insurance reform. He attempted to reassure seniors and Americans who currently have insurance by telling them that their benefits would not be cut and that they could keep their current insurance plans and doctors. More importantly, he debunked a lot of the rumors that had been swirling about his plan. Fiscal conservatives might still have some questions about how these reform measures would be paid for, but analysts (at least at CNN) seem to think the speech was effective.

This post is not about Obama's speech, however. It is about the unexpected case study in public relations provided by Republican Congressman Joe Wilson from South Carolina. (Disclaimer: I live in Congressman Wilson's district.) Congressman Wilson heckled the president by shouting "you lie" when Obama stated that his plans would not cover illegal immigrants. In addition to showing a lack of respect for the office of the presidency on national television, Wilson's outburst stepped on the Republicans' own message while causing their brand to take another hit right when they were beginning to gain some traction against Obama who had been sliding in the polls in recent weeks. (Needless to say, fundraising appeals set up to oust Wilson have gone into overdrive.)

Which Republican were pundits and media organizations talking about after the speech? Certainly not Rep. Charles Boustany, who delivered the Republican response after Obama's address. Instead, the media were focused on Wilson. That alone translates to a wasted opportunity for the Republican Party. Instead of talking about tort reform, excessive spending, or expanded government, the narrative is about Republicans' lack of civility.

Politically speaking, Obama's temperament contrasted sharply with Wilson's rudeness and makes Obama come across as the leader, the statesman, and the grown-up in the room. Instead of pitching their own reform ideas, Republicans will now have to field questions from constituents and journalists over the next few days asking them how they feel about Wilson's outburst and how they think he should be punished. Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post noted the poor visuals of the Republican members who were caught using their Blackberries, slouching, and looking sour during Obama's speech even when he mentioned principles that conservatives should be happy with. Independents and moderates may have been drifting away from Obama because he had lost control of his message during August, but Wilson's rudeness, combined with the poor optics of the Republicans in the chamber, likely blunted any momentum Republicans had been building with the political center and reminded voters why they rejected the GOP in 2006 and 2008.

Even more importantly, Obama has the benefit of high personal approval ratings. This should work to his advantage regarding voter trust. Voters may look with skepticism at Wilson and Republicans by extension because they came across as immature, vindictive, and not negotiating in good faith. This may make their other political arguments seem less credible because they themselves appear less credible. Wilson has since apologized, but he still hurt his party's brand and stepped on his party's message at a time when tens of millions of people were tuning in.

This squandered opportunity for Republicans only strengthens Obama's hand.

On Toxic Republican Rhetoric and Leadership

2009-09-04T13:17:00.000-04:00

The summer of 2009 has been a bruising one for President Barack Obama, his administration, and his agenda. His poll numbers have fallen to more earthly levels, support for his health care proposals is eroding, liberal Democrats are feuding with conservative Democrats, and his Republican opponents have succeeded in muddying the debate enough to scare a lot of voters into not wanting the president's health care proposals enacted. Republicans clearly smell blood in the water, and they are now considerably more optimistic about their chances in the 2010 midterm elections.

There are certainly many arguments available to Republicans who wish to criticize President Obama. Regardless of Obama's motives or how necessary it was for him to take these measures, Republicans could attack him for the amount of money he has spent, the additional debt he has created, the government's intervention in the private economic sector, an unemployment rate of almost 10%, and his inability to make good on his rhetoric of "bringing the nation together."

Pursuing these arguments should seem like a natural fit for Republicans because the ideas of reducing spending and less government are two of the main prongs of the GOP platform.

However, these debates over political ideology have become muted over the course of the health care debate this summer. Republicans are increasingly espousing explosive rhetoric that comes from the fringes of their party. These arguments may play well with the Republican base, but they do nothing to grow the party or increase its appeal among moderates and independents who may respond more favorably to a genuine ideological message.

Comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler, demanding to see his original birth certificate, bringing loaded weapons to presidential events, warning that Obama will create "death panels," advocating secession, and claiming that Obama wants to turn the United States into a socialist state are absurd charges that no serious public servant should give voice to.

It is easy to understand why Republicans are not only not repudiating this rhetoric, but also engaging in it themselves. For example, polling reveals that Republicans are actually closing the gap with Democrats when it comes to party affiliation. Some prominent political analysts are also increasingly bullish on the GOP's 2010 prospects. In other words, Republicans aren't necessarily being penalized for their conduct. So even if it is unhealthy in terms of civics, it may make political sense, at least in the short term, for Republicans to continue to actively promote or passively embrace this destructive and absurd rhetoric.

The problem for Republicans, aside from potentially making a mockery of their party and turning off moderates and independents, is that it poses a trap for those with presidential aspirations. Mitt Romney, Charlie Crist, Bobby Jindal, and Tim Pawlenty, for example, have been conspicuously silent regarding these verbal jabs. Of course, they may not want to inject themselves into this debate because Obama and the Democrats are being wounded just fine. After all, when your opponent is digging himself a hole, don't take away his shovel. They also might not want to draw the ire of their base for "going soft."

However, their silence could also be interpreted as a tacit approval of this sophomoric rhetoric. Could a Mitt Romney, for example, claim to be a "strong leader" who wants to "shake things up" when he chose not to stand up to his own party when it called Obama a Nazi? For all of Obama's foibles and shortcomings, at the very least, he looks like the grownup in the room as far as current political rhetoric is concerned. Republicans dreaming of taking over Obama's job in 2012 would be wise not to cede this issue completely to Obama for the sake of not drawing the ire of their base. The toxicity of this rhetoric must be confronted at some point, and mature and pragmatic Republicans are throwing away a golden opportunity to do so.

Decoding Sarah Palin

2009-07-10T12:54:00.000-04:00

Sarah Palin's announcement that she would resign from her position as Alaska's governor took the political world by surprise and fueled intense speculation about her motives. Why did she announce this right before the Independence Day holiday weekend? Why did she not take any questions at her press conference? Why did she not want to serve out her complete term? Would she be viable as a future presidential candidate? Is there impending legal trouble that would embarrass her? Is she burned out?

Regardless of her true intentions, several Republicans are not happy with her and what she represents. Others have likened her to a train wreck. Professional women aren't too happy with her decision either.

Speculation about Palin's motives seems to center on three options:

Sarah Palin could have resigned to better position herself for a presidential run in 2012. Because Alaska is so far away from the early caucus and primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, it would be quite difficult for her to campaign in Ames (Iowa) one day while satisfying her constituents in Anchorage the next. As a governor, she has a lot of unique responsibilities that constrain her. But once these constraints have been removed, she could raise money more easily and travel more freely.

Interestingly, Palin put herself in a bit of a box by resigning. Shortly after John McCain announced Palin as his running mate, there was an intense debate about who had more experience--Barack Obama or Sarah Palin. Palin and her Republican defenders claimed that she had more executive experience than Obama did, which was true. But by resigning from her governorship without even completing a single term undermines this experience. And Obama's four years of executive experience as President will more than outweigh Palin's experience as the chief executive of a large state with a small population and a small town should they face off in 2012.

In this case, Palin may decide to play down her experience and argue that the "Washington elites," who have lots of experience, have been incapable of fixing the nation's problems. Therefore, her relative lack of experience could be refreshing. However, inexperience was one of the lines of attack Republicans used against Obama. If the nation sours on Obama because of his inexperience, why would they put another inexperienced politician in the White House? And how could Palin run on inexperience after she kept making the case that she was more experienced than Obama in the 2008 campaign?

One other problem with the presidential option for Palin is that one rationale for resigning as Alaska's governor was that she did not want to be a "lame duck." Using this logic, Palin could not possibly run for president. Any second-term president could be considered a lame duck. And if she were to only pledge to serve one term, she'd be a lame duck also. And the fact that the House and Senate are overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats right now (and will likely be in 2010 as well) would only make her even more of a lame duck as a Republican president. How could she claim she wants to "fight" for "hardworking Americans" if she's so easily able to walk off the battlefield before the fight is over?

A second option is that Palin wants to retire from politics and become a pundit, perhaps on talk radio or on television. The size of her following and the fierceness of their loyalty would suggest that she could be successful emulating Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter. But this would turn her into one of those "media elites" that she railed against so much on the campaign trail. She cannot credibly complain about the media (including bloggers, late night comedians, and cable television hosts) in one minute and then make her own incendiary remarks about Barack Obama (who "pals around with terrorists") and his "socialist" allies one minute later.

There's another problem with this route. Entering talk radio or hosting her own cable television show might land her a fortune, but it would also contradict her image of being a woman of the people (remember "Joe the Plumber?"). Rich, influential people who have their own book deals, syndicated columns, and television shows cannot whine about other people being members of the "media elite." Taking a fat paycheck and entering the world of punditry would ironically turn Palin into the same type of person she criticized so sharply in the past.

There also exists the possibility that Palin is genuinely tired of the political and media grind. But if that's true, can she ever truly disengage herself from politics? What will happen to her political action committee (Sarah PAC)? Would she really be willing to give up the thousands of dollars she could earn from giving speeches or working as a consultant or party strategist?

In less than a year, Sarah Palin has gone from zero to a million miles an hour. During this brief time, she has had to deal with a grueling presidential campaign, ethics investigations, fundraisers, speeches, and bigtime interviews. Perhaps the pressure was too much for her to handle in such a short period of time. So if she really does want to get out of politics, how long will she be gone? Nobody really expects her to retire to private life, as she is immensely popular among the Republican base. But if she does disengage herself, will she bolster her own profile or try to rehabilitate her public image among non-Republicans?

Having said all this, for someone who claims not to want to be a focus of the media, she (a journalism graduate) certainly has a knack for drawing everyone's attention. Unfortunately for her, however, the more time people spend trying to figure her out as a person, the less time they will likely spend paying attention to what she actually stands for.

An Opportunity for Libertarian Conservatives

2009-06-27T17:23:00.001-04:00

Disgraced Senator John Ensign of Nevada and Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina have shined a new spotlight on the role of social conservatism in the Republican Party. Social conservatives form a critical part of the GOP, given its support of traditional marriage and a greater public role for religious values. Because the Republican Party has branded itself as the party of "family values," charges of hypocrisy in light of Ensign's and Sanford's infidelity are inevitable.

Democrats are obviously happy because the more the Republicans identified themselves as the protector of "family values," the more they implied that Democrats had no values at all. While "family values" should have no political ideology, Republicans unwittingly set the bar so low for Democrats that Barack Obama was able to easily shatter these perceptions simply by taking his wife out on dates and spending time with his children.

This post, however, is not about hypocrisy, Democrats, or the impact Sanford's affair will have on his possible presidential ambitions. Rather, it is about a new path for Republicans that would take them back to a Barry Goldwater brand of conservatism that may be a better fit for the country in 2009 than its current more religious brand. Turning to Goldwater would allow Republicans to reposition themselves without abandoning their conservative principles.

The modern Republican Party largely consists of an awkward marriage between Southern more religious-based social conservatism and Western more libertarian-minded leave-me-alone conservatism. (Moderate Republicans that hail from the Midwest and Northeast are an endangered species.)

Social conservatives have tended to wield a larger influence in the GOP, an influence that has only increased as the party became increasingly concentrated in the South. Their power is expressed in the Republican Party's platform, such as seeking a constitutional ban on gay marriage, advocating prayer in public schools, and restricting abortion.

