I am not denigrating the overt problems which may develop, but rather feel that these problems have been adequately explored elsewhere by many others. Giving corporations and unions full free speech rights when it comes to elections may destroy American democracy as we know it, and then again it may not. I do wonder how many corporations will actually take the opportunity to attempt influencing voters in such a fashion, personally, since corporations are in business to make money. And these days, annoying half the electorate may mean a serious drop in a company's bottom line. So, at least at first, I think most large companies will be rather cautious about this sort of political activity. As I said, they're in business to make money.

Plus, corporate donors are used to funnelling such political money through lobbyists and through political action committees, and they may find this route to be more effective (and more anonymous), and continue to play the political money game pretty much how they've been playing it for years.

I fully admit that I could be wrong about all of that, though. Especially after a few election cycles, and after a few bold companies "test the waters" of the new rules.

And Congress could leap into action and solve the problem proactively, before even the 2010 midterm elections take place [pause for laughter]. Actually, Congress, even if it were super-efficient in such matters (which, realistically, it is not), doesn't have a lot of room to maneuver, at least in the short term. Laws may be passed which force corporations and unions to fully disclose their activities, or even force the leader of the corporation or union to appear at the end of the ad saying: "I'm so-and-so, and I approved this message." But, since Citizens United was a Supreme Court decision, Congress can't just pass another law to replace the precedents which were just overturned -- because any law they pass along these lines will likely be struck down as being unconstitutional as well (at least, with the Supreme Court we've currently got). Meaning that to truly fight back against the Citizens United decision, Congress would have to pass a constitutional amendment -- a long process which is extremely difficult to accomplish.

But what really worries me about the new rules for corporations and unions is what could happen out of sight of the voting public. I can foresee two ways for such invisible influence to happen, although there may be others I have not thought of as well, I admit.

The first of these is a corporation or union merely threatening to outspend an incumbent member of Congress in an upcoming election. This would likely be much more likely in the House, but could also take place in certain Senate races as well. Getting elected to the House is a relatively cheap thing to do, at least in comparison to Senate and presidential elections. Most House races only cost a few million dollars, tops. Many people are elected to the House who spend far less than that -- hundreds of thousands of dollars, not millions. This is due to the nature of House districts, many of which are demographically small, with no large "media markets" (large cities) within the district. In such races, radio ads may actually be a bigger expense for the candidate's war chest than television ads. Meaning also that it would be a lot cheaper for a corporation or union to influence such a small-time race.

Say, for the sake of argument, I was in charge of a large corporate entity. As the CEO of CW Industries, Inc., I make an appointment with a number of House members who happen to sit on the "House Committee On Those Pesky Bloggers." To each of them, I would say some version of the following (parsed, of course, by my legal team so as to avoid being technically illegal extortion or vote-buying): "I see the committee is going to consider the Blog Regulation bill next month. I'm here to tell you we don't like this bill, and would prefer to see it killed in committee. Now, there are two ways this could go. The first is if you vote for the bill, in which case we have a campaign advertising fund of twelve million dollars ready to support whatever challenger you face in your next election. What did you spend on your last race, a million and a half? Well, we're going to spend eight times that against you next time around, just so you know. We pulled in forty-two billion last year, so we've got a few million to spare to make sure you are voted out of office -- whatever it takes, basically. Or, of course, if you find it in your heart to vote against the Blog Regulation bill, then we would be using that money elsewhere, to defeat some other House member. So, just wanted to let you ponder that, Congressman."

The beauty of this scheme is (assuming it was parsed in language to avoid illegalities, which isn't really all that hard to do, when it comes right down to it) that if CWI, Inc. scares enough House members by these tactics, then we don't have to pay a dime during the actual election season. If I can pocket enough Representatives to kill the bill this way, then I have not promised anyone any actual campaign donations -- I have instead withdrawn the promise to spend against incumbents. Meaning such spending never actually takes place. Which means the public never even notices my naked vote-buying, because I don't run a single ad anywhere paid for by my corporation.

