Monthly Archives: December 2011

It’s the Delta House Gang: Live Blogging the Iowa Debate

Although some pundits are downplaying the significance of tonight’s Iowa debate, make no mistake about it, this is the most important one of the campaign season to date.  Almost every candidate involved needs to do well tonight, or suffer severe – possibly fatal – consequences. Iowans in particular will be paying close attention. While the focus will be on Gingrich, others actually have more at stake.  This is particularly true of Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, both of whom are heavily invested in doing well in Iowa’s Jan. 3 first-in-the-nation caucus.

So, what should we expect?

Gingrich will be the focus, of course, with most of the Republicans looking for an opportunity to use his past record to cast doubt on his conservative bona fides. He will respond by trying use the spotlight to explain potentially damaging policy statements and to show he can withstand the heat.  Romney has perhaps the toughest role – he has to pivot from perceived frontrunner to go on the attack against Gingrich, but without appearing to be desperate. His goal is to convince people his stances are sincere, rather than mere political posturing.  Paul will be his irascible self, but if he hopes to expand his coalition, he needs to avoid topics, like suggesting the U.S. foreign policies led to 9-11, that opponents can use to portray him as a kook.

The second tier candidates have perhaps more on the line.  Perry needs a solid performance that keeps him in the top four in Iowa, and thus poised to earn a second look from voters – a real possibility if Romney is perceived to have peaked.  Bachmann and Santorum are battling one another for the social conservative crowd, and that already puts them at a disadvantage in a race that will turn on economic issues.  But they have to come out fighting. Santorum, however, needs to tone down the stridency – not an easy trick to pull off.

Our hosts are Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopolous.  George, of course, has helped prep Bill Clinton for these events, and Sawyer is a veteran from the media side.  Let’s see if they can keep control.

Remember, the audience here are potential Iowa caucus voters – that’s who the candidates are playing to (and it’s why Huntsman isn’t here).

And we are off. As usually, Sawyer can’t help but overdramatize the opening – just get to the damn questions Diane.

No opening statements. Good. Standard format, so it’s up to the questions.

First question goes right to Gingrich, and it’s on jobs.  How to create jobs?  this ought to be easy for Newt.  Let’s see if there’s a detailed follow up designed to push candidates on their answers.  To Romney – does he attack Gingrich?  Indirectly  – he touts his private sector experience (take that Newt!)

Paul uses this question as a chance to launch into his fed reserve rant.  Liquidate the debt (this deserves a follow up rather than Sawyer’s inane emphasis on a specific number and timetable.)

Perry also touts himself as an outsider – another veiled jab at Gingrich.

Bachmann channels her inner Cain with her win-win-win plan.  Do we want to be linking ourselves to Herman at this point?  What are the win points anyway – isn’t that a Bill James baseball statistic? Ok, one is energy production and I guess the other is tax reform.

Look for Santorum to note where he’s visited in Iowa – yep, first sentence out of his mouth.

I hope Gingrich yells at Sawyer right now for asking mickey mouse questions.

Santorum offers the first petri dish analogy I’ve heard – who knows what is growing there?  Love the Rickster.

Issue two – payroll tax cut. Do we extend it? Everyone has an answer ready made on this, but they disagree, so let’s see if they actually debate each other.

Bachmann first, and she frames opposition to extending the But cut as helping seniors and Social Security. (What explains the feathers Bachmann founds behind the doors? Sounds like fowl play.)

This is the night of analogies – Mitt wants to pour gasoline on the embers. Or not.  But he doesn’t really want to talk about the payroll tax cut issue because it’s a divisive issue.

(@Peter – I think Diane is a slow talker, but not necessarily a drinker…..)

Ok, George tries to get Mitt to take on Newt, but Mitt won’t take the bait.  At least not directly.  But, in case you forgot, he’s worked in the private sector.

Oh boy – George presses the issue and Mitt goes to town on some of Newt’s wild ideas.

Game on – Newt can’t let this go.

And he doesn’t – here’s bad Newt!  The crowd boos!  A bit too harsh, I think.  but he pivots nicely to refute the “crazy moon idea” and he does in the context of the Iowa St. curriculum.  Point to Newt.  As for child labor – Newt is ready for this.  Young people ought to learn how to work – crowd applauds.  Finally, he turns the table on Mitt’s capital gains tax.  Newt shoots – he scores!  Mitt is defending his record – but he’s ready for the Ted Kennedy retort.  Point to Mitt.

A nice exchange – and George doesn’t give up.  Now it’s Paul’s chance to pile on Newt.  And he does by going after the Freddi mac connection.  Newt is smiling, but it’s not a happy smile.  He needs to maintain control.  But wait – there’s more. Bachmann gets the invite as well.  George is basically handing out ammunition to Newt’s opponents and telling them to open fire.   And the only target is on Newt’s back.

Bachmann, however, goes after both of them as “Newt Romney” – very nicely done, Michele!  Best debate yet – the Mitts are off.  Newt has to be careful here about the health mandates.  He actually did support the individual mandate, at least for a while.  Steady Newt – it has only just begun!