As noble as social conservatives' intentions may be, however, the moral failings of Republican and Democratic politicians alike should make it clear that morality cannot be easily legislated. This is where libertarian-minded conservatism stands to fill the void left by hypocritical social conservatives.

Libertarian conservatives support limited government not just in financial affairs, but also personal and social affairs. A social conservative may oppose gay marriage because it goes against biblical teachings. A libertarian conservative, however, may support the right for adults to enter any consensual relationship they wish, even if they are personally opposed to gay marriage.

A social conservative may frown on marital infidelity because it weakens the family unit and is a sin against God. A libertarian conservative may frown on infidelity as well, but will not penalize the guilty party as severely because that person made a private decision and should live with the consequences.

Libertarian conservatives believe in free will, so long as the rights of others are not violated. Social conservatives believe in free will as well, so long as their actions do not contradict biblical teachings.

But there are two problems confronting social conservatism in addition to the difficulty with legislating morality:

1. The United States is slowly becoming less Christian and more tolerant of nontraditional lifestyles. This does not excuse moral failings such as infidelity. But it does suggest that such failings are no longer as shocking to the public as they might have been 20 or 30 years ago. Many of us are guilty of the exact same failings and therefore look with suspicion at politicians who claim to be the paragon of virtue.

2. The United States is slowly becoming more liberal because of the influx of immigrants and the growth of liberal demographic groups. Blacks already vote Democratic by a 9 to 1 ratio, but the real danger for Republicans lies in the Latino population. They voted for Obama by a 2 to 1 ratio and are the fastest growing ethnic group in the country. This was devastating for Republicans in Florida, North Carolina, and the Southwest in 2008. Could Georgia follow in 2012 and Texas in 2016? If Republicans lose any of these states, it would seem virtually impossible for a Republican to cobble together enough electoral votes to win the White House, as I argued shortly after the election.

Also, while Blacks and Latinos may harbor some socially conservative views (i.e., gay marriage and abortion), they are highly suspicious of the Republican Party and its commitment to their communities. So it will take more than social conservatism to earn these groups' votes.

Libertarian conservatism allows Republicans to reconnect with voters by coming across less piously and removing the hypocritical position of advocating limited government unless it pertains to private matters. And if the libertarian conservatives had a greater voice in the Republican Party, it is quite possible that voters would look at Sanford's actions as a personal failure rather than "yet another hypocritical 'family values Republican' who doesn't practice what he preaches." But because the party has come to be seen as the party of social conservatives, Sanford's and Ensign's dalliances tarnish the entire party.

Iran's Political Crisis: On Politics vs. Governance

2009-06-23T16:16:00.000-04:00

What many casual political observers and even a few respected political analysts lament about modern politics is a lack of purpose and seriousness. There seems to be too much of an emphasis on political tactics at the expense of meaningful political leadership.

The civil unrest after the recent presidential election in Iran has sparked an intense debate about President Obama's response and the United States' role in international affairs concerning rogue nations. So far, Obama has been fairly cautious in his response so as to not "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs. Recent polling suggests that a bare majority of Americans support his response so far.

However, South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham, Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, and other conservatives have criticized Obama for his handling of the political crisis in Iran. They are criticizing him for not speaking out forcefully enough in support of the Iranian protestors and for not engaging in meaningful "action" regarding confronting this crisis.

Unfortunately for Graham, Pence, and other political figures who are hammering Obama for not speaking out as forcefully as Ronald Reagan did during the waning years of Communism in Eastern Europe, their rhetoric crumbles when confronted by reality. And unfortunately, few journalists have challenged them on this.

What "actions" do Republicans want Obama to take? Their rhetoric is as vague as the aspirations Obama espoused on the campaign trail (which they roundly criticized as well). The three most apparent "actions" available to Obama are military confrontation, condemnation, and sanctions. But are these realistic options? It appears not.

Military confrontation: Perhaps Republican critics want Obama to send American tanks to the Iranian border and drive them all the way to Tehran. But the American public has almost certainly soured on military adventurism, as they rendered their verdict in last fall's elections. And in light of the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the rising tensions with North Korea, there simply aren't enough troops left to accomplish such a mission.

And more importantly, the Iranian protesters' hatred for their own political leaders and ruling clergy should not be equated with a love for the United States. Iran is a country with which the United States has had no diplomatic relations for 30 years. The previous American president referred to Iran as part of an "Axis of Evil." And John McCain infamously joked during last year's presidential campaign that the United States should "bomb bomb bomb Iran."

The Iranians may resent their current government, but they are also quite skeptical of the United States, given its history of interference in their domestic affairs. Disregarding Iran's sovereignty and sending in the tanks would be a surefire way of taking the Iranians' current outrage against their ruling corrupt government and redirecting it towards the United States. In turn, this would give the Iranian rulers a scapegoat that enhances their own legitimacy.

Iran is a young country. The embassy hostage crisis happened 30 years ago. There exists a unique opportunity for the United States to gain the trust of a new generation of Iranians who are not as hostile towards the United States as previous generations may be. Sending in the tanks would squander this opportunity and set a dangerous precedent for other nations who may not like the electoral and political processes of other countries and wish to "help."

Expressions of condemnation and support: Detractors argue that it would be easy for President Obama to make a statement expressing his support for the Iranian protestors while making clear that he condemns the government's actions. Such a statement, they argue, would let the Iranian people know which side the United States is on and that they have America's full support. This sounds great in theory, but could be disastrous in practice. It also presupposes that the Iranian protestors don't know which side the United States supports, which is ludicrous.

To start, the second Obama injects himself and the United States into this confrontation, it will immediately shift the focus away from the demonstrators and the disputed election and turn it to the Americans' interference in Iranian affairs. The United States has no diplomatic ties with Iran, so any rebuke from Obama would have little punitive power. And even if the United States were to condemn the Iranian government, what would happen next? Is the United States supposed to send weapons to the Iranian populace? Is the Iranian government going to apologize simply because Obama condemned their actions?

The Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting for years. Anytime there is an Israeli government raid, a missile strike, or a Palestinian suicide bombing, there is plenty of condemnation from all corners of the globe. But these condemnations are meaningless in that they do not stop the violence. In this context, it seems that condemnations are designed more for domestic political purposes (e.g., taking a stand for freedom, not siding with dictators, etc.) rather than the purpose of altering foreign policy with nations that the United States (and other nations) has no ties to.

Imposition of sanctions: Perhaps the United States could weaken Iran by damaging its economy via sanctions. But these sanctions would require approval from the United Nations. Would the Russians (who have veto power) be on board with this course of action?

Putting aside the fact that the Iranians have been sanctioned for years, the risks here are similar to the ones posed by sending in military troops. Increasing sanctions may hurt the Iranian economy, but would they be more damaging to the general population than the actual government? And would sanctions not provide the Iranian clergy an immediate scapegoat they can use to unite the country against the West which is once again meddling in its affairs?

This is not to say that President Obama can do nothing regarding the Iranian situation or that his current course of action has been the right one so far. However, it is very revealing that the very people who criticized Obama for not being specific enough about "hope" and "change" on the campaign trail are now not being specific enough about the "action" they are calling for when it comes to responding to the Iranian political crisis.

This debate is emblematic of a larger problem in modern politics. It seems that there are many politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, who are not taking their responsibilities as public leaders and national lawmakers seriously. Rather than offering meaningful solutions to advance the country in any particular direction, it seems that too many of them are more preoccupied with engaging in opposition for opposition's sake. It's all about bombast and posturing. Consequences and serious debate don't seem to matter so much as long as one political party can win the daily news cycle and emerge with new talking points they can use as a weapon in a future election.

Herein exists an opportunity for a smart politician to tone down the political rhetoric and seize the mantle of responsible governance. Obama has remained popular in the polls, but he would be wise not to forget that many Americans are yearning for a more mature government that is more pragmatic, more prescient, and more responsible than they are. In Obama's case, gaining the voters' trust in this regard may make it easier for him to accomplish the rest of his agenda. After all, clamoring for vague "actions" with no regard for the consequences is a good way of delegitimizing one's own credibility.

On Republican Relevance

2009-04-10T12:58:00.000-04:00

President Obama is benefiting from high approval ratings. This is likely a combination of several factors. He is still basking in the glow of his honeymoon, his visibility makes him seem like he is engaged in the issues, his recent trip to Europe received good reviews, and President Bush provides such a low set of expectations in many voters' minds that it makes Obama look better by comparison. Obama's popularity makes it difficult for his political rivals to challenge him directly, but if they do not distinguish themselves in any meaningful way, they risk becoming increasingly marginalized.

This marginalization is reflected in Republicans' poor approval ratings and is the result of self-inflicted wounds. These sour reviews of Republicans likely stem from three problems: 1) their reliance on tactics instead of strategy, 2) the rigidity of their platform and its disconnect from political reality, and 3) a changing demographic.

A single long term strategy beats a dozen short term tactics almost every time. John McCain and Republicans in general were unsuccessful in last year's elections because they kept switching from tactic to tactic without tying them into a coherent strategy. For example, as I argued last summer, Republicans tried to peg Obama as a covert radical Muslim, a political neophyte who wasn't ready for primetime, a typical corrupt Chicago politician, a liberal elitist, and an unpatriotic racist who has a racist Christian pastor.

Since Obama's inauguration, however, it seems that Republicans are still relying on tactics instead of strategy. Republicans are hitting Obama for being too popular (which makes no sense, especially since Republicans criticized people who didn't support President Bush as being unpatriotic), for spending too much money (even though they have no credibility on fiscal responsibility), for being too partisan (even though he has genuinely reached out to Republicans), and for being too liberal (even though being too conservative is never a problem). The problem for Republicans is that when they engage in opposition merely for opposition's sake, voters will not take them seriously. The lack of constructive ideas coming from the GOP is leading Democrats to brand them as "the party of no."

Republicans are against wasteful spending. They are against tax increases. They are against creating or expanding social programs. But what are they for? Other than more tax cuts, Republicans don't seem to stand for anything. What is their platform? Since President Obama's economic policies are unacceptable to them, why don't they propose a policy of their own and show how it can benefit average people?

There comes a time when a party platform simply has to be modified in order to keep up with a changing nation. Put another way, conservatism in its current form does not match what voters are looking for now.

I've been unemployed for 3 months.
We need more tax cuts!

The mortgage company is raising my interest rates again.
You shouldn't have moved into a house you couldn't afford!

I work on the assembly line at a General Motors plant in Flint, Michigan. Will I have a job in 6 months?
You should give up your health insurance and start making cars that people want to buy!

I lost 60% of my savings when my bank failed because it was overleveraged, but the former CEO is getting a $20M golden parachute.
We need less regulation! The government needs to get out of the way!

I'm concerned about our public schools.
Gays are getting married in Iowa! We must stop these activist judges!

Republicans were able to successfully brand Democrats as engaging in class warfare in the past. This was because Democrats often made the mistake of equating wealth with immorality. People weren't rich because they worked hard and made good decisions in life. They were rich because they were unethical corporate bigwigs who exploited the little guy.

But now Republicans are making the Democrats' mistake in reverse. People aren't poor because their wages aren't keeping up with their expenses or because they lost their jobs. They're poor because bought too much car, too much house, and too much plasma television. Granted, some of the people currently struggling did indeed live beyond their means (just as some wealthy people became wealthy by exploiting others). But there are also many more people who have tried to live responsibly, but are struggling because of deceptive practices on behalf of creditors or job losses or rising interest rates and fees. When conservatives complain about people owning two cars without understanding the circumstances involved, it makes Republicans seem both pious and out of touch with average people.