This could even work in Senate races in smaller states (or thinly-populated states). Some Senate races do run into the tens of millions of dollars, but those are mostly in large states with multiple big media markets (with very expensive television ad prices). Other Senate elections cost far less. Meaning influencing them would be within the budget of most large corporations as well. And influencing dozens of House races would be extremely cheap for even a modestly large corporation to handle (think of how much money is currently spent on lobbying, for comparison).

But the truly worrisome part of this is that it is all invisible to the public. Now, such deal-making and influence-buying already takes place in Washington, one might argue, so it really wouldn't be all that big a change. Which is, to a certain extent, true. But with no limit on what a single corporation (or union, to be fair) can spend on any particular race, the problem may get far worse, and extorting votes in such a fashion may become the new norm.

The second way corporations could influence (smaller) elections would be somewhat visible to the public, but in a much more subtle way. I have to admit that I'm no expert in F.E.C. regulations (or F.C.C. regulations), so I'm not even completely sure this one is legally possible.

But, as CEO of my corporation, what is to stop me from targeting a House district with a very limited media market, and just buying up all the available advertising time for a few months prior to an election? I could purchase every available ad in the market, and lock up the airwaves, giving me a monopoly over what voters hear and see during election season. Then I could either run innocuous ads to fill up the time (public service announcements, or ads for my company, or whatever), and squeeze out the political competition. Or (again, common sense tells me that this is likely illegal, but who knows?) I could re-sell the ads to whomever I choose. I could, in effect, decide who gets to speak to the voters and who doesn't, meaning I could sell all my ad space to the incumbent's challenger, and present only one side of the argument to the public.

A lot goes on in America that the public never sees, especially when it comes to corporations. Say you were a car company, for instance. Call it YouCo Motors. And say YouCo was having to recall a large number of cars because of dangerous design problems. Now, unless some massive class action court case digs things like this out, it is entirely possible (and entirely legal) for YouCo to have known about this problem for a long time. YouCo may have been threatened with lawsuits repeatedly over the mechanical problems that have now come to light. In each case, YouCo is free to offer a "settlement" to the party suing them, with a "non-disclosure" clause buried within it. Such a clause would, in essence, be a gag order on the party suing. In other words, the corporation pays out a bunch of money, but if the person receiving the money ever publicly talks about the settlement, then they have to pay the money back. Such "buying someone's silence" happens all the time in the American legal system. The result is that the public is never made aware of the problem, and keeps buying YouCo cars, confident that they aren't lemons.

The corporation in such an instance does a "cost/benefit" analysis, ever-watchful of their bottom line. It goes something like this: multiply the cost of settling one of these cases by the expected number of cases over a period of time -- then compare that number to the money it would take to actually do the redesign and fix the problem. Whichever number is lower, that is the way the corporation will choose, nine times out of ten. In other words, it is actually cheaper in many cases to just pay off the victims, instead of paying the money to fix the problem.

And the public, due to the non-disclosure agreements in the settlements, never hears about it.

This is why I get worried about the new rules for elections the Supreme Court has handed down. Because corporations are used to pulling political strings behind the scenes, not so much out in the light of day. And they are fully capable of performing such cost/benefit analyses, and figuring out what is cheaper -- complying with the new law Congress passes, or spending millions of dollars to kill the bill. Sometimes compliance will be the cheaper route. But other times, throwing money into the political election cauldron will be the cheaper way to go. And, knowing the influences money already has over our political process, what worries me isn't so much seeing corporate "vote for this guy" ads during election season, but all the leverage being used behind the scenes, that the public is never made aware of.

So while others are free to worry about the overt influence of corporate and union money on our political system, it's the money and influence (and threats of such) which are simply not noticed by the public, or even by journalists, that worries me far more. Such backroom dealing already takes place even with the limited tools of lobbying and political action committees, but (after Citizens United) it could get a whole lot worse, and a whole lot more intense. And, to me, such hidden dangers are even scarier than anything which happens in the public's view as a result of the ruling.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

But we are going to eschew both football and winter sports in our metaphor toolbox today, and instead speak in more generic (team) sporting terms of the concept of "offense" and "defense."