Mitt plays the “I knew Jack Kennedy” riff Lloyd Bentsen used against Dan Quayle but not quite as effectively.

Now it’s Perry turn – and he goes after Mitt for the Massachusetts health care.

Boy, this is great!  Real differences are exposed for the voters.  Perry piles on. Mitt has a nice response here in trying to differentiate his support for mandates from Newt’s  – Newt’s was at the federal level., says Mitt.   Now Mitt turns the table and raise the “mandatory” vaccine.

Finally, Newt owns up to the individual mandate and tries to justify it as a conservative response to Hillary care.He should have gone right to this.

Boy, Perry and Romney don’t like each other. Their spat helps take a bit of the heat off Newt.

Bachmann is doing a great job tonight.  She’s not letting either Newt or Mitt off the hook here.

Neither is Santorum.  But he needs to focus as much on Bachmann as on Newt and Mitt, because she’s fighting for his voters.

Rick calls Bachmann a loser.  He’s a winner.  Winning! Duh!  Bachmann says she was in a minority – but so was Rick!

FIRST BREAK

Well, Dorfman was right.  This is exciting!  Great stuff so far.  The candidates are on their game, the gloves are off, and the second-tier candidates understand the stakes here.  I think so far Newt and Mitt have suffered the most damage.  Paul needs to break through the cross-conversation. We saw flashes of the thin-skinned Newt here, and it wasn’t pretty.  He needs to regroup.  Mitt is Mitt – he’s not going to win over anyone tonight that’s not already in his camp.  Perry’s been solid.  I’m really interested to see how Santorum and Bachmann are registering, because they look sharp.  Anyone following any focus groups tonight?

What a great way to spend a Saturday night.  let’s hope George handles most of the remaining questions – he knows how to stir a fight. Diane is far too laid back.

Part II.

Social values – watch out Newt! First question is on marital fidelity. Perry doesn’t pull any punches. Can you say “awkward”?  Please please put the camera on Newt – and there it is!  He looks chastened.  He has to be ready for this.  Santorum is not quite as aggressive, but nonetheless his point is clear.  What will Newt say?  This is not the time to attack – Newt needs to beg for forgiveness, and stop there.  Newt has to be planning his response here. Everyone knows his record – acknowledge, and move on.

Wow. George is deliberately letting Newt stew, but asking every other candidate about values first.  Turnabout is fair play – there’s no media love for Newt.  He’s last.

Biggest answer of the campaign to date.  drum roll please…….

And he hits exactly the right tone – measured, open, but not dwelling on the marriage issue.  I think he survived.

One reason they are falling behind is because Sawyer won’t shut up and doesn’t ask a question without a 10-minute build up.  Get to the point!

Another danger point for Newt – immigration.  This is not a winning issue for Newt in Iowa.  He needs to be careful.  Newt has his answer ready  – let’s see if the other candidate let him off the hook.  First, Mitt needs to clarify his own view. Instead, he goes after Newt’s “amnesty” plan first, then touts his harsher plan.  Perry doesn’t look convinced.  Look for him to take on Mitt.

Instead, Perry tacts toward attacking Obama’s immigration policy.  And George moves on to another issue – Newt calling the Palestinian’s an “invented” people.  He hands the gun to Paul to pull the trigger.  Paul does so, but not very crisply – instead, he’s the cranky Uncle firing multitude shots almost everywhere but at Gingrich.   This is a winning issue for Newt, and he doesn’t miss this one.  Good Newt is back – he regains the momentum……just like that, he rescues the debate.

Romney tries to straddle this one, and Newt simply demolishes his ability to do so.  (Who is Newt winking at?)  Romney, to his credit, persists.  I think he’s trying to portray Newt as unstable – but really, this is not a winning issue for him.  Debates reward clarity and simple declarative sentences, not the type of Romney tact of saying I agree with Newt’s sentiments but I wouldn’t have actually said it.  That simply feeds into the the notion that Romney is someone who lacks core convictions.

Santorum seems to back both. Perry tries to put it to rest as a media-contrived issue, and instead turns the issue back to Obama.  We are getting some foreign policy into this debate.  Perry mangles his answer three times, but in both answers he makes the essential point that there’s larger issues at stake here.

BREAK

Is it me, or has Paul receded a bit here?  Is his energy flagging.  Newt has rallied, Romney is doing nothing now to stop his downward trend. Perry has been steady, and Bachmann and Santorum – especially Santorum – are really really sharp.  This is the best debate so far.  The debaters are engaged in substantive issues, illuminating differences and really engaging each other.  I think Newt has been shaken, but not fatally so.   If he survives this, it can only help him going forward.  Everyone of his vulnerabilities have been targeted tonight and while he’s wavered, he’s rallied quite well.

Ok, here’s one of these “personal” questions that never works.  When was the last time one of these candidates suffered economic hardship.  It’s time for the hardscabble upbringing stories.  It might be fun to see how Mitt answers this?

No, it’s not.  I mean, this is just a wasted question.  We are going to hear endless tales of hard work, core values, and love of America.

Well, at least Paul gets creative and manages to insert some economic policy.  Santorum uses it to link family values to economic growth – a nice twist.