The current banking and economic crisis has proven that Wall Street cannot police itself. So "less regulation" is the last thing voters want to hear. People are now looking for government to play a greater role in protecting the public when it comes to financial affairs. Conservatives will have to reconcile "limited government" for small businesses with meaningful government regulations for huge corporations. And as long as people are concerned with where their next paycheck is coming from, complaining about gay marriage and abortion will put conservatives on a fast track to irrelevance.

Dude, what happened to my country? There have been some important demographic shifts in America over the past few years. I wrote about the Republicans' problems concerning race and age shortly after the election, but it goes beyond that.

Voters are becoming increasingly sophisticated. The 2008 election generated a lot of voter interest because people's lives were disrupted on multiple fronts. They were losing their money. They were worried about energy prices. They were still sending their sons and daughters to Iraq. People were looking for solutions instead of platitudes.

Sarah Palin complicated matters by combining platitudes with incoherence and vitriol. This was followed by Rush Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" remarks. Others have complained that Obama hasn't gone to church in X number of weeks since the inauguration. The point of these criticisms is that there is no point.

While it is customary for a politician's detractors to take potshots at him, there comes a point where the criticisms become so absurd that they say more about the people making them than they do about their target. If voters tune Republicans out when they start talking about Obama bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia and wanting to turn this nation into a communist state, they might not tune back in in when the Republicans actually have a credible argument to make. Childish Republicans are making Obama look like the grownup in the room, and therefore more presidential.

Taking all of these issues into consideration, Republicans need to grow their base, make their arguments relevant to people's lives without being patronizing, and display a bit more intellectual maturity. If Republicans continue down their current path of playing to an ever-shrinking base by engaging in the same rhetoric of tax cuts, gay hysteria, short term smokescreens, and McCarthyism, they will only reaffirm to the broader electorate that they don't deserve to be taken seriously even if they are not personally in lockstep with President Obama or his Democratic allies in Congress.

Obama vs. Limbaugh Revisited

2009-03-05T05:25:00.000-05:00

A battle is raging within the Republican Party over its future direction and what it should stand far. This is not uncommon for parties after they lose an election, especially as decisively as the GOP did in 2006 and 2008. Being locked out of power in the House, the Senate, and the White House, Republicans have little more than the threat of a filibuster when it comes to actual legislative control. This is a sharp contrast from the heyday of the GOP as recently as the 2004 election. Since then, the GOP has been in a tailspin.

Shortly before President Obama's inauguration, I argued that there were three political figures who posed very real problems to the GOP: Ronald Reagan (because voters under 35 barely remember him, if they even remember him at all), Barack Obama (because he is creating a new generation of loyal Democratic voters), and Sarah Palin (because she caters to a wing of the Republican Party that makes it very difficult for the party to expand its base).

These arguments still hold true now, but they have become compounded by the fact that there is a leadership vacuum in the GOP and nobody seems sure of who should fill it. There is no clear person Republicans can point to and immediately identify as their party's leader.

John McCain? He's yesterday's news, and conservatives were never really on board with his candidacy anyway. John Boehner? Who's that? Mitch McConnell? Whatever. Eric Cantor? Maybe in a few years. Michael Steele? He may be the party chair, but is he really the one calling the shots?

Further complicating matters, the party risks becoming a party of opposition rather than a party of ideas in the minds of the voters. For Republicans, the worst part of all of this is that given the new president and the extraordinary circumstances facing this nation in terms of the economy and foreign policy, the public is looking intently at their leaders in Washington for guidance. What are Republicans doing to take advantage of this opportunity?

If they're not criticizing the new president's policies and pushing for more tax cuts, they're apologizing to conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh who has emerged as the most visible face of the GOP. Democratic strategists are now looking at Limbaugh with glee.

Back in January when Limbaugh said he "hoped Obama failed" and the Obama administration responded to these remarks, I argued that it was a crafty way of drawing Republicans into a fight they could not win:

"By elevating Limbaugh, Obama is also shining a spotlight on the wing of the party Limbaugh represents. This puts the cool and bipartisan Obama against the fiery and antagonistic Limbaugh.

[T]his presents a dilemma for Republican politicians. Do they distance themselves from Limbaugh because his rhetoric is over the top? Or do they embrace Limbaugh and risk limiting their appeal beyond the conservative populist base?

Obama is far more popular among far more people than Limbaugh is, and it appears that Obama may have put the Republican Party in a bit of a box by giving the least attractive wing of the party (politically speaking) a larger stage.

For Republicans harboring broader political ambitions, Rush Limbaugh may help them in the primaries, but send them to their doom in a general election. President Obama may have outfoxed Republicans by stoking the fire and letting Limbaugh win the battle at the expense of losing the larger war."

Obama wins because he gets to ignore Limbaugh and look reasonable and mature by comparison. (Limbaugh most recently challenged Obama to appear on his radio show for a debate. A debate?! With the President of the United States?! On a radio show?! With a non-politician?!) Democrats win because they can turn Limbaugh into a political albatross for congressional Republicans by forcing them to repudiate him or embrace him. And Limbaugh wins because he will undoubtedly garner higher ratings and influence in conservative circles.

Republicans in general, however, are the big losers here. They tried very hard to play the "guilt by association" card against Barack Obama and congressional Democrats during the last campaign, especially when it came to William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Now the same tactic is being used on them with an even greater effect.

It is important to note that most Republicans who are still in Congress (in other words, they survived the 2006 and 2008 landslides) hail from districts or states that are solidly Republican. They don't have to worry about appealing beyond this conservative Republican base. However, that base is no longer large enough for the party to remain competitive. It is impossible for Republicans to embrace Rush Limbaugh and grow their base at the same time.

Obama himself is wisely staying away from talking about Limbaugh now. However, by baiting Limbaugh early on, he set a trap for Republicans. And by ignoring Limbaugh now, Obama can continue to take the high road and look presidential while his Democratic allies prolong the fight and turn moderates and independents away from the Republican Party. Meanwhile, Limbaugh continues to flail away as congressional Republicans continue to trip over themselves to avoid offending him. Now the Republican Party runs the risk of being known as the party of "no" and the party of "Rush," thus working to the Democrats' advantage.

That might not be "change" to Obama's critics, but it is shrewd politics.

Assessing the Judd Gregg Fallout

2009-02-15T13:58:00.001-05:00

Shortly after last fall's election, I analyzed Barack Obama's aims of bipartisanship, the ways he could go about achieving it, and how it could benefit his administration by keeping it from overreaching and governing too far from the left in the eyes of voters.

Three months have passed since that original analysis. President-elect Barack Obama has since become President Obama and most of his Cabinet has been filled. But there have been some obvious stumbles along the way--though not all of which were of his own creation. But in terms of political ramifications as they pertain to bipartisanship, the most important development so far has been the Judd Gregg fiasco.

Senator Gregg, a fiscally conservative and socially moderate senator from New Hampshire, was tapped to be Obama's Secretary of Commerce. At first, this selection appeared to be a masterstroke by Obama because it meant that a Republican senator would be replaced by a Democratic governor who could potentially appoint a Democrat. This is a point I argued three months ago in my original analysis:

"One more benefit of tapping Republicans to serve in Obama's administration is that it could be a backdoor way of increasing Democratic majorities, particularly in the Senate. If Obama tapped [John] McCain to be Secretary of Defense or Secretary of Homeland Security, for example, McCain would have to relinquish his Senate seat. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, would then be responsible for appointing his successor. Oregon Senator Gordon Smith would have been another potential appointee, but he lost his reelection bid to Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley."

Of course, Obama chose Governor Napolitano to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security, thus resulting in Arizona's Secretary of State, a Republican, ascending to the governorship (Arizona does not have a lieutenant governor). Thus, one could argue that Obama was not explicitly trying to increase only fellow Democrats' control over the levers of power. With the selections of Napolitano and Gregg, he was essentially an equal opportunity employer.

Senator Gregg, however, may have created the blueprint for senators of future presidents' opposition parties who are tapped to serve. Rather than just happily relinquishing their seat and signing the dotted line, they may now be more inclined to broker a deal with their state's governors requiring that their replacement be a member of the same party. This would keep the balance of the power in the Senate unchanged and prevent the president's appointee from angering members of his own party.

Senator Gregg also created another blueprint specifically for Republicans. Despite President Obama's high approval ratings, Gregg went against him by stepping down from the Commerce slot. Gregg is most definitely a conservative senator, but he is not cut from the same cloth as someone like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe or South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint. Gregg is an ideological conservative, but not a partisan one. If you were to sincerely work with him and arrive at a reasonable compromise, he would be on board. But in the case of an Inhofe or a DeMint, the only way you would get their support is if they wrote the bill themselves and all the other Republicans supported it. Of course, that's not going to happen.

The blueprint Gregg provided Republicans is simple. He showed Republicans how they can oppose a popular president. Citing genuine ideological differences without casting aspersions on Obama or the Democratic majority is far more palatable to voters than phony cries of a lack of partisanship and the same buzzwords of wasteful spending, big government and pork.

This is not to say that Obama got burnt. While this was certainly a distraction, Gregg's Senate career is history, as he will vacate his seat in 2010. An open Senate seat in an increasingly Democratic state should be the top target on the Democrats' wish list next year. Also, because Obama has made good on his promises to increase bipartisanship, voters will likely not blame him for Gregg's withdrawal. Obama tried to court another Republican, but he got stood up at the altar. This gives him cover to appoint a strong liberal to the Commerce post in the future. Republicans won't have a leg to stand on if they criticize the future nominee for being too liberal because they had their chance when one of their own was given the nod.

Washington insiders and political junkies know that the Department of Commerce is in charge of the decennial census. The census matters because congressional redistricting is based on it. If a liberal is in charge of Commerce, there is a greater chance that Democratic constituencies will be overcounted (people of color, urban voters, homeless people, and potentially illegal immigrants). By the same token, if a conservative is in charge, these same constituencies have a better chance of being undercounted. This is why so many Democrats were unpleasantly surprised by the Gregg pick. (There are now rumblings that former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr., a conservative Democrat, is being considered for the position. Should this happen, both Republicans and Democrats should be pleased.)

Of course, average people have no idea who is in charge of the census, so Gregg's withdrawal doesn't mean as much to them. They are more likely to think of Gregg as a Republican who refused Obama's hand or another problematic Obama Cabinet nominee than as a catalyst for debate over control of something that only happens every ten years.

The final verdict is that even though this was both a distraction and an embarrassment, everyone comes out of the Gregg withdrawal ahead. Republicans are just happy to have Gregg back in the Senate and a new tack from which they can oppose the President. And Gregg probably has more power as the 59th, 60th, or 61st Democratic vote in the Senate than he would have had in Obama's Cabinet. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch wins because he shored up his own bipartisan credentials by working out a deal with Gregg to appoint a Republican placeholder. New Hampshire Democrats win because they have an easy Senate pickup next year, assuming former Senator John Sununu doesn't run. Democrats in general win because Obama's next Commerce nominee will probably be more acceptable to them than Gregg was. And Obama benefits by burnishing his trust among voters who will be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

No Democratic President has had three Republicans in his Cabinet before. Combining this with the fact that Obama is willing to attend town halls where audience members are not screened (unlike President Bush) suggests that 1) Obama sincerely does want to reach out to people who may not agree with him, 2) "change" was not just a campaign slogan, 3) Obama is strong and confident enough to handle public disagreement which results in him looking more like a leader, and 4) his political opponents can have a voice in this administration too.