Because Democrats need to realize that they still have the biggest majority in both houses of Congress that they are likely to see in their lifetimes -- and if they can't get things done with this overwhelming power, then they really should consider just folding up their tents and calling it a day as a political party.

To be blunt, Democrats need to start playing offense. The best defense is a good offense, and all that sort of thing. They need to get out there and remind voters of the good things they do, explain clearly to voters what the good things they are trying to do are, and also take the game to the other side by explaining why Republicans are the main obstacle they face in succeeding.

When a Democratic idea gets signed into law, do not just stop talking about it from that point on. Praise it to the skies, for months afterwards. Every interview from every Democrat should open with "well, we're all happy we got the 'X' bill passed and signed, and we're ready to take on the next challenge." When you refuse to laud your own successes, it is no wonder when the public doesn't give you much credit for them. You have to remind people. It's like advertising -- repeat often, and it sinks in.

And when you talk about the opposition, don't talk about "the opposition." Call them "Republicans." This basic rule is ignored so often by Democrats (including by Obama) that it makes me pull my hair out at times when watching television. It's called "branding" and the Republicans do a dandy job of making it work against Democrats. Democrats should go on the offensive to do the same thing in return.

Here is how every quote from a Democrat should run, from now until election day:

"Well, of course, Democrats saved our economy from falling into a second Great Depression last year, and now the economy is starting to rebound. Democrats are trying to ensure this happens, and increase the rate of job creation, by (insert current legislation's name here). But, of course, Republicans are against these goals. Republicans won't even vote on ideas from other Republicans in their blind rage at the president, and their hopes that he will fail on everything. Republicans will use every trick in the book to make sure nothing happens at all this year in Congress -- even when Americans are hurting the most and need their government to work -- because Republicans are content to play politics with any issue, just to score points. Democrats want to change things for the better. Republicans don't care whether it's better or worse, they are committed to being against every single thing, in the hopes of electing more Republicans. I wish the Republican Party would start acting like adults, so we could constructively get some things done for the American people."

OK, that ran a bit long, it probably should be a lot shorter and snappier. But you get the idea.

In advertising, in "branding," you repeat: "Democrats = good stuff. Republicans = sheer political obstructionism" over and over and over again.

This will have a broad effect of putting Republicans on the defensive against the "Party of No" label (which they're already worried about). And it might actually bear some fruit, legislatively, who knows?

But this is the way majority parties get things done. There hasn't been a supermajority in the Senate for decades (not counting last year's brief few months), and yet things have still gotten done. Bush never had 60 votes in the Senate. Neither did Clinton, or Reagan. But stuff got done.

But the only way it's going to happen is for Democrats to press their case, and go on offense. It doesn't matter how good an idea you have, if you won't adequately promote it and defend it and sell it to the American people, it will not become law. If Democrats believe in their cause, then they need to fight for it. Because if nothing gets done this year legislatively, it is all but certain the balance in Congress is going to be a lot worse for them this time next year.

But enough of that for now, let's hand out the awards before we really go on the offense here.

 

While there were minorly impressive things happening in Washington from Democrats all week long, one action stood out strongest. But before we get to the actual Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, though, we have to single out Senator Al Franken for an Honorable Mention this week, for taking on both the proposed merger between Comcast and NBC/Universal, and also for taking on David Axelrod on the subject of White House floundering (instead of leadership).

But the clear winner this week of the coveted MIDOTW award is Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for holding the first hearing on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy of excluding gay people from serving openly in the U.S. military. The first hearing, it should be pointed out, since President Clinton signed DADT into law.

Levin was reportedly going to hold his hearing a week or so ago, but politely pushed the date back after the White House let him know that President Obama planned on supporting the repeal of the DADT policy in his State Of The Union speech. But one week isn't much, when gay rights activists have been waiting over a decade and a half even to be heard on Capitol Hill.