Bachmann has another strong answer here. I think she’s helped herself the most of any candidate tonight. It will be interesting to see how this resonates in Iowa. She really needs to get into the top four – ideally, the top three in Iowa.

George wants to rehash the mandate issue.  I’m not sure what this is going to yield, but it gives him a chance to tout Yahoo, which is cosponsoring the debate.

So that’s Diane’s problem tonight – she is heavily medicated!

Paul’s storm troopers are out in full force tonight.  Will they turn out on Jan. 3? But it’s interesting how the other candidates rarely take Paul on – they seem to recognize that he has a ceiling on his likely support and prefer to let him hang himself with his rants on the Federal Reserve, etc.

BREAK

I think one of the reasons this debate has been so good is the absence of Cain and Huntsman. With six people, the candidates have more time to talk and to engage.  Bachmann’s coupon clipping answer will resonate with women.  I didn’t think Newt’s hardship answer (my consulting company has to meet a payroll) really worked.

This has been a long debate. Let’s see if Perry begins to wilt – the first sign will be longer pauses in the answer.

And, we are in the homestretch.  Interesting question: what’s one thing the candidate has learned from another candidate?  The key here is to praise someone who can’t win or who can’t compete for your coalition.   Paul is pretty safe.  And so Perry and Romney pick him.  But no one spends much time praising someone else so much as praising themselves.

Gingrich, as always, manages to actually praise other Republicans. And adds the twist of giving a shout out to Iowa. Compare that to Romney’s answer essentially praising himself.

And that’s it folks!  Winners?  Losers?  As always we are interested in who helped themselves the most, and who hurt themselves.

So, the spin begins.

My read: biggest loser is Romney.  He is too smooth by half.  And, as several people have pointed out, offering a $10,000 bet in a state where unemployment is an issue doesn’t help Romney’s cause.

Biggest winner: Bachmann, followed by Santorum. Both were sharp, and raised their profile.  The problem is that both are fighting for the same set of voters, so they may negate each other.

Paul didn’t broaden his coalition. Perry was strong, and didn’t hurt his cause.  He’s playing a long game here and is simply hoping to beat out Paul in Iowa.

But Gingrich took the most heat, looked shaken at times, but rallied strongly in a way that makes me think he probably solidified his standing although he may not have increased his support.  In terms of Iowa, I have to think Gingrich comes out still on top.  The battle now is for the not-Newt slot, and I think Romney is in serious danger of losing his hold on this.   I still think there’s room for Perry to move up to fill that.

That’s it for tonight.   More tomorrow….

 

 

 

 

 

Previewing Tonight’s Debate: Can Newt Rush The Republican Fraternity? Cue Dorfman!

Last May Newt Gingrich’s announcement that he was running for president set off a wave of media criticism which collectively suggested his candidacy was D.O.A.   The withering attacks by press and pundits reminded me of how the members of Delta House reacted when Kent “Flounder” Dorfman’s face went on the screen as a prospective pledge:

Now that I think of it, Newt looks a little like Dorfman.  But I digress.  At the time, (in true Otter fashion!), I wrote a blog post suggesting that the experts’ efforts to dismiss Gingrich’s candidacy were premature. In my words: “At this point, however, Republican presidential candidates are not trying to beat Obama – they are trying to beat other Republicans.   To do so, they need to survive the invisible primary – the period from now until the start of the actual nomination process in early 2012.  That requires staying within the top tier of candidates, as identified by the media, for the next nine months…There’s no reason to suggest Gingrich can’t stay within the top 2-4 candidates based on these criteria. Then comes the actual nominating process, beginning most likely with Iowa and New Hampshire.  Can Gingrich do well in these contests?  At this point, it is impossible to say.  But his chances are no worse than any of the other major Republican candidates….  Looking ahead to Iowa, with Huckabee out, Gingrich is likely to be among the top three candidates at this point, and if he comes out of there no lower than third he has a good shot of being competitive in New Hampshire.”

I concluded: “In short, it is far too early to dismiss Gingrich’s candidacy based on the initial bumps on which the media has focused so heavily. Contrary to Charles Krauthammer’s prognosis, Gingrich remains very much a viable candidate.  And, if things get tough, he can always call on Shakespeare’s Second Witch, whose incantations proved fatal to another national leader:

“Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder’s fork, and blind-worm’s sting,
Lizard’s leg, and howlet’s wing,–
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.”

Powerful trouble?  But for whom?  Stay tuned.”

At the time, much like Otter’s defense of Dorfman, my post received the online version of a flurry of beer cans. Six months later, however,  it looks like a post written by a smart Delta House rush chairman (“damned glad to meet you”). But if I proved prescient last May in warning against dismissing Gingrich’s candidacy, I would be lying if I said I knew he would be leading the pack come mid-December, and that it would be Newt – and not Mitt – who has the greater chance of closing this nomination race out early. (And don’t get me started on my Rick Perry prediction….)