In the end, the Gregg saga wasn't pretty. But everyone came out ahead.

The Stimulus and Republican Rhetoric

2009-02-07T20:28:00.001-05:00

President Obama is wrangling with Congress over the economic stimulus bill currently being negotiated. In addition to providing new information about Obama's management style, his influence, and his control over congressional Democrats, the debate has also revealed a new power center in the Senate: moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats.

After being purged in the 2006 and 2008 elections, there are not many moderate Republican congressmen and senators left. This leaves much more conservative minorities in the House and Senate. The Republican House minority unanimously voted against the first version of the economic stimulus bill, and Senate Democrats are counting on a small handful of Northeastern moderates to get a bill that could receive 60 votes.

In light of the vote in the House and the struggles Democrats are having in the Senate, Republicans are feeling emboldened. Even though they have very little legislative control, they are wielding a disproportionately large influence over the debate and are outmaneuvering the majority Democrats. As a result, support for the stimulus is waning. Political analysts are giving the Republicans credit for their current message.

The Republican economic argument is simple: The solution to the struggling economy is more tax cuts. Voters have heard these arguments before. By putting more money in people's paychecks because of lower tax rates, they could put that money back in the economy by spending it as they see fit. After all, they know how to spend their money better than big government does.

There are several problems with this argument, however.

1. A tax cut is useless to a person without a job. Given the rising unemployment rate, Republicans risk looking out of touch the more they push the tax cut issue. If you just got laid off, a tax cut will not put more money in your pocket at all. Republicans may argue that corporate tax cuts would allow them to hire more workers. However, when these companies were given billions of dollars of bailout money last fall, they did not hire more workers. They wasted the money on acquisitions, bonuses, and luxuries that turned out to be public relations disasters. Why would companies be more responsible taking advantage of a tax cut than they were with a gift from the taxpayers?

2. A company has no reason to hire more workers if demand is down. This dovetails from the point mentioned earlier. Republicans emphasize personal responsibility. It would seem that a responsible company would not increase their expenses at a time when their revenues are down. A responsible company would probably use any extra money to pay off debts or save it to cover expenses in the event of an emergency. Unlike former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's claims of laziness, people want to work. But companies have to have a reason to hire them.

3. Even though the argument sounds good, voters rejected it last fall. It is hard to argue with "putting more money in people's pockets." (From a public relations standpoint, the Democrats have a much harder case to make in terms of defending giving tax money to people who don't pay any income taxes.) However, Republicans up and down the ballot ran on the same argument and lost big for the second straight election. Voters are well aware of the Republican arguments concerning the economy, and they concluded in 2008 that they want new solutions. President Obama is not shutting Republicans out of the debate because they're Republicans; he's shutting out their ideas because tax cuts alone are not what the public wants.

Republicans are running on two issues right now: tax cuts and wasteful spending. It is true that support for the economic bill is waning. However, because of the three arguments listed above, Republicans have to be careful not to misinterpret their support. The tax cut argument probably doesn't play beyond the Republican base. Taxes will always be too high for them. Running against wasteful spending seems to be a much more potent issue for them. The Republicans' argument is definitely resonating with the public. The problem is, they are running the risk of stressing the wrong one. Voters might not be in lockstep with congressional Democrats or President Obama, but they do want "change." More tax cuts is not "change."

On Obama vs. Limbaugh

2009-01-28T22:11:00.000-05:00

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh set off a firestorm of controversy earlier this month when he said that he "hopes Obama fails" because a successful Obama presidency and a conservative agenda cannot coexist. This comment received a lot of attention in the blogosphere which is now having renewed debates about patriotism and partisanship (see here, here, and here).

In response, President Obama caught the world of conservative talk radio by surprise when he warned that "you can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." Not wanting to let this charge go unanswered, Limbaugh fired back by saying Obama was "frightened" of him. He also chastised the congressional Republican leadership for not being tough enough on the new president.

A conventional interpretation of Obama's remarks is that Obama believes that while Limbaugh's combativeness and unwillingness to compromise may be sweet music to hardcore conservatives, his approach to politics is ultimately problematic because it turns so many voters off and results in political stalemates and animosity. However, the interpretation of Obama's words is far less important than the reason why he even bothered to get involved in this discussion in the first place.

At first glance, it appears that Obama made a mistake by criticizing Limbaugh. An old saying on the campaign trail is that if you're going to shoot, you never aim down. Obama is the President of the United States. As the new leader of the free world, he has more power, more importance, more influence, and more respect than anyone else in the country. Rush Limbaugh may have an audience of 20 million listeners, but Barack Obama received almost 70 million votes. Therefore, one could argue that Obama is diminishing his stature by engaging Limbaugh. Elevated by Obama, Limbaugh could then argue to his listeners that he has gotten under Obama's skin. This translates into better ratings for Limbaugh and greater approval from his listeners who love the red meat.

However, after running a successful two-year long presidential campaign characterized by strict message discipline, it is possible that Obama was thinking beyond Limbaugh.

There are three main segments of Republican voters:

1. Moderate Republicans. These Republicans tend to be conservative on fiscal issues, but more moderate on social issues. They often live in the suburbs and are well off financially. These kinds of Republicans kept Midwestern and Northeastern states like Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania competitive. Of all Republicans, these types were probably the most likely to vote for Barack Obama last November or may tepidly identify themselves as Blue Dog Democrats now. Icons of this wing of the party include Colin Powell, Lincoln Chafee, Mitt Romney, Olympia Snowe, and Bob Ehrlich.

2. Small government conservatives. These Republicans simply want to be left alone. They don't want the government to do anything with their land, their guns, or their money. They are conservative on social issues as well, but think these issues are best resolved at the state level. These Republicans were probably pulling their hair out when they were in the majority during the first 6 years of Bush's presidency because they saw the rest of their party running off the rails in terms of government spending and government growth. Many of them live in the libertarian West. Icons of this wing of the GOP include Mike Pence, John Shadegg, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, Eric Cantor, and John Barrasso.

3. Conservative populists. Also known as the Republican base, these Republicans are conservative on fiscal issues and conservative on social issues, but they seek government intervention when it comes to implementing their social policies (such as a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage). Concentrated in the South and rural Midwest, this wing of the party was probably more likely to subscribe to the rumors about Obama's religion and his ties to "terrorists." These hard right Republicans did not like John McCain, but they absolutely loved Sarah Palin. In addition to Palin, other icons of this wing of the party include Saxby Chambliss, Tom Tancredo, Tony Perkins, James Inhofe, and Sean Hannity.

This third wing of the GOP constitutes Rush Limbaugh's core audience. But it is also this wing of the party that is hurting the Republican Party's ability to keep the first wing of the party in line and bring independents and conservative Democrats into its ranks. There is a complete leadership vacuum in the GOP right now. John McCain lost the election and is now just another senator. The RNC is still looking for a chairman. Most voters don't know who Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are (they are the majority leaders of the Senate and House, respectively). And Sarah Palin clearly split the party. So perhaps Rush Limbaugh is filling this leadership void. Even though he holds no office, he does wield tremendous influence and is intensely popular with the base.

By elevating Limbaugh, Obama is also shining a spotlight on the wing of the party Limbaugh represents. This puts the cool and bipartisan Obama against the fiery and antagonistic Limbaugh. Because voters responded well to Obama's message of "change" and bipartisanship, they will probably think that Obama looks much more mature and much more politically appealing than Limbaugh. Of course, Limbaugh is not running for office.

However, this presents a dilemma for Republican politicians. Do they distance themselves from Limbaugh because his rhetoric is over the top? Or do they embrace Limbaugh and risk limiting their appeal beyond the conservative populist base? Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia initially came out against Limbaugh, but later called Limbaugh during his show and apologized for "putting his foot in his mouth." He also said he greatly respected "conservative icons" like Limbaugh who were helping to strengthen the base.

A point to remember is that in the current House of Representatives, most Republicans who survived the 2006 and 2008 elections represent solidly conservative districts. They don't have to worry about pleasing Democrats, liberals, and moderates. Perhaps Congressman Gingrey forgot that he represents a conservative district in Georgia. But what about other Republicans, especially those in the first two groups I mentioned above? How will they respond if they are called upon to denounce Limbaugh's remarks?

Obama is far more popular among far more people than Limbaugh is, and it appears that Obama may have put the Republican Party in a bit of a box by giving the least attractive wing of the party (politically speaking) a larger stage. For Republicans seeking to grow the party by appealing to a broader swath of the electorate, having Rush Limbaugh wish out loud that the new president fails and hearing him claim that "we have to bend over and grab our ankles because his father was Black" most certainly does not play well beyond his politically weakened audience.

For Republicans harboring broader political ambitions, Rush Limbaugh may help them in the primaries, but send them to their doom in a general election. President Obama may have outfoxed Republicans by stoking the fire and letting Limbaugh win the battle at the expense of losing the larger war.

Bipartisan Approach, Partisan Aims?

2009-01-24T11:05:00.000-05:00

President Obama is meeting with congressional Republicans to get them on board with his economic stimulus plan, as their resistance is holding up progress on this bill. Obama's meetings with Republicans might be surprising to Democrats who clearly have enough votes in both chambers to pass this bill without much Republican support. The new president's tone so far has even rankled some Democrats, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who warned that he does not work for President Obama, but rather with him.

However, Democrats might be overreacting to Obama's efforts to reach out to Republicans. Even though Democrats might not think they need Republicans' votes, it is definitely in their collective interest to have them. President Obama may realize this, and he might be cleverly using the cloak of bipartisanship to strengthen the Democrats' political standing.

First of all, part of the genius of Obama is that he never explicitly defined "change" during the campaign. This allows him to attach any meaning he wants to it, while allowing voters to do the same. Seeing Obama consciously try to gain Republican support for his plan even though the Democrats have hefty majorities in both chambers makes for good politics. The House in particular is known for ramming bills through with the majority of votes coming from the majority party while the minority is shut out. Obama is showing that he does not want the minority to be irrelevant even though they launched every charge under the sun at him during the campaign. This magnanimity buys him political capital with moderates and persuadable Republicans and could certainly be construed as "change" compared to the Bush administration that tended not to seek compromise. It allows Obama to prove that he really does want to lower the partisanship in Washington and end the era of perpetual "political payback," another "change."

This magnanimity has another advantage in that it spreads the burden of political ownership across both parties. When you are in the minority, you cannot be held accountable for anything because you have no power--at least in the House. If popular legislation gets passed, a congressman's no-vote will often be overshadowed by the good press the legislation generates. And if the legislation turns out to be a dud, that gives the no-voting congressman a political issue to run on in the next campaign.

However, President Obama wants to ensure that as many politicians as possible have ownership of this bill. This way, everyone can take credit for its success or share the blame for its failure. President Obama can easily get this bill passed without the support of any Republicans, but he does not want this bill to be the "Democratic bailout giveaway" that Republicans run against in 2010. Forcing a significant number of Republicans to get on board will inoculate both Obama and congressional Democrats from criticism if this bill proves ineffective at reviving the economy.