What was stunning about Tuesday's hearing was the fact that the two top-ranking military people in the country (just under President Obama himself) were the ones to testify in favor of overturning the DADT policy. In the parlance of Republicans, the "generals on the ground" have now spoken. Which, incidentally, puts the Republicans in an awfully awkward place.

But for even daring to hold the hearing in the first place, Senator Levin showed some real leadership on the issue. It is in no way guaranteed that DADT will be repealed this year, but as Chairman Levin put it (correcting Joe Lieberman's assertation that it would take 60 votes to accomplish): "[If overturning DADT is introduced as] a provision inside the Defense authorization bill; that goes to the floor, which would then require an amendment to strike it from the bill; in which case the 60-vote rule would be turning the other way."

Got that? Because of budgetary rules, it requires 60 votes to remove overturning DADT from a military appropriations bill. It's confusing, I know, but what it means is that 41 Democrats in the Senate could get this done.

For explicitly pointing this out, for holding the hearing in the first place, and for inviting Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (originally a Republican appointee) and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the hearing, Carl Levin is without a shadow of a doubt the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate Senator Carl Levin on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

While today's theme is "go on the offense," we have to point out one instance of just plain "being offensive." Due to the quote involved, an offensive term will be used, so we advise anyone easily offended by language to just skip this section entirely.

Rahm Emanuel had a "retarded" week last week. That word is in "scare quotes" because it is a nasty slur, and because it is the core quote in the controversy which broke last week around Rahm. All of this actually happened months ago, during last summer's debates about which direction to go on healthcare reform, I should mention, but the news itself broke last week, forcing Rahm to go into apology mode. Partly.

Last summer, during the heat of the debate (on the Left) over which direction healthcare reform should be heading, Rahm was present at a meeting at the White House, where he told some Lefty types they were (in Rahm's words) "fucking retarded" for running ads attempting to pressure elected Democrats into supporting the strongest possible option for reforming the health industry in this country. In Rahm's view, one supposes, the Left should have just trusted Rahmbo that he had their best interests at heart and would produce the best bill possible. Of course, that turned out to be so far from the truth as to be laughable (see: Senate bill, where Rahm leaned on Harry Reid to give Joe Lieberman everything he asked for).

Rahm, sensing he was becoming a distraction this past week from a newly re-energized Obama, immediately apologized to all the developmentally-challenged and "anti-R-word" folks he could find (on short notice). Sarah Palin demanded he resign or be fired. Rush Limbaugh defended Rahm, since (according to Rush), the Lefties are "retarded," and it is simpering political correctness not to say so in plain terms (which he then did).

But you know who was missing from Rahm's apology list? The Lefties he had originally insulted.

In other words, Rahm apologized for using a slur, and for demeaning developmentally-challenged people by associating them with Lefties. Got that? In essence, he's saying that the Lefties are not just developmentally-challenged, but actually less worthy of consideration than such challenged folks.

In other words, he not only failed to apologize to the Lefties, he actually compounded the original insult, by his silence.

All action on DADT this week aside, this is a message the White House simply has not received yet. Rahm feels free to insult, disparage, ignore, and fight the Left (a goodly portion of the Democratic base), and no matter how over-the-top Rahm's comments get, he sees no reason to change his behavior, much less apologize.

Here is my message to the White House in response, and in no uncertain terms. Democrats didn't show up in Massachusetts and Virginia and New Jersey for a reason. They are not enthusiastic about voting this year in general. This is why. When you treat the things the voters actually care deeply about like dirt, and bargain them away in cavalier fashion, then Democrats stay home on election day. And when you don't even realizing how insulting you are being towards a big constituency that helped get you elected -- much less feel like apologizing for it -- then that sound you just heard was your chances in the midterm elections being flushed down the toilet. And spinning in the bowl as well is your chance of getting your legislative agenda passed, both swirling down into the watery vortex.