With just a few hours to go before tonight’s latest, and most important, Republican debate (and I’ll be live blogging it at 9 eastern time), it’s worth analyzing why Newt is leading the pack to head Delta House…er…win the Republican nomination. In a word, it is the debates.  In this excellent Newsweek article chronicling his comeback, Gingrich acknowledges that his rise was based largely on his debate performance, combined with a good deal of luck in the questions, and questioners, he received during the early debates.  Gingrich recognized early on that the audience for these debates consisted not of party leaders and opinion makers, but of disaffected rank-and-file Republicans who were the vanguard of the Tea Party movement. And when he took on Chris Wallace for the tone of his question during an early debate –  he chided Wallace for asking a “Mickey Mouse” question about Newt’s staff leaving him and received thunderous applause – Gingrich had the good sense to realize that attacking the media, and not fellow Republicans, was his route to the top.

But it took more than this. In most years, Newt would still have been shut out of the Delta House pledge process. But he benefitted this election cycle by the proliferation of Republican debates.  Much like Obama, who in 2008 was forced to use caucuses to attract delegates and much needed media coverage because he couldn’t beat Clinton in the big primary states, Gingrich made a virtue  of necessity by using the debates to force the media to provide coverage of him that he couldn’t afford to buy on his own.  But this strategy required multiple debates, and the cooperation of the other candidates.  And they did cooperate.  Romney once again proved unable to demonstrate to Republicans that he possesses any sense of authenticity. The early not-Romney candidates faltered under the unyielding glare of the media spotlight. Meanwhile, Newt remained just under the radar, blasting the media, adhering to Reagan’s 11th amendment, and drawing on his years of experience and policy wonkiness to climb to the top of the polls.

Newt’s rise is a reminder why the nominating process is so unpredictable, and why pundits were wrong to write him off.  Simply put, unlike the general election race, political scientists can’t really use previous nomination races as a basis for predicting what will happen this time around.  There are simply too many changes – in candidates, but also in venues, and rules and other institutional factors, to think that today’s nominating contest will follow the patterns of previous ones.  Whenever a book or article comes out presuming to be the definitive work explaining how the nominating process works – the party decides! – events invariably prove that the conventional wisdom is outdated. To be sure, there are some basic rules of thumb that seem to hold for most nominations most of the time, but these aren’t really precise enough to generate accurate predictions very early in the game. Remember – I said not to dismiss Newt. I didn’t say he’d win.

And that leads to tonight’s critical debate.  The media, finally, recognizes what you have heard from me for several weeks now: that Newt’s candidacy is for real, and that his support is not going to follow the same arc we saw with Bachmann, Cain and Perry.  This is not to say that the Republican Party establishment and opinion makers are happy with Newt’s ascendancy – they continue to predict his imminent demise and they are actively working to make that happen.   They may yet succeed. But if it Newt’s candidacy does implode, I predict it will have little to do with issues related to Newt’s personal “baggage”.  As I noted in an earlier post, even social conservatives are focused on the economy in this election cycle, and not on cultural issues.  And Newt’s skeletons have long since been exhumed from the closest.  If Bill Clinton’s bimbo eruptions couldn’t derail his presidential bid (or even his presidency – remember, he was most popular during the impeachment and Senate trial), I doubt Gingrich’s personal travails will be his downfall.  Nor do I think the ethics charges, or the Fannie Mae lobbying, or the money he earned after leaving politics, is going to matter very much to rank-and-file Republicans seeking to beat Obama.

No, if Gingrich is to fall, the other Republican candidates – especially Romney – must work to topple him. That means stepping up tonight to begin pressuring Gingrich on his publicly espoused policy views which are both all over the place and in many instances very moderate.   For example, wasn’t he for global warming before he was against it (and what about that Pelosi ad)?  What are his views on immigration?  Newt has a rich and quite public policy record, and Republicans should have a field day pointing out inconsistencies tonight. They need to target Newt and keep him on the defensive for the full hour. It will help that there are only six candidates in the mix tonight.

These attacks, however, likely won’t be enough on their own to bring Newt down.  For that to occur, Newt has to make a slip or two in reaction to the pressure. He has to stumble, either by twisting himself into a policy conundrum or lashing out at his accusers (Stop lying about my record!) or both.  And this is where it gets interesting: has Newt really matured?  Is this the new Newt – wiser, more humble, and more thoughtful – that has been advertised?  Have the years in the political wilderness really mellowed him?  Is Callista a calming presence? Has Catholicism changed his moral compass?

Tonight, I expect the sharpest exchange of views in a Republican debate so far, and the most focused attack on Newt and his record.   And what does Newt think of all this?   I have to believe he’s thinking this:

Tonight. National television on ABC at 9 o’clock: the Delta House pledges convene once more.  Don’t miss it.  And remember, I’m not making any predictions – but Republicans need the dues.