If the bill succeeds, voters will be happy and will not "throw the bums out" in 2010. Everyone will have an easier time winning reelection. Of course, if the status quo is maintained, that means the Democrats will retain their majorities and Obama will maintain his political capital. And if the bill proves ineffective, Republicans will have a harder case pinning this on the Democrats because many members of their party will have voted for it too. Thus, this potential campaign issue will have been neutralized.

So what happens if Republicans continue to resist Obama's plan? They will be seen as obstructionists who are unable to compromise. Voters are not going to tell Obama to stop being bipartisan and just get the bill passed. Instead, they will be more likely to tell Republicans to work with the new president and compromise. Obama is in the honeymoon period, so voters will be more patient with him than they are with Congress. Even if no bill gets passed quickly, the fact that Obama is making sure he is being seen meeting with Republicans 1) shows that Obama is hard at work, 2) shows that Obama is sincerely trying to have an inclusive government, and 3) puts pressure on Republicans to support his bill. President Obama is much more popular than Congress is, so the pressure will be on Republicans to support Obama's proposals, rather than on Obama to support Republican proposals. If Republicans continue to protest his plan, he can remind them that he won the election, as he did a few days ago, thus reminding them of how their ideas were rejected at the ballot box and that they should be more willing to moderate their views.

While one can never know a politician's true motives, Obama is clearly politically shrewd. Through his calm demeanor and bipartisan overtures, he is laying a trap for Republicans that would minimize their political gain even if the bill succeeds. Congressional Democrats should stop worrying about how many votes they have or how much they despise the Republican opposition because Obama stands to do far more to marginalize Republicans through his "service with a smile" bipartisanship than Nancy Pelosi could ever do by simply sending the bill to the Senate without any Republican votes at all.

Lame Political Discourse: The Politics of Small

2009-01-20T22:47:00.001-05:00

After a campaign that lasted almost two years, Barack Obama was officially sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. An estimated 1.5 million people crowded into the National Mall in Washington to see the transfer of power with untold millions of others watching from around the world.

In a world in which changes of power are so commonly characterized by assassinations, kidnappings, and riots, the peaceful and orderly American model gives me great pride. But while this day is certainly one of the most monumental in my 32-year lifetime, unfortunately, I will remember this historic day for other less savory reasons that I was hoping were put to rest after last November's elections.

Many people in the crowd gathered in Washington, presumably mostly Democrats, booed the outgoing President George Bush when he was introduced through the loudspeakers. Some people in the crowd even went so far as to taunt him by singing "Kiss 'Em Goodbye," a song that is commonly heard at sporting events. This was a very undignified and unfortunate display of immaturity that soiled the tone of this historic day and contradicted everything that now-President Obama had advocated during the campaign.

President Bush was certainly both unpopular and controversial. But there should be a certain level of respect and decorum that is maintained on such a stage. The President is our national leader. And while our Constitution certainly guarantees us the freedom to ridicule him, it is bad form to do so on a day such as this. It is to nobody's benefit to gin up partisan attitudes and erode the goodwill that Obama has worked so hard to generate among people outside of his ideological tent. It was wrong when Republicans slammed the door in Democrats' faces during the Bush presidency, and it would be just as wrong for Democrats to do the same during Obama's presidency. Just because one's preferred candidate won doesn't make it right to express your disapproval this way on this stage. This is not a sport. This is history. This is the political system to which we wish for other governments to aspire. Keeping one's partisan instincts in check for one day shouldn't be too much to ask.

But it's not just liberals who have stained what should be a joyous day for this country. Now conservative websites are abuzz about the botched presidential oath. According to First Read, both President Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts made mistakes when reciting this seemingly simple oath. Obama jumped in too fast at the beginning, and Roberts got the order of the words wrong later on. Conservative critics are mocking Obama for his lack of eloquence without a teleprompter. Others are worrying that he will mess up the country the same way he "messed up" the oath.

How unbelievably petty.

It's a shame that of all the things to talk about today, the mangling of the oath is generating so much attention. Not Iraq. Not the economy. Not the stock market, which took another 300-point hit today. But the crispness of the presidential oath. This kind of political sniping reeks of smallness. It seems old. It seems tired. It seems pointless. And given the number and severity of the challenges facing this nation right now, one would think that more people would have a more serious sense of perspective. Of course, people are not obligated to support the new president. Obama has to earn this support. And some people's support can never be earned. But to take these kinds of potshots on this particular day is just as unattractive and stupid as the liberals who were booing the outgoing president before an international audience this morning.

This kind of bankrupt criticism is particularly dangerous for Republicans because the only way they can regain their political competitiveness is by offering constructive solutions to our nation's challenges. President Obama is the face of America and the Democratic Party, not the knuckleheads who were booing Bush at the inaugural ceremony. But the Republicans have no clear leader right now. Republican politicians would be wise not to travel down the same path that these hardcore nonpersuadables seem to be taking because it offers absolutely nothing.

"Change" won the election, and Obama has an 83% approval rating. Obama was careful to mention that "change" did not apply solely to government policies and politicians--it applied to voters as well. It would be a shame if partisan Democrats and hardcore Republicans ignored this message by continuing the same sad story by focusing on the same stupid stuff in the same stupid way.

Three Faces of the Republican Party's Problem

2009-01-18T12:22:00.001-05:00

Former Virginia congressman Tom Davis recently penned an excellent essay detailing Republicans' problems and how the party can get back on track. Coming from a Republican, his essay is well worth reading. But I think the Republican Party's problems can be summarized more succinctly by how three politicians embody them: Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin. Perhaps there are other politicians who capture the essence of Republicans' problems, but these three are the most obvious.

Ronald Reagan. The much revered Reagan is arguably the most successful, most influential, and most popular president over the last 50 years. He single-handedly ushered in a new political movement that redefined conservatism and laid the groundwork for today's Republican Party. He won both of his elections in landslides and left office with high approval ratings.

So why is Reagan a problem?

Because he left office 20 years ago. When Reagan handed over the White House to George H.W. Bush in 1989, voters born after about 1970 were college freshmen, teenagers, children, babies, embryos, or not yet conceived. In 2009, their connection to Ronald Reagan is either weak or nonexistent. They were too young to remember him or they simply weren't alive. To young voters, the face of the Republican Party is George W. Bush or his father, not Reagan. So talking about returning to Reagan's principles makes the GOP seem like it has no new ideas. Of course, Democrats had the same problem with their romanticizing of John F. Kennedy. However, Barack Obama was able to keep this nostalgia in check and make his presidential campaign about the future. If Republicans are unable to do the same, they will be locked out of power for a very long time. It is no coincidence that presidential exit polls revealed that Obama beat McCain by a 2 to 1 margin among 18-29 year olds.

Barack Obama. Aside from being the Democrat who vanquished their party's presidential nominee in 2008, Obama presents several other problems for Republicans. Shortly after Obama's victory, many people began parsing the exit polls and found that Blacks supported Obama by about 20 to 1. It did not take long before many Republicans complained that Blacks only voted for him because he was "Black." Even before the election, powerful conservative icons were criticizing the endorsements Obama received from other Blacks, such as Rush Limbaugh's criticism of Colin Powell.

However, these Republicans are missing the point. Al Gore won about 90% of the Black vote in 2000, and John Kerry won about as much in 2004. Instead of complaining that Blacks only supported Obama because he was Black, they should be studying the exit polls and wondering why only 1 out of 20 Blacks, 1 out of 3 Latinos, and 1 out of 3 people of other races voted Republican. What an indictment against the Republican Party! Worse yet for Republicans, this nonwhite portion of the electorate is growing. The point is not that so many people of color are voting for other people of color. The point is that so few people of color are voting for Republicans.

A second reason why Obama represents a problem for Republicans is because of his own political skills. In the post-election transition period, Obama has been able to neutralize several of his political rivals by co-opting their ideas or including them in his cabinet. For example, Obama's selection of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation has angered the left while pleasing the right. Keeping Robert Gates on board as the Secretary of Defense probably did not please liberals either. Who was supposed to be the "maverick" last year? Certainly not Obama. But he took McCain's message and neutralized it by making it his own. He did the same thing with asking Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. Does anybody even know what PUMAs stand for anymore?

Of course, Obama has not assumed office yet. However, he has certainly built up a lot of goodwill. So how can Republicans attack him or position themselves? So far, Obama can credibly claim that he has been a "change" agent, a "maverick," and a genuine bipartisan. He now has a stranglehold on the left and the center and is even making inroads with the persuadable right. What's left? There just aren't enough votes on the far right to topple him. As long as Obama governs competently and effectively, he could easily dismiss Republicans' attacks as the politics of yesterday, and a lot of moderate and independent voters will probably agree. Making meaningful and significant overtures to voters early on who might not have been inclined to support him at first may pay great dividends later on.

Sarah Palin. The once obscure Alaska governor is now one of the most recognizable and most popular faces of the Republican Party. But is that a good thing? While she may be good for fundraising and keeping the party base happy, she may also be the best thing that has happened to Democrats.

In the weeks and months after the election, Palin has continued to make headlines, as she is still fighting the battles of yesterday. She is still complaining about her handlers during the campaign even though the campaign is over and most people have moved on. She is still attacking Katie Couric even though she's the one who couldn't give coherent answers to Couric's questions. She is still badmouthing the media even though she was a journalism major in college who should presumably understand how the media operate. She is complaining that she was the victim of sexism and classism as she compared media coverage of herself with that of Caroline Kennedy of New York even though a vice president requires a much more advanced skill set than a senator does.

It seems that every time Palin speaks, it's about her and not the voters. If Republicans continue to rally behind such a candidate, they will send a very clear message to people outside the GOP that she espouses what they value. Palin represents a certain level of ignorance that is both alarming and repulsive to her detractors. (Consider Palin protege Joe the War Correspondent, formerly known as Joe the Plumber, who says journalists should be "abolished" from reporting on war.) Conservative David Frum picked up on this and sounded a warning that should concern Palin and her supporters. Political analyst Charlie Cook has found that Democrats' fortunes improve as more and more people get bachelor's degrees. The anti-intellectualism that Palin seems to convey seems to be at odds with this change in demographics. Minority outreach problems aside, can Republicans really afford to be on the wrong side of this demographic change too?

In Sarah Palin's world, there are many mistakes. But the only person who should not take responsibility for these mistakes is Sarah Palin herself. How do Republicans square this with their mantra of "personal accountability?"

In short, I agree with Congressman Davis that Republicans need new ideas, new outreach efforts, and a renewed appreciation for knowledge. But in addition to this, they need new icons. Ronald Reagan alone will no longer suffice, and Sarah Palin is a terrible substitute.

The Post-Election Cable News Landscape

2009-01-09T00:55:00.001-05:00

(Note: This post is a reassessment of the arguments I posed in The Future of Cable News last spring.)

The holidays are over and a new political season is beginning after several weeks of downtime. This new political season offers many unique challenges and opportunities not just for Barack Obama and the Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill. The three major cable news networks also now have to deal with a post-election landscape that is fraught with several pitfalls that did not exist three months ago. Failure to successfully adapt to this changing media environment could shake up the cable news race because the cable news audience has changed.