So, for conveniently forgetting to apologize to the people you directly offended by your speech in the first place, Rahm Emanuel wins this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

Please, Mr. Emanuel, please, please... don't you feel it's time to "spend more time with your family," for all our sakes? You were sold to us as "Rahmbo" -- the guy who would muscle Obama's ambitious agenda through Congress. Instead, you are the first one to wave a white flag in any negotiations, and the first one to throw what Democratic voters actually want into the trash. Wouldn't it be so nice to spend a whole bunch of time with your family right about now? Please?

[Contact the White House on their contact page, to let his boss know what you think of Rahm Emanuel's actions.]

 

Volume 110 (2/5/10)

Republicans are currently throwing down so many gauntlets, it is hard to even keep up with them. Democrats need to pick one of these up and smack them across the face with the mailed glove, instead of "running for the hills."

Here are a few examples of this, offered up as ways Democrats can get back on offense instead of continually being defensive about who they are, what they stand for, and what they will fight for.

The science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein had a phrase he used in his writings to explain how to deal with a bully: "you step on his toes until he is forced to apologize." This is exactly the tactic to take right now.

So here are my seven items this week for getting Democrats back on the offense. For Pete's sake, there are gauntlets lying around everywhere -- just pick one up and start flailing away!

 

   The gift of Shelby

Exhibit A: Senator Richard Shelby (R-Earmarks).

Shelby gave an early Valentine's Day gift to Democrats today, when it was revealed he was holding every single Obama nominee hostage, so that he could score a lucrative earmark for his state. By using what is known as a "hold" on all 70 nominations (which a single senator has the power to do), Shelby is in essence holding a tantrum and demanding more money for his state.

This is tailor-made for the exact political environment we find ourselves in -- if Democrats would only point it out.

"Senator Shelby is a prime example of what voters hate about Washington. Shelby is holding up every single one of President Obama's nominations to key positions in our government, simply because Senator Shelby wants a billion or so more dollars for his state. This is what Republicans call fiscal responsibility? Where is John McCain on this issue, when he should be denouncing such obstructionism in naked pursuit of earmarks? This is what the American people hate about the way our government works -- the way one Republican can throw a tantrum and hold everything up until they get more pork for themselves. This is a big reason our budget process is so broken, and I call on all responsible Republicans to denounce such tactics with me."

 

   The gift of Tancredo

Exhibit B: Tom Tancredo (R-Out of office, thanks be).

The Tea Party Convention got off to a rousing start today. It opened with Tom Tancredo (who tried unsuccessfully to win an election on anti-immigrant rhetoric) calling for (are you sitting down?) a return to literacy testing for voters. There are likely other parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 that he's not a big fan of either, but this one's bad enough.

This one would work ideally for a Democrat being interviewed sitting at a table with a prominent Republican, obviously.

"I notice that Tom Tancredo called for moving America back to the days of segregation in calling for literacy tests for voters. Perhaps he is unaware of the history of such tests. Or perhaps he knows exactly what he's calling for. While all Democrats rightly denounce Tancredo's comments for the backwards thinking they exhibit, I'm still waiting to hear what prominent Republicans have to say about his words. [Turn to Republican] What are your thoughts on literacy tests for voters? Do you support Tom Tancredo, a member of your own party, in his call to return America to the pre-Civil-Rights era? Or would you like to also denounce his remarks?"

 

   Generals on the ground

This one is also in the category of "corners Republicans paint themselves into."

For years now, Republicans have been repeating some version of: "listen to the generals on the ground" as holy writ, in just about all circumstances. Now that the generals have spoken on DADT, there is an absolute gold mine of quotes from Republicans over the past few years to use as fodder for debate.

Because many Republicans used it as a dodge, when asked about DADT. John McCain was the most prominent, but there are many others who said, in some version or another, "When the Pentagon comes to us and tells us we should change DADT, then we will support them." They all said this, because they were absolutely confident that it would never happen.

Now, unfortunately for them, it has happened. Once again, Democrats need to point this out clearly.