 

 

Do Ya Feel Lucky, Punk? Obama, Vetos, and SAP’s

When is a veto threat not a veto threat?  That’s the question one needs to ask in light of the recent media stories and blog posts suggesting that President Obama has threatened to veto a recently passed military authorization bill for the next fiscal year because it includes language that could be construed as limiting the President’s flexibility to hold suspected terrorists in civilian custody.  The bill also contains provisions restricting Obama’s power to relocate enemy combatants now held at Guantanamo Bay, another detail that did not sit with the Obama Administration.  Despite the administration’s apparent veto threat, however, the bill passed the Senate by overwhelming numbers (93-7), and was supported by most of the Senate Democrats as well as Republicans. And yet, as I discussed here, the President apparently is persisting with his veto threat – a tactic that is both surprising, since Obama has only vetoed two bills so far, and risky, since it would appear that there would be enough votes in both the Senate and the House to override a presidential veto.

So what explains the President’s veto threat?  Why has he apparently stiffened his spine? The answer is that, despite my and others’ loose choice of words, Obama has not issued a veto threat.  His advisers have.

Let me explain.

Presidents typically issue a threat to veto pending legislation by issuing a SAP – a Statement of Administrative Policy. (Technically, these are issued by the Office of Management and Budget on the President’s behalf). Presidents issue SAP’s not just to signal their intent to veto; they may also be used to voice support for a bill, or to recommend that it be altered.  Frequently the SAP will say that the President opposes a bill, but it will stop short of threatening a veto. So, for example, today the administration  issued this SAP regarding legislation now being debated on Capitol Hill to extend the payroll tax cut, which is due to expire on Jan. 1.  In it, the Obama administration says it opposes one version of the bill now under consideration in the Senate, but supports another version.  However, it does not threaten to veto the less desirable bill.

On the other hand, here’s the language used in the Administration’s SAP regarding the House’s bill H.R. 2 which would repeal the Affordable Health Care Act:  “If the President were presented with H.R. 2, he would veto it” with the “would” underscored in the original document.

That is an unmistakable veto threat, one that does not leave the President with much wiggle room. More generally, SAPs serve as a signaling device.  They are a means by which the President can convey information to Congress regarding his legislative preferences.  Congress can then decide how to respond.    Political scientists have spent extensive time unpacking the logic of these signaling games, focusing in particular on veto threats and vetoes, in large part because these tactics are amenable to the type of deductive reasoning that rational choice theorists employ, and because it is easy to test some of the logical implications of these models.  I won’t delve too deeply into these models here, except to say that they can get very complicated depending on the assumptions one incorporates into them. The important point to remember is that the particular phrasing a president uses in a SAP is actually crucial to the signaling game; words convey not only a President’s preferences, but also the intensity with which he holds those preferences.

So, what does the Obama Administration’s SAP dealing with the military authorization bill actually say?  Here’s the opening line:  “The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012.”  That’s right – the bill that most media and blogging outlets (including mine) are reporting that Obama is threatening to veto actually had the administration’s support, at least as of November 17! But wait – there’s more; further down the SAP contains this language:

“The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President’s authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

And finally – and this is the crucial passage: “Any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President’s senior advisers to recommend a veto” (italics added).

So, to be clear, unlike the wording of the SAP stating the President’s reaction to the bill proposing to repeal Obamacare, the President has – as yet – not issued a SAP saying he will veto the military authorization bill.  In fact, he has left his final decision unclear, although he has noted that his advisers will be pressing him to veto.  Senators – including members of Obama’s own party – were forced to decide what the President would do if this bill passes in its current form.  Evidently most concluded that either the President will not act on his advisers’ recommendation to veto the bill, or that if he does they have the votes to override it. Or perhaps they expect the veto to be sustained, but still felt it in their own political interest to vote for the bill.  Note that there may be a range of motives in play, and not all of them are necessarily equally applicable to each Senator.

This is where the notion of “professional reputation”, a phrase coined by presidency scholar Richard Neustadt, comes into play.  Simply put, in trying to anticipate what the President might do, senators look in part Obama’s prior actions for clues regarding his likely behavior in this case. How many veto threats did he issue before? In how many cases did those threats come to fruition?

If we put ourselves in their shoes and examine Obama’s prior veto threats, what do we find?

Owen Witek looked through all of the Obama SAP’s listed on the White House website  that have been issued since he took office to see how many contained veto threats.  In this case, Owen used a rather broad definition of a veto threat; he counted any language suggesting a potential veto, even if issued by Obama’s advisers, as a real veto threat. (Note: these were SAP’s dealing with nonappropriation-related legislation.)  Interestingly, in the first two years of his presidency, Obama expressed opposition to only four bills being considered in the 111th Congress, and he threatened to veto three of those bills. He eventually issued two vetoes, but they were not directed to any of the bills that were the subject of veto threats. (One was an appropriations bill, so it wouldn’t have made Witek’s list.)

Since the Republican takeover of the House, however, the number of nonappropriation-related veto threats, as defined here, has jumped dramatically; in the first session of the 112th Congress, Witek counts 52 SAP’s that contain language saying Obama opposes all or a portion of pending legislation.  Thirty-one of those statements contain veto threats.  Since Witek made his count, the President has apparently issued at least one more veto threat (although I’ve yet to see the SAP for it on the White House website), this time objecting to efforts by House Republicans to package a plan to support the controversial Keystone oil shale pipeline with legislation extending the payroll tax cuts that are now due to expire Jan. 1.  Despite Obama’s threat, House Republican leaders seem intent on including the provision, which they see as necessary to win over Tea Party-backed Republicans.  These Republicans fear that by extending the payroll tax cut they are jeopardizing entitlement programs funded through these funds.  The House bill also includes other sweeteners designed to appease Republicans, including restrictions on illegal immigrants receiving tax benefits and reducing long-term unemployment benefits.