MSNBC has two unique problems. The first problem concerns its programming. The primetime lineup that brought the network from obscurity to competitiveness with CNN now threatens to leave the network flailing. President Bush will be out of the White House in less than two weeks. Then what? Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have two of the network's three highest rated programs. These programs are often based on Bush-bashing or exposing transgressions or scandals emanating from the White House. But now that the next president will be Barack Obama, whom both fiercely supported, what will they talk about on their shows?

Perhaps Olbermann and Maddow are hoping that they could serve as liberal watchdogs to keep Obama in check. After all, just because Obama is a liberal Democrat doesn't necessarily mean he will govern like one. And just because Washington will be completely controlled by Democrats doesn't necessarily mean the Democrats won't mess things up or that the Republicans won't create controversies of their own. But Olbermann and Maddow clearly came to prominence because of Bush. After all the Bush-bashing the two of them did, they may find that they actually miss him if their ratings begin to slide. Are their viewers pro-liberal or anti-Bush?

MSNBC's second problem is its positioning. CNN is the network people turn to when news matters. Fox News is the network people turn to for conservative political programming. MSNBC, in addition to being a haven for liberals, is "the place for politics." But is there really an appetite for a network that focuses on politics first and news second? This may have been a good formula before the election because all the political junkies needed their "hit." But can the intensity of this interest in politics be sustained in this post-election climate?

On a related note, being a political network first and a news network second could bring disastrous results in the event that breaking news is the issue of the day. MSNBC's coverage of the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai was widely criticized. CNN, on the other hand, had correspondents broadcasting live at the scene of the rampage and was able to interview survivors, escapees, and eyewitnesses. MSNBC cannot sacrifice news reporting for political reporting if it wants to be taken seriously.

As for CNN, it is certainly not the flashiest network when it comes to political programming. Its primetime programming took a beating last fall, as MSNBC actually beat CNN in the ratings last October. However, its international resources and reliable reporting clearly define this network. If there is a major news story or historical event taking place, CNN shines. In terms of politics, however, the low decibel debates that its pundits engage in might not be as engaging as the shoutfests that typify Fox News or MSNBC. But CNN may be banking on viewers to get tired of the ranting and have a renewed appreciation for civil political discourse. But hasn't CNN been banking on that for years now?

The challenge for CNN is to not let its political reporting become marginalized by its news reporting. (In other words, it has the opposite problem of MSNBC.) There is clearly an appetite for political programming. But if CNN's lead story at 8:00 is about bad weather while its marquee interview at 9:00 is about a missing person case, the network will continue to be seen as the "Crisis News Network" that thrives when the subject is Katrina, 9-11, Mumbai, or Election Night, but is totally forgotten when those stories go away. CNN earned a lot of respect from political viewers as a result of its "Magic Wall" and impressive political roundtables (particularly David Gergen and Gloria Borger). Now it has to find a way to keep them interested. Channeling their inner Weather Channel or Nancy Grace won't do it.

The challenge for Fox News is to avoid becoming what MSNBC was under Bush. Barack Obama's approval rating is about three times higher than President Bush's, and he clearly expanded the map by turning reliably red states purple. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and other pundits and personalities at the network spent a lot of time attacking Obama for issues that ultimately did not matter to most of the electorate or positions that most of the electorate actually shared. Obama's victory essentially repudiated these pundits' analyses and undercut their proclamations that their views were in sync with "mainstream America."

Fox News benefits from its catchy slogan "We report. You decide." But the voters' decision last November clearly went against what Fox was reporting (e.g., William Ayers, Michelle Obama not being "proud" of her country, etc.). So if Fox News does little more than take potshots at Obama right from the onset of his administration, the top-rated cable news channel may find itself reaching a smaller and smaller audience.

In short, MSNBC can survive as a political news network, but it can't survive if the "news" part of the equation falls by the wayside. It may also need to reassess whether it can survive as a liberal alternative to Fox.

CNN can survive as a straight news network, but it can revitalize itself if it takes a few chances by placing a little more emphasis on politics or at least doing a more effective job of showing how the news of the day impacts the political world.

Fox News can survive as an alternative to the much maligned "mainstream liberal media," but not if it is blinded by its own ideology. This is not to say that conservatism is wrong. But it would be wise to consider broadening its appeal because, as last fall's election indicated, the segment of the electorate its programming caters to is shrinking.

The Burris Burr

2009-01-06T22:28:00.000-05:00

Much to the horror of Illinois politicians and Democrats everywhere, the Rod Blagojevich scandal continues to thrive. While President-elect Barack Obama seems to have largely escaped being embroiled in the investigation surrounding the embattled governor, the governor's political antics have national Democrats pulling their hair out.

Blagojevich's choice to fill Obama's old senate seat, former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris continued to make news today by showing up at the Senate to be sworn in only to be denied entry. Now all parties involved seem to be at a stalemate.

Burris makes a valid argument by saying that his appointment is legal and that the taint of the appointer should not cause one to punish the appointee. He is also correct that even though Blagojevich is under investigation, until he is impeached, he is still the governor and has the authority to fill any vacant senate seat in his state.

Of course, Senate Democrats have a vested interest in keeping Burris out of the Senate because they do not want to be seen politically as allowing politicians out on bail to make appointments to their chamber. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "culture of corruption" argument that she used against congressional Republicans in 2006 would immediately be turned against the Democrats. This would also fly in the face of President-elect Obama's message of "change," even though Obama himself expressed his disapproval of Burris's appointment. So if the Democrats block Burris, they could brag that they are willing to stand up to members of their own party and seize the good government mantle.

Blagojevich, Burris, and some of their political allies, such as Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush, have raised the stakes by injecting race into the discussion. Rush recently warned Democratic senators not to "hang or lynch" Burris and said they should allow Burris to be sworn in because he would be the only "Black senator."

Democrats would be wise to ignore Rush's racially-charged threats because most people, including Blacks, are not thinking about this controversy in terms of race. They are probably more likely to think about it in terms of ethics. Shamelessly playing the race card only undermines Burris's own appointment and taints Black politicians of his (and Bobby Rush's) ilk. That could work to Barack Obama's advantage because the current cheapening of the issue of race stands in stark contrast to the effort Obama put into moving the nation beyond it during his presidential campaign.

Having said all that, despite Blagojevich's questionable ethics, he is a very shrewd politician who succeeded in placing Democrats in a box. There are no good options.

Burris is clearly not giving up his fight to become Illinois' junior senator, and Blagojevich's antics obviously show that he is going to do whatever he wants. So inactivity on behalf of Senate Democrats will only keep this story in the news, thus distracting Democrats from Obama's inauguration and his agenda.

Inactivity on behalf of the Democrats in Washington could also allow Burris to reframe the controversy (he's on television every day) and make the Democrats seem like the bad guys here (rather than just Blagojevich). Burris appears to have the law on his side, so the Democrats will have to find a good reason not to let him in. This could inject race into a controversy where it wasn't an issue to begin with. If Black voters begin to perceive this story as White senators keeping a Black senator out of their exclusive club, that could be a terrible public relations problem for the Democrats.

There has been some talk of a compromise in which Burris would be sworn in on the condition that he not run for reelection in 2010. But there is no way to enforce this, and Burris's electability is suspect.

The last thing Democrats want is a special election because that would put what should be a safe Democratic seat at risk. It is true that the Republican bench in Illinois is weak and disorganized (remember, Obama's 2004 opponent was the carpetbagging Alan Keyes). But Blagojevich is less popular than President Bush is, so voters may take their frustrations out on him by voting Republican.

Thus, it seems like the smartest thing Democrats could do politically is just accept Burris without conditions and put this story behind them. Democrats and Obama are already on record as being against Burris's appointment, and voters outside of Illinois will forget about Burris after Obama is sworn in. The Burris fiasco is not Obama's fault, and it's not Washington Democrats' fault. But if this story lingers, they risk being permanently associated.

If Democrats were to drop their resistance and seat Burris, they would be in for a few rough news cycles, but being able to get this story out of the headlines would allow them to focus on more important things. With the inauguration coming up and missiles raining down on Israel and Gaza, this story can easily be buried. There's also the possibility that Burris could turn out to be an effective senator. And if he's not, he could always be defeated by a stronger Democrat in the 2010 Illinois senate primary.

The political points have already been made and the public record is open for everyone to see. It's time for everyone to move on. Right now, though, it's the Senate Democrats who are preventing themselves from doing so.

The Spend-Save Paradox

2009-01-02T18:37:00.000-05:00

It is no secret that the economy is hurting many people right now. Falling stocks, plummeting home prices, escalating credit card interest rates, disappearing banks, and investment scams have all contributed to a shrinking economy, declining asset values, and a decrease in spending.

One criticism that I commonly hear in the media, particularly among fiscal conservatives like Suze Orman, is that people should have been more frugal or fiscally responsible. Their past greed and lack of pragmatism are responsible for putting their finances in such a dire situation now. People bought too many electronics. They bought cars that were above their income bracket. They were living in houses that had too many bedrooms. They were living on credit cards. They were not living within their means. And of course, they were not putting aside some of their money in savings. Obviously, this is fiscally irresponsible, as I argued almost a year ago. These people, I and other fiscal conservatives would argue, should now be forced to live with the consequences of their actions.

However, it appears that this consumer irresponsibility may have introduced a new problem in light of current sluggish retail sales. These same conservatives who were once telling people they should have saved their money are now telling people they should put this money back into the economy by shopping. Ben Stein, an unabashed fiscal conservative, recently told CNN's Anderson Cooper that consumers should spend money to save the economy. He specifically singled out wealthy consumers and told them to "spend as much as they can without endangering their financial future." He also noted that the top 20% of income earners are responsible for a disproportionate amount of consumer spending and that increased spending on their behalf would be a better boost for the economy than public works projects, which President-elect Obama proposes.

And therein lies the paradox. If consumers are supposed to practice frugality, rein in spending, and put more money into savings, then how can they be advised to go shopping?

Not spending as much money in shopping malls and car showrooms or using your money to pay down existing debt seems fiscally responsible. So many families don't have several months' worth of living expenses saved in the bank to serve as an emergency reserve fund. But in these tough economic times, it seems that this prudence which was once a virtue is now also a vice.

So are consumers supposed to listen to Suze Orman or Ben Stein?

Wealthy people become wealthy by making good investment decisions and by not making unnecessary purchases. If they were hesitant to go shopping in good economic times, it would seem that they'd be even more hesitant to go shopping in troubled economic times. It would also seem that they'd be more likely to protect their money by placing it in money market accounts, CDs, and commodities.

Secondly, conservatives commonly say that it is the wealthy who create jobs. This is the trickle down Reaganomics theory of economic vitality. A rich person buys a yacht. That yacht purchase keeps the shipbuilders, lumberjacks, distributors, textile workers, and marina staff in business. Also, conservatives argue, the wealthy are able to use their financial resources to hire new workers or pay their current workers better salaries. (Hence the mantra of tax cuts.) But if these wealthy consumers go out and spend their money, will they have any money left to hire anyone if they have any businesses of their own? What if the businesses that receive this money from increased spending use it to pay down debt or provide bonuses to top executives instead of hiring new workers?

There is no rule that says wealthy people, consumers, or businesses have to use their money in a specific way. After all, it is common for conservatives to complain that they don't want the government telling people what to do. But why should they listen to Ben Stein? Consumers and businesses should be free to spend and save as they see fit. However, we are currently witnessing the consequences of this hands-off approach to the economy, and a lot of innocent and responsible people are getting soaked because of it.