"When you thought it would never happen, you said that the Pentagon should guide the policy on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and that if the military leaders ever came to Congress and called for a repeal of the policy, then you could support it. Now this has happened. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense both called upon Congress to repeal the policy, and allow them to transition our military beyond it. So were you lying earlier when you said you would support the generals, or did you just never expect to be called on your words, because you never expected it to happen?"

 

   Judicial activism

Yet another "hoist on their own petard" item to toss in Republican faces.

"We just saw the most naked display of 'judicial activism' in a long time from the Supreme Court, in their decision which puts corporations on the same standing as American voters in our political process. This was not following some long-established precedent, this was overturning a long-established precedent -- something Republicans usually call 'judicial activism.' This was 'overturning the will of Congress,' and 'legislating from the bench.' Republicans should just admit that they only call things 'judicial activism' when the decisions aren't what they agree with, and stop pretending it is some high moral ideological stance they believe in. Because you can't have it both ways -- you can either denounce the Roberts court for their judicial activism in the recent campaign finance case, or you can just admit that you've been playing politics with the term all along. When activist judges do things you agree with, then you are blind to the perils of such judicial activism, instead of denouncing them. It's pure politics."

 

   Put up or shut up on the deficit

With the Tea Party folks in the political ascendancy over on the Right, Republicans are falling all over themselves to denounce "spending." And to polish up their "deficit hawk" credentials.

Well, until they propose a budget of their own -- complete with numbers this time, guys -- then every time the deficit question is asked, Democrats should use some version of the following in response.

"Republicans have so many positions on the deficit it's hard to keep them straight. They want to cut spending. But they also presented themselves as champions of Medicare spending recently. They certainly don't want to cut military spending. They sneered at Obama's suggestion for a freeze on non-military discretionary spending. And we all know they're never going to agree to any tax increase. So, please, enlighten me as to how you are going to tackle the deficit. In detail, please. President Obama has put forth his budget. Democrats in Congress with produce their budget. We are still waiting for Republicans to put forth a budget -- at least, one with numbers. If there is all this excessive spending that only Republicans can magically get under control, then we would truly like to hear how they are going to do it. When Republicans come out with a budget, and when that budget goes through the neutral Congressional Budget Office and is scored numerically, then you can be taken seriously when you talk about all this wonderful deficit-cutting you are in favor of. But until that point -- until you put your cards on the table -- you are just blowing smoke. Put up or shut up, in other words. If your ideas are so wonderful, and will work so well, then you wouldn't be so afraid of sharing them with the American people."

 

   Make them pay for their votes

There is a reason Republicans have been so effective at using their Senate minority to halt passage of so many things. The reason is, they are not being forced to pay a political price for doing so. Time after time, Republicans are allowed to get away with purely political tactics, because the Democrats have such an inability to shine the spotlight on such shenanigans. While the Shelby situation is the easiest target right now for Democrats to strongly denounce, there are others. The problem is, Republicans have seen that Democrats just refuse to throw this stuff back in their face. And as long as Democrats continue to let these opportunities pass them by, then Republicans will continue to get even bolder in the tactics they use.

"President Obama has rightly denounced the Republicans in the Senate who co-sponsored a bill to form a bipartisan debt reduction commission, and then when it looked like it had a chance to actually pass, voted against it. This is what Democrats mean when we talk about obstructionism. Republicans think something's a good idea until Obama supports it, and then they do everything they can to destroy their own idea. The American people expect politicians not to be so nakedly dishonest. If something is a good idea when you co-sponsor the bill, then it is still a good idea when Democrats get on board -- or it should be, at any rate, if Republicans were not so hypocritical. Because their sole objective is seeing Obama fail, they will not even support their own ideas when the president embraces them. This is what the American people are so disgusted with when it comes to Congress, and I would hope Republicans would soon realize it."

 

   Voting to bankrupt the Pentagon

This one is from a little over a month ago, but it is the ultimate thing to end on in any discussion featuring any of the previous talking points.