So, what does this record suggest about Obama’s likely response to the military authorization bill if it reaches his desk?  Frankly, it’s hard to tell without going into a deeper study of Obama’s SAPs, the context in which they were issued, and the reaction to his veto threats.  My best guess that Obama is not likely to veto it, his advisers’ recommendations to the contrary notwithstanding.  The Keystone rider to the payroll bill, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter – here it is Obama who has personally and publicly issued the veto threat, daring the Republicans to call his bluff.  It’s inconceivable to me that if it somehow passed the Senate in its current form (it won’t) and came to the President’s desk for his signature, he would not veto it.

Looking ahead, it seems clear to me that by the end of this congressional session his current veto total is likely to increase beyond the current two.  Note that neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton vetoed any bills in their first two years in office – in fact, Bush didn’t issue his first veto until after his reelection to a second term.  But Clinton ended up issuing 36 vetoes – all after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, and Bush ended up with 12 vetoes, 11 coming when the Democrats captured the Congress in 2006. In issuing these vetoes, Bush was overturned 4 times, Clinton just twice.

Whenever the Congress and the President are involved in a veto game, they have to ask themselves: what do I think I know about the other actor’s reputation?  Are their threats credible?  Or are they bluffing?  And perhaps most crucial: what are the consequences if I’m wrong? Sometimes the consequences can be quite costly, which is why presidents are very judicious in the wording they use in their SAP’s.

In any type of negotiation like this, of course, the key is not to misjudge one’s opponent….punk.

 

 

The Audacity of Nope: Why Obama is No Rough Rider

In what some billed as the most important economic speech of his presidency, President Obama traveled to  Osawatomie, Kansas yesterday to deliver a highly publicized address meant to highlight the major themes of his reelection campaign.  The site, of course, is where Teddy Roosevelt gave his famous “New Nationalism” speech in 1910 – one that laid out many of the progressive ideals TR would run on as a third-party candidate two years later.  In choosing the location of yesterday’s speech, the Obama administration hoped to draw a historical parallel between the themes of Obama’s reelection campaign and Roosevelt’s call for a “square deal”  based on economic fairness (a comparison that historian Doris Kearns Goodwin first raised on Meet the Press  two weeks ago).   In Roosevelt’s words from 101 years ago : “But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service. “

But while many pundits have noted the thematic parallels between the two addresses, what I found far more telling was what TR’s address contained that Obama’s lacked. Where Roosevelt proposed a number of progressive – radical? – policies for redressing economic inequality, Obama pushed almost none.  That difference shows not just a distinction between TR and Obama, but more importantly how dramatically the political context has been transformed in recent decades – a transformation that today makes it less likely that Obama will suggest the more far-reaching policies embraced by TR, never mind try to implement them.

By my count, Obama’s speech contains exactly two substantive policy proposals for achieving economic fairness along with a couple of reminders of what Democrats had already accomplished toward this end and some rhetorical jawboning on related issues.  First, he advocated an extension of the payroll tax cut due to expire at the end of the month. This will almost certainly occur, mostly because Republicans do not want to be seen advocating for a tax increase, even if extending the tax cut is of dubious economic benefit. Second, the President recommended restructuring the tax system and implied that this should include raising the top tax rate to the level in place during the Clinton administration.  Although Republicans in Congress are dead set against raising the top rate, they have signaled a willingness to work for tax reform so there is a glimmer of a possible compromise here.

Beyond these two measures, however, I didn’t hear much more in the way of substantive policy proposals to actually reduce economic inequity.  To be sure, Obama did push other proposals, urging the Senate to confirm Richard Cordray to head the recently created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and reminding his audience that he supported the Dodd-Frank legislation (although he didn’t mention it by name) designed to tighten banking regulations. He also urged  banks to ease loan restrictions to make borrowing easier although I didn’t see a specific proposal to make this happen. Don’t get me wrong – these are all proposals worth considering, but they are hardly the rhetoric of a trust-buster.  Note also that he found time to remind listeners that he supported cutting government programs and that he backed regulatory reforms “that will save businesses billions of dollars.”  Match that, TR!

My point is not to criticize these proposals.  It is to say they fall far short of the progressive policies TR proposed in his New Nationalism speech from 1910.  Consider what TR recommended: the list includes his call to prohibit “the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes” which he described as “one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.” Ever the trust-buster, Roosevelt complained that efforts to prohibit “combinations in industry” had completely failed. “The way out lies, not in attempting to prevent such combinations, but in completely controlling them in the interest of the public welfare. For that purpose the Federal Bureau of Corporations is an agency of first importance. Its powers, and, therefore, its efficiency, as well as that of the Interstate Commerce Commission, should be largely increased.”  (The FBC was an investigatory agency within the then-named Department of Commerce and Labor; it was a forerunner to the Federal Trade Commission).