President-elect Barack Obama is advocating a public works program that invests heavily in improving the nation's transportation infrastructure and making buildings more energy efficient. This plan has come under criticism from Republicans who are suddenly interested in curbing spending and reducing the influence of government. Of course, the federal deficit and the size of the federal government ballooned under their watch and the lack of government intervention was a key factor leading to the current economic crisis.

Despite these criticisms, perhaps Obama's public works program should be given a chance. In addition to creating construction and manufacturing jobs, the public as a whole would be able to see tangible benefits from these investments. Everybody uses roads, bridges, and tunnels. Everybody can see solar panels being installed on top of buildings. Construction and manufacturing jobs would be created, people's quality of life would improve, money could be saved through energy efficiency, and seeing people working could have a positive psychological impact on people who believe their communities are dying and that jobs are nowhere to be found.

The public as a whole could also benefit from increased consumer spending (as Ben Stein advocates), but the difference between Obama's idea and Stein's idea is that the former is a mandate while the latter leaves it up to private individuals to decide what's best.

Of course, this combination of laissez faire capitalism and unrestricted individualism led to the failures of AIG, Citibank, Lehman Brothers, and the Big 3 automakers. Even after passing a $700 billion economic bailout bill last fall, some of these companies either can't say or won't say how this money was spent. AIG executives have been spending bailout money at lavish resorts. So much for letting individuals decide what's best.

In light of this, perhaps by virtue of the Democrats' victories in 2006 and 2008, voters are looking for more government-based solutions to our nation's problems. This doesn't mean that the government has all the answers, but it does signify a greater openness to having a more active and more interventionist government than what has existed over the past few years.

As for the importance of spending vs. the importance of saving, this illustrates the conflict that exists between the individual and the community. Even though the United States has an individualistic society, economic events over the past few months or so show that we are all in this together and that we should find ways to collectively address our economic problems.

How the Religious Right is Politically Wrong

2008-12-29T22:28:00.000-05:00

Readers of The 7-10 know that I currently live in South Carolina while I pursue my doctoral studies. South Carolina is probably the most conservative state on the East Coast and is the only state on the coast that has not voted for a Democrat in a presidential election since 1976. Blacks constitute about 30% of the state's population, but the state is overwhelmingly Republican and conservative. South Carolina has a Republican governor, a Republican lieutenant governor, two Republican senators, a Republican-controlled state legislature, and a majority Republican congressional delegation (4 out of 6 congressional members are Republicans and one of the Democrats represents a majority Black district). There is currently only one Democrat holding a statewide elected office, and that is the superintendent of education.

Needless to say, the Palmetto State is a conservative stronghold. This state is full of military veterans, active duty servicemembers, gun owners, fiscal conservatives, and descendants of the old Confederacy (the Confederate battle flag still flies in front of the Statehouse in Columbia). There is nothing wrong with any of these demographic and ideological constituencies. However, there is one component of the Republican Party that is threatening the party's long term viability. This constituency is alive and well in South Carolina, throughout the South, and in rural areas in general: religious conservatives, also known as the religious right, or more specifically, Christian conservatives.

The paradox of Christian conservatives as they pertain to politics is that they comprise the bedrock of the Republican Party. So the Republican Party can ill afford to leave them behind when it comes to policy. However, the issues that Christian conservatives rally behind are often polarizing cultural wedge issues that people who would not describe themselves as Christian conservatives either don't care as much about or hold views that Christian conservatives find unacceptable.

Thus, the dilemma that Republican politicians face is whether to keep their base satisfied or risk angering it by trying to appeal to a broader coalition of voters in the political center. The Washington Post's David Broder aptly observed that the regionalization of the GOP to the South, the Western Plains, and the Upper Mountain West has pushed the party considerably more to the right, potentially at the expense of the electorally rich Midwest, the Pacific Coast, and the Northeast.

As I mentioned earlier, South Carolina has a large Christian conservative population. The power of this constituency is reflected in local ordinances (e.g., blue laws), local advertising, and media reporting. South Carolina's largest newspaper, The State, recently filled its opinion pages with letters to the editor about the never-ending debate between "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" and whether South Carolinians should be allowed to purchase Christian-oriented license plates from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The problem for the religious right is not their socially conservative views. Their problem is that they commonly get mired in cultural issues that nobody will ever reach a consensus on while issues that affect far more people's lives are ignored.

Every year, Christian conservatives claim that there is a "war on Christmas" and that "God is being removed from the public square." And with the license plate controversy, these same Christian conservatives believe that a judge's refusal to allow the sale of license plates with the words "I believe" and a golden cross on them is an attack on their religion. South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer is aggressively pushing for these license plates to be allowed under freedom of speech grounds even though no other license plates for followers of other religions exist.

Meanwhile, South Carolina is experiencing a $600 million budget shortfall (which is ironically being attributed to too many tax cuts) which is resulting in harsh cuts in funding for all state agencies, including public schools and universities.

Which issue is more important? Being able to purchase a special kind of license plate to allow you to express your Christian faith, or finding ways to improve the state economy so that school bus routes don't have to get canceled, new teachers can get hired to serve in public schools, and university courses don't get dropped? (One of the courses required for my own degree program was cut, thus potentially delaying my own graduation.)

It would seem that the license plate issue could easily be remedied by purchasing a Christian bumper sticker and that one could get around the December salutation issue by saying both "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" together, or simply choosing the greeting you feel more comfortable with. However, this personal freedom does not seem to satisfy Christian conservatives, as many of them wish to have their religious views become public policy. They use their religion to justify their political views and suggest that if you disagree with their views, you are somehow attacking their religion or are somehow "anti-God" and "anti-family."

Critics may say the left is guilty of the exact same thing--thinking they are right. But there are several obvious problems with this thinking.

First of all, there are many people who do not share the same faith. Rising immigration and changing demographics are changing this nation's religious balance. This does not mean that traditional Christianity is under attack. It just means that it's not the only game in town anymore. So using the Bible to justify a political view has little meaning to someone who does not read or follow the Bible at all. Using the Torah or the Koran to justify public policy would likely be met with scorn or outrage, so why should it be any different with Christianity?

Critics would predictably reply by saying the United States is a Christian nation. It was founded on Christian principles and has a majority Christian population. But there are several ways to refute this argument. To start, the "Christianity" on which this nation was founded included denying women the right to vote and allowing millions of Blacks to be torn apart from their families and forcibly held in chains for generations. (This is why the "Christian nation" argument doesn't work with people of color.)

This "Christian nation" also attacked and invaded a country under false pretenses, thus leading to the deaths of over 4,000 Americans and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. (This is why this argument doesn't work with liberals.) This "Christian nation" also dropped two atomic bombs on nonmilitary targets that killed or sickened tens of thousands of civilians. (This is why this argument doesn't work with immigrants and young people who didn't grow up with Vietnam, the Iranian hostage crisis, and the Cold War.) These are not my criticisms of the United States, but they are indeed facts that seem to contradict the tenets of Christianity.

Secondly, having a majority does not automatically make it right for this majority to do whatever it wants, regardless of how the minority is impacted. Slavery and Jim Crow laws (passed by presumably Christian politicians) are the most obvious examples, but there are other more recent examples of the tyranny of the majority. Majorities of Americans supported legalized segregation and bans on interracial marriage just a few decades ago. President Bush and congressional Republicans spent the first 6 years of the Bush presidency governing as if the minority (Democrats) did not matter, but the 2006 and 2008 election results showed that this was not wise. In an apparent contradiction, when it comes to abortion rights, the will of the majority apparently doesn't matter to the religious right. So why should it matter if the majority of Americans are Christians if the religious right wishes to overrule the majority of Americans when it comes to abortion rights? One cannot selectively cite majority opinion as the reason why certain policies should be adopted.

Third, this thinking assumes that this Christian majority is monolithic. And that leads to my next point. There are many people who interpret the same religion differently. There is a large percentage of Americans who do not attend church regularly. Some only attend it on religious holidays. Others consider themselves "believers," but do not attend church at all. There is even a growing number of people who consider themselves "spiritual, but not religious."

Christians who fall into these categories fear that their religion is being hijacked by the religious right and take offense to equating religion-based social conservatism with "Christian policies." This is why the Republican Party is virtually dead in the Northeast and dying in the Midwest. Social moderates who are more concerned with economic issues (i.e., country club, suburban, and Wall Street Republicans) are being pushed into the Democratic Party because of the religious right's emphasis on issues like gay marriage and the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance at the expense of pocketbook issues like jobs and health care.

Even worse, these Christian conservatives are now training their fire on their ideological allies. Conservative commentator Glenn Beck recently had an article pulled from the website of the conservative Focus on the Family because of his Mormon faith. Never mind the fact that Glenn Beck is far closer to the cultural and political right than the left. The fact that the path he chose to achieve spirituality differs from theirs is enough to warrant silencing him or attacking his faith as a "cult."

Of course, all political groups and constituencies are free to behave as they wish. But the same Christian right that brought Republicans to power in the 90s is now threatening to keep them locked out of it in the future. The Christian right is shrinking the GOP tent and making it less appealing to voters who may share some of their conservative sentiments even if they don't share the same interpretations of the same religion. This, combined with the fact that Republican Party officials are still boneheaded enough to create songs called "Barack the Magic Negro," practically ensures that Republicans will become increasingly irrelevant while cannibalizing themselves at the same time.

The fact that Christmas is over means that the "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays" debate will now lose its salience until next December. But South Carolina's budget cuts still exist and will affect millions of South Carolinians for months or years to come. Where is the Christian conservatives' outrage regarding this issue? Do they have any solutions? The fact that voters around the country are looking for political leadership and solutions in these times of crisis make these cultural issues seem very small and unimportant. Republicans would be wise to focus their attention on issues that actually matter to people's lives. And unfortunately for the Christian right, their agenda is not it.

Criticizing the Criticism of Obama's Cabinet

2008-12-24T11:55:00.000-05:00

President-elect Barack Obama has finished making the selections to his Cabinet. Per the Washington Post, Obama's Cabinet will have nine White males, five women, four Blacks, three Latinos, two Asians, and two Republicans. While this Cabinet's diversity has been praised by the media, there have been significant rumblings from several liberal groups who somehow feel underrepresented.

For example, feminist groups have sharply criticized Obama for not choosing enough women for his Cabinet. Out of the 20 Cabinet positions Obama has announced, five of these positions have been filled by women. Women's groups' reactions to this have ranged from disappointment to outrage. Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said, "When you are looking at a Cabinet and you have such a small number of women in the room when the big decisions are being made, there need to be a lot more women's voices in this administration." New Agenda co-founder Amy Siskind asserted that "this constituency does not matter to the president-elect."

Obama would be wise to ignore these criticisms and not buy into this rhetoric.

First of all, the assertion that women "do not matter" to Obama is both ridiculous and stupid. As the father of two young girls, the husband of a professional woman, and a child who was largely raised by his mother and grandmother, women have played an integral role in Obama's life. By his biography alone, women obviously matter to Obama.

But it goes beyond that.

Obama had been bedeviled by Hillary Clinton for months during the primaries. He was dogged by her after she suspended her campaign. And he was still being haunted by her after the party conventions. He had to deal with the rogue women-led PUMA faction that was threatening to support the McCain-Palin ticket because Obama did not choose Clinton to be his vice president. And he was criticized for not helping her retire her debt fast enough. How did he react to all of this? By asking her to serve as Secretary of State.