"Republican obstructionism in Congress knows no shame. It really doesn't. A while back, we had to pass an emergency appropriations bill, or else the Pentagon would run out of money and their checks would have started bouncing. One day before this was set to happen -- one day before the Pentagon would have gone broke in the middle of two active wars -- the Republicans voted against funding our troops in the field, and what's worse, they did so for purely political reasons that had nothing to do with the Pentagon. With our troops bravely in the field, Republicans voted not on some appropriations bill that wouldn't have affected the Pentagon for months, but on an emergency bill that, if it had failed would have bankrupted the Pentagon one day later -- and they voted to put their party ahead of their country, and ahead of the troops, and ahead of the Pentagon. Now just imagine what the Republicans would say about Democrats if this position would be reversed. This is naked political obstructionism, and it deserves to be pointed out, and every Republican who voted against it needs to be asked why they would put their party in front of their country in such a fashion, because they really should be ashamed of themselves for doing so."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

I admit that "flat lines" sounds pretty bad, so allow me to clarify. In a hospital, when the beepy machine flatlines, you are dead. But in the world of polling, flat lines mean a zero slope -- neither changing for the worse or for the better. A more accurate way to say it might be "stuck in neutral" or "spinning your wheels," I guess. But the lines on the chart are what they are, and so we're stuck with a bad metaphor to open with this month, for which I apologize.

When taken as a whole, President Barack Obama's poll numbers last month moved the least amount of any month of his presidency so far. His approval rating continued its trend of moving downwards, but only by two-tenths of a percent. His disapproval rating continued upwards, but only by four-tenths of one percent. Meaning January was a pretty stable month for Obama.

February, by contrast, seems to be shaping up in a much more interesting fashion, but that will have to wait until next month, when the numbers come in. For now, though, we'll have to content ourselves with a look back at January in this month's Obama Poll Watch column.

After taking a look at Obama's numbers for the month, we continue our march backwards through history, this month serving up a comparison between Obama and Richard Nixon's term-and-a-half.

As always, at the ObamaPollWatch.com website, there are charts with up-to-date comparisons between Obama and all past presidents from Nixon forward. We're in the midst of a site redesign, so if you haven't seen it for a while, we urge you to check it out.

But enough shameless shilling of websites. Let's get right to the numbers and charts for January, to see where Obama now stands with the public.

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

 

January 2010

January was a fairly calm month for Obama, as the White House prepared all month long for the State Of The Union speech by running ideas up the flagpole to see who saluted. Health insurance reform negotiations between the House and Senate stalled, even though reportedly Obama himself devoted a lot of personal time and attention to the issue. But nothing came as a result of the high-stakes negotiation, unless you count losing Ted Kennedy's Senate seat to the Republicans in a special election in Massachusetts. This was a body blow to Democrats, and the first casualty was the health insurance reform debate, which immediately degenerated into (as Obama would put it later) Democrats "running for the hills."

Obama, to his credit, not only got the Massachusetts wake-up call, he actually woke up. And decided it was time for some changes. The first of which was a seeming embrace of populism, and a much tougher stance towards Wall Street banks. The second was a minor shakeup in advisers, with Paul Volcker coming in from the cold, as well as the return of David Plouffe. The third was the actual issuance of a few veto threats during his State Of The Union address. And the final change was that Obama appears to have completely discounted the advice "don't get too overexposed," and is now taking his message out to the electorate in a seriously aggressive way.

In other words, Obama had a pretty good end to the month, after the Massachusetts election shocked all Democrats in Washington. Other Democrats haven't been so quick to react, or even respond, but this column isn't really about them, so I'll save that criticism for another day.

In terms of poll numbers, Obama may finally have hit bottom in January. It's still too early to tell, but mid-month seemed to mark a turning point for the president. Whether this is a true bottom, or just a momentary plateau will be a lot clearer next month. In January, Obama's monthly average approval rate hit a new low once again, at 49.2 percent, but this was only down 0.2 points from the previous month (when it fell 1.7 percent, for comparison). And Obama's disapproval rate was at another all-time high at 45.3 percent, but again, this was only up 0.4 points from the previous month (when it rose by 1.4 percent).