Roosevelt also criticized the power of “special interests” to get Congress to pass tariffs that, through political logrolling, sacrificed the public interest for private gain.  The solution, he suggested, “must be an expert tariff commission, wholly removed from the possibility of political pressure or of improper business influence. Such a commission can find the real difference between cost of production, which is mainly the difference of labor cost here and abroad. As fast as its recommendations are made, I believe in revising one schedule at a time.” There would be no more legislative logrolls when it came to passing tariffs.

He also sought higher and more progressive taxes, including an inheritance tax on the very rich: “Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”

To protect labor, he called for “comprehensive workman’s compensation acts, both State and national laws to regulate child labor and work for women, and, especially, we need in our common schools not merely education in book-learning, but also practical training for daily life and work. We need to enforce better sanitary conditions for our workers and to extend the use of safety appliances for workers in industry…”

But wait, there’s more! Turning toward politics, he advocated the use of the directly primary to loosen party control over the nomination process in order to “make our political representatives more quickly and sensitively responsive to the people whose servants they are. “ He also reiterated his support for campaign finance regulation: “It is particularly important that all moneys received or expended for campaign purposes should be publicly accounted for, not only after election, but before election as well. Political action must be made simpler, easier, and freer from confusion for every citizen.”

Finally, “I believe that every national officer, elected or appointed, should be forbidden to perform any service or receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, from interstate corporations; and a similar provision could not fail to be useful within the States.”

Along with these specific proposals, Roosevelt hinted at even more radical efforts to increase government intervention into the marketplace:  “The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise… This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

This hint of what some commentators at the time described as advocating socialism created such a stir that TR was force to backtrack somewhat in later comments to make clear that was not what he was proposing.

My point here is not to chastise Obama for failing to propose a program that matched TR’s in substance and not just in theme.  In fairness, TR held no office in 1910 and thus was much freer to propose a radical program to redress economic inequities.  And, many of his proposals are now in place. Moreover, we ought not to forget that when he did run for President in 1912 on the New Nationalism platform, he lost to the Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who advocated a milder form of many of TR’s proposals as part of his New Freedoms campaign.

Nonetheless one cannot helped but be struck by – when one digs beneath the repeated thematic references – just how much milder Obama’s speech was compared to TR’s.  Is it tempting to blame the difference on Obama’s more conservative beliefs and pragmatic temperament.  But, while I have long argued that Obama was by temperament and training not one to push radical policies, I think the larger reason for his pulling his punches in yesterday’s speech is his realization that he is distinctly limited in terms of the policy options that could actually redress economic equality and get through Congress.  Today’s equivalent of the audacious economic platform TR proposed – nationalizing the banks? A public health care system? Forty percent marginal tax rates, or higher? – might play well with the progressive wing of the Democratic party but it would go nowhere in the House or Senate given Republican strength and it’s not even clear it would help in the general election, given the level of public distrust with government and the Tea Party-based opposition to “big government”. Put another way, I’m not sure TR would have proposed much more than Obama did yesterday – not if he was running for reelection.

It is all well and good for historians to urge Obama to channel his inner TR, or FDR, or LBJ.  But the reality is that given the current economic and political climate, these transcendent historical figures are perhaps less relevant to Obama than are other presidents – think, alas, of Jimmy Carter. With Carter’s electoral fate in mind Obama, I surmise, would do far better to uncover his own core principles, and fashion a program and strategy for achieving them, than he will searching history for a dubious analogue.  Until he channels his inner-Obama, he is in for a rough ride of his own.

The Latest Iowa Polls: Mitt Has Been Newtered!

With less than 30 days before the Iowa primaries, the first three polls in the field since Herman Cain dropped out show no signs that Gingrich’s lead is slipping If anything, he may have increased his lead by a few points which may reflect additional support from disaffected Cain supporters. All three polls have Paul and Romney vying for second place.  Perhaps more worrisome for Mitt, however, is that with the media narrative finally beginning to reflect the polling reality, there are signs that voters are no longer viewing Mitt as the most electable in a general election matchup against the President.  Moreover, the issue of greatest concern to Iowa voters – even social conservatives – is the economy, one that should play to Romney’s strengths.  But evidently it is not – Iowa voters do not seem to be buying Romney’s “I’m a  private sector job creator” narrative.  Curiously, however, despite the sagging polling numbers, he still seems reluctant to take on Gingrich directly, even as other Republican candidates are now directly targeting the Newster in media interviews and campaign advertising.

First, let’s review the polling data.