Secretary of State is one of the top three Cabinet positions in any administration (with the other two being Treasury and Defense). By choosing Clinton for State, he immediately silenced the PUMAs (if they were even still relevant after the election), bolstered his standing among women (who may feel a fictive kinship with Clinton even if they might not agree with her politics), and helped strengthen unity among Democrats.

The selection of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to be the Secretary of Homeland Security is also a very big deal. This high profile Cabinet position entails a tremendous amount of responsibility. Judging from its name alone, many people would probably stereotypically associate "homeland security" with "men." But Napolitano will be the first woman to occupy this position. And as the popular governor of a border state, she is certainly qualified for this job. Therefore, women's groups should be enthusiastic about this selection.

But it seems that these critics are thinking more about numbers. President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush had similar numbers of women in their Cabinets, so these feminist groups may have expected more in terms of "progress." But they aren't the only ones who have been critical of Obama's selections.

Again, Obama named five women to his cabinet. This very easily could have been four because New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was lobbying hard for Clinton's new job. Obama eventually tapped Richardson to be his Secretary of Commerce, but that selection was met with warnings from Latino groups that Obama needed to choose more Latinos. Selecting Richardson for Secretary of Commerce didn't sit too well with columnist Ruben Navarrette who claimed that "the way [Richardson] was treated doesn't say much about Obama's respect for the Hispanic community."

(Perhaps Obama's support for "comprehensive immigration reform" instead of mass deportations is less important to Latinos than I originally thought.)

So it seems that Obama is in a no-win situation. If he chooses someone from Group X, he risks offending Group Y. And if he chooses someone from Group X and another person from Group Y, then members of Group Z become upset because they were somehow left out.

And therein lies the problem.

If diversity is reduced to mere numbers, that cheapens the qualifications of the people being selected. Pending confirmation, Hillary Clinton will be a Secretary of State who is also a female, not a female Secretary of State. To view Clinton strictly in terms of her gender trivializes her obvious qualifications and experience. The same could be said for Bill Richardson. As a governor, he has managed budgets and dealt with trade issues. So he is qualified to be Secretary of Commerce. But he risks being turned into a Hispanic Secretary of Commerce, as if his skin color matters more than his knowledge of budgeting and economics.

This overemphasis on identity politics is a common criticism of Republicans and conservatives when it comes to diversity. However, the problem for Republicans is that too many of them don't seem to take this issue seriously. "Diversity" is often met with derision in conservative circles because it is either equated with the abuses of affirmative action or is seen as a threat to their own cultures and beliefs.

Conservatives claim they see no skin color or gender. They want everyone to "assimilate" and become "Americans" just like "the rest of us." Of course, this thinking is an affront to people who wish to retain their culture and don't like being pressured to change who they are just so they can satisfy some criteria that is being set by their equals. Guillermo Gonzalez in Pueblo, Colorado, is just as American as Jim Jones in Paducah, Kentucky. But Republicans seem to argue that more people should be like Jim Jones because he speaks English as his first and only language, says "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays," and eats hot dogs instead of hummus.

Of course, the problem is that skin color, gender, and diversity are very real issues that matter to a lot of people. Until Republicans realize that they can't exist as a viable national party if they continue to marginalize so many groups of people by not respecting their identities or reaching out to their communities, they will continue to remain in the political minority.

What makes this debate over diversity in Obama's Cabinet unique, however, is that it is liberals who are doing the bulk of the complaining. Obama has obviously thought carefully about these selections. All of his choices are competent and qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds. But there are only so many positions available. Where will it end? Is Obama about to experience backlash from left-handed voters? How many of Obama's Cabinet selections come from Vermont or South Dakota? Will cat owners be the next group to blast Obama's "diversity?" How will he rectify the fact that there aren't any Buddhists in his Cabinet? Or is that secondary to the fact that there aren't any third-generation biracial Laotian immigrants in his Cabinet either?

These constituencies should relax and give Obama a chance to at least take the Oath of Office first. The policies his administration advocates will be a lot more important to these groups than the identities of the people advocating them. President Bush's Cabinet is about as diverse as Obama's will be, and experience has shown that the Bush Administration's policies are having a more profound effect on far more people than the skin color and anatomy of the people making the policies.

Obama has an approval rating of almost 80%. Partisan Republicans and hardline conservatives will automatically disapprove of everything Obama does, so that should not be a surprise. But if his Cabinet picks alone are enough to make people disapprove of his leadership, then some liberals will be in for a long four or eight years.

But maybe Obama is actually happy to be attacked by the left. Ironically, these complaints from liberals are actually making Obama more politically powerful because the more liberals criticize Obama, the more difficult it is for Republicans to paint him as a leftist radical. And many Republicans who had reservations about Obama's ideology because he was "the most liberal member of the Senate" may actually be pleasantly surprised.

Obama's electoral landslide and a second consecutive congressional Republican wipeout should force Republicans to reassess how important diversity is and how they should reach out to people of color and other demographic minorities. But by the same token, Obama's presidency should force Democrats to reassess what diversity actually means and how it should be achieved. Reducing his Cabinet to a sterile assortment of demographic statistics runs contrary to Obama's message of tolerance, unity, and respect. It seems that some unhappy liberals may need to reassess their own tolerance and heed these calls for unity because their unfounded criticisms and laughable hyperbole threaten to marginalize them just as much as the politicians Obama defeated on November 4.

On Overstating Republican Strength

2008-12-08T17:18:00.000-05:00

The normally reliable Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post recently wrote a column arguing that Republicans could be making a comeback. He cited Saxby Chambliss's victory in the Georgia Senate runoff, the surprise defeat of Democratic Congressman Bill Jefferson, and the Republicans' ability to narrowly defeat a conservative Democratic challenger for an open seat in a conservative Louisiana congressional district as reasons why Republicans should be optimistic.

However, this is the type of journalism that political scientists and mass communication researchers dread. Cillizza's story seems to be more about creating news where no news exists, or at the very least inflating the news so that it seems more significant than it really is. His story about a possible Republican comeback may make for good political discussion and speculation for junkies, but it does a great disservice to more casual voters who rely on the media to provide them with factual information.

The long and short of it is, Republicans should have been able to win all of these elections.

In Saxby Chambliss's case, he hails from conservative-leaning Georgia. Georgia voted for John McCain by about 5 points. Montana was more competitive than Georgia on November 4. It is also more conservative than North Carolina, which actually voted for Obama and lost its incumbent Republican senator Elizabeth Dole. Dole was dogged by her own lackluster campaign and an ill-advised attack on challenger Kay Hagan that tried to link her to atheists. Chambliss did not make any fatal mistakes and was serving a more conservative state than Dole. On top of this, Barack Obama's name was not on the ballot. This obviously dampened turnout among Democrats and Black voters. Also, runoff elections tend to benefit the candidate who has the better organization. Obama had some field offices in Georgia, but he did not challenge the state in the final weeks. Chambliss also had the advantage of a strong state Republican Party that could help turn out the vote. Thus, this was an election Chambliss should have won comfortably.

On a related note, some pundits have wondered how much Governor Sarah Palin impacted the race because of her multiple campaign appearances and ability to draw large crowds. This is very difficult to measure because of all the variables listed earlier. Dole's defeat in neighboring North Carolina is big news. Chambliss's comfortable victory in conservative Georgia isn't. Conservative Republicans win elections in conservative states, regardless of Palin's campaigning. Both Mississippi senators, both Wyoming senators, and one of Alabama's senators all won their reelection bids on November 4 with ease.

The same rule applies to Louisiana's 4th District. This seat had been held by a Republican, but Democrats thought they had a chance to steal it because it was an open seat. Paul Carmouche, a socially conservative Democrat who had served as a parish (county) district attorney did indeed have a chance to win this election, but it was ultimately a bit too heavily Republican for him. This district gave John McCain 60% of the vote. So it should not be much of a surprise that conservative Republican Paul Fleming was able to win this election, although a recount is expected. And if Republicans are looking at this victory as evidence of a Republican comeback, the fact that the Republican House candidate performed more than 10 points worse than John McCain should also signify Democratic strength in Republican areas.

One point to keep in mind is that one of the few incumbent Democrats to lose her reelection bid last month was Nancy Boyda of Kansas. Her victory in 2006 was considered one of the biggest surprises of the cycle, especially since moderate Republican Chris Shays had survived. But Boyda's district (KS-2) was solidly Republican, so she would have had great trouble holding this seat in any political climate. So how can a Democrat's defeat in a conservative district in Louisiana signify Republican strength while a Democrat's defeat in a conservative district in Kansas not signify the same thing?

The defeat of Rep. Bill Jefferson by Republican Ahn Cao is definitely a bright spot for the GOP. However, this election had unusual circumstances and looked a lot more like 2006 than 2008. Bill Jefferson (of frozen money infamy) was one of the main embarrassments of the Democratic Party that was giving House Speaker Nancy Pelosi headaches. While voters in his New Orleans district were willing to give him a pass in 2006, they had clearly had enough in 2008. Jefferson almost certainly would have won reelection had the election taken place on November 4 with Obama at the top of the ballot. But because of Hurricane Gustav, the election was rescheduled. And like Georgia's runoff Senate race, turnout was down.

Republicans are right to look at Cao, who is of Vietnamese descent, as the future of the party because it needs to find a way to become competitive among people of color and in big cities and the suburbs again. However, he now represents a congressional district that was specifically drawn to elect a Black (Democratic) candidate. So it is likely that Cao will be defeated in 2010, just like Nick Lampson was defeated this year. Lampson was elected in 2006 to represent Tom Delay's old district in Texas. That district was simply too Republican for Lampson to hold even though he voted like a conservative Democrat. Under normal circumstances, a Republican doesn't stand a chance in a majority-Black district because Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic. But it is most definitely not normal for scandal-plagued politicians to keep winning elections. Just ask Alaska's Ted Stevens.

One other point about Fleming's victory and Cao's shocker is that they both occurred in Louisiana, a state that is becoming more Republican because of demographic changes. Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav have caused many New Orleans residents to leave the state. New Orleans was a majority Black city before Katrina, but it is about evenly split now. This is not to minimize the Republicans' victories in Louisiana, but there were certainly several institutional and demographic variables working in their favor.

The most important fact that Chris Cillizza missed is that Republicans should not measure their strength in terms of their ability to win elections in their base states. Kansas, Lousiana, and Georgia are all solidly Republican states. And almost any credible candidate can beat a corrupt congressman if the timing is right. Republicans have far more serious problems to worry about in other states that matter a lot more than the South and the rural Plains. A Democrat narrowly won a seat in Ohio last week that had been held by a Republican for more than 40 years, another Democrat defeated a Republican incumbent in another contested election in Virginia, and Republican Norm Coleman is in very real danger of losing his Senate reelection bid in Minnesota.

Republicans' problems aren't in Louisiana, Georgia, and Kansas, so they shouldn't be looking to those states for solace. Their problems, as I noted shortly after the election, are in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, and the entire Northeast. Until Republicans start winning in these electorally rich purple and blue areas again, they are in a world of trouble. And it is for this reason that Cillizza's latest column seems to be more about giving political junkies something to chew on during a slow news time rather than providing an accurate analysis of what the political landscape actually looks like.