The top line numbers show Newt holding a substantial lead among likely Republican caucus voters in the three latest, post-Cain resignation polls in Iowa. In this Washington post/ABC poll, Gingrich leads the field among likely caucus voters with 33%, ahead of both Paul and Romney who poll at 18%. Among potential caucusers, he leads Romney 28%-18%. (The poll of potential Republican caucus goers covered November 30 to December 4, and has 4 point error margin for all potential voters and 6 points for the subsample of likely voters.) A second poll, by PPP, has Gingrich up by 9%, 27%-18% over Ron Paul, with Romney in third at 16%.  Interestingly, Bachmann has climbed to 13% in this poll, perhaps on the strength of support from former Cain supporters. (PPP surveyed 572 likely Republican caucus voters from December 3rd to 5th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-4.1%.)  Finally, a CBSNYT Poll has Gingrich up big, 31% to Romney’s 17% and Paul’s 16%. (CBS News and The New York Times conducted telephone interviews November 30 -December 5, 2011 with 1,869 Republican and independent registered voters in Iowa, including 642 registered voters who said they would definitely or probably attend the Republican caucus in Iowa. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus four points for caucus-goers.) Here’s the overall state of the race in Iowa, based on the RealClear politics aggregator (Newt is green, Mitt purple, and Paul brown):

There are three critical points to take away from these latest polls. First, even among social conservatives, this election is about the economy.  Only 11% of the Post respondents cited social issues as their top priority, with more than 70% citing economic matters. In the PPP poll social issues were cited by only 9%.  And in what has to be a slap in Romney’s private sector face, more Iowans view Gingrich as better qualified to address economic issues than Mitt. At the same time, 33% of Iowans view Romney’s support of health care in Massachusetts as a major reason to vote against him.  When asked about Newt’s marital history, however, 76% of potential caucus goers say it is not an issue, while 16% say it is the major reason to oppose Newt.  The bottom line is that Newt is stealing Mitt’s lunch on the very issue that was supposed to be Mitt’s strong point – handling of the economy – while Newt’s potential weakness – his personal “baggage” – is as yet not resonating very much with voters.

The second issue is that Gingrich is now viewed as electable as Romney, or more so, when matched up in a general election fight with President Obama.  In the Post poll, 29% of respondents said Newt has the best chance to beat Obama, while 24% said Romney did. This shows an erosion from earlier Iowa polls that indicated while a plurality of Iowans supported Newt, most still thought Romney was more electable.  Not anymore.  Despite the Republican establishment’s party line that Romney is the most electable Republican, the fact is that voters are reading the polling data like the rest of us, and increasingly the “experts” seem to be out of step with real-time developments in these early states. I can tell you that Republican opinion leaders are viewing the specter of Newt as the party’s nominee with not a little trepidation.

Finally, there is evidence that voters are still candidate shopping, which means there may yet be room for change.  As I noted in my previous post, fully 71% of Iowans in the last Des Moines Register poll were either undecided (11%) or open to changing their mind (60%). Four years ago in the same newspaper’s poll at a similar time in the campaign, the number of undecided was only 4%, although the same proportion of voters said they might yet change their mind.  How those undecideds will break is an interesting question but clearly there are more of them this time around. My guess – and it is only a guess – is that Paul has hit his ceiling, and that while Bachmann may pick up some of Cain’s support, she has the highest negatives of any of these candidates, which suggests she may also max out at 15% or so.  With Mitt’s support softening, it is still possible that Rick Perry is going to pick up a few more voters in the next three plus weeks.

A final point. A reporter contacted me yesterday to discuss the emerging media narrative that the race between Romney and Gingrich might be viewed in some sense as a test of two campaign paradigms; Newt is running the campaign of ideas based on free media – particularly debates – and social networking, while Mitt is running the traditional resource-intensive ground game emphasizing the meet-and-greet strategy.  My reply is that I’m not sure these campaign stereotypes are all that accurate. In fact, Romney’s presence in Iowa pales in comparison to the resources he invested here four years ago, and Newt has actually been a more frequent visitor there, although it is true that 31% of likely Republican voters have been contacted by the Romney campaign compared to only 19% contacted by Gingrich’s campaign.  Neither candidate, however, has committed the resources in terms of campaign offices and field staff that we’ve often seen in previous years.   This may reflect broader trends in campaigning more generally. But as I told the reporter, it doesn’t matter how good a ground game you have if people don’t like your message.  This point was driven home four years ago, when Romney’s vast advantage in material resources could not overcome social conservatives’ preference for Huckabee.

Bottom line?  Mitt Romney’s support is slipping relative to Newt in Iowa and it is affecting him on the very issues – his business experience and electability – that are supposed to be his strong suit in this campaign. If he is to stem this erosion in support, he needs to decide on a strategy for doing so, one that relies on more than hoping his fellow Republicans will take Newt to the woodshed.  This may mean putting Mitt in front of the camera more often, in interviews on Sunday talk shows and similar formats.  Mitt has not been on a Sunday talk show since March, 2010 – and for good reason. The problem is that he can appear thin-skinned; when pressed he often reverts to that classroom persona of the prissy who cites the rules and threatens to go to the teacher when he doesn’t get his way. You know you are in trouble when you are viewed as less likable than an opponent who gained a reputation – perhaps overdrawn – as a bombastic pompous blowhard.

But then, that’s the great thing about American politics: contrary to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s famous declaration, there are second acts in this country, and right now Newt is experiencing his.  Perhaps, you say, but there’s no way he could ever become president!

Remember this guy?