 

Overall Trends

The overall trend this month is that there weren't really any trends, leading to almost-flat lines on the graph for both approval and disapproval. While the loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts was indeed an earthshaking event in the American political world (and will continue to have repercussions all year long), it wasn't really something that people connected to Obama all that much. And, after indicating that his big speech to Congress was going to slip until February, Obama decided (post-Massachusetts), to move it up a week, putting it back in January. Obama's speech gained him a mini-bump in the polls, but because it was so close to the end of the month, a few more weeks are required to see if this bump is anything more than a momentary blip. As I said before, next month is going to be much more interesting, as we see whether Obama's new political strategy pays off for him with the public or not.

In January, Obama's daily numbers bounced around a bit, even if the monthly number was pretty stable. His approval numbers hit an early high in the first week of the month, at 50.3 percent, then fell back sharply the following week to hit the month's low at 47.6 percent (also a new all-time low for Obama). For the rest of the month, Obama gained back some ground, lost it again, and then gained it back -- but would not see his numbers rise above 50.0 percent for the rest of the month. Obama's disapproval numbers moved around a bit as well, and hit an all-time high towards the end of the month, at 47.0 percent.

Gratuitous second plug of the website -- ObamaPollWatch.com now has convenient mini-charts from both RealClearPolitics.com and Pollster.com which show daily graphs, for those of you who want the day-to-day outlook in graphical form.

While Obama has been making lots of news in the past week or so with his new communications blitz, it remains to be seen whether any of what is admittedly brilliant politics will rub off on Congress, to the extent that they actually do something. In other (blunt) words, almost everyone (even his detractors) know by now that Obama talks a good line, but the "benefit of the doubt" train left the station a while back for many, and at this point a lot of folks are waiting to see if anything actually gets accomplished as a result -- a much higher bar to hit.

But February will be the test case for "the new Obama" in a lot of ways. And, since flat lines really note the absence of a trend rather than an actual trend, we'll just have to leave it there for this month, and wait and see what next month has to offer.

 

Obama v. Richard Nixon

As we get further and further removed from the present in our comparisons with past presidents' approval ratings, it gets harder and harder to truly draw any parallels, since times were a lot different in American politics so many decades ago.

But, very briefly, let's take a look at Obama versus Tricky Dick Nixon. Nixon, for all he's reviled today, actually had a pretty decent first term in the opinion polls.

[Click on graphs to see larger-scale versions.]

Nixon spent his first year mostly above 60 percent approval, his second year solidly in the 50-60 percent range, and only in his third year in office did he occupy the territory Obama finds himself in now -- scraping just below the magic 50 percent threshold. He then pulled out of this slump in his last year, during the re-election campaign, to finish up exactly where he began his first term, just shy of 60 percent. [Apologies for the discontinuity in the graph in 1973, there was a gap in the available Gallup numbers I use to create these graphs.]

Nixon's second term, what there was of it, tells a radically different story.

[Click on graphs to see larger-scale versions.]

Nixon peaked early, one month after his second term began, hitting 65 percent approval. But then the Watergate scandal destroyed his standing in the polls, as more and more information leaked out. Nixon hit a devastatingly low 24 percent approval, right before he resigned office -- poll territory no other president would see in his approval numbers, until the end of George W. Bush's second term, of course.

[Click on graphs to see larger-scale versions.]

Nixon's first term versus Obama shows pretty much the same approval trendline, but stretched out over three years for Nixon as opposed to a single year for Obama. Obama's disapproval numbers are much higher, though, than Nixon's entire first term. Nixon's disapproval numbers didn't hit the highs that Obama's hit until around one year before he actually resigned. Part of this is Nixon's fairly high rate of "undecided," but most of it is due to Nixon's overall good numbers on the approval line.

Next month, we'll take a brief look at how L.B.J. stacked up to Obama (so far) in the opinion polls. Until then, faithful poll-watchers, I bid you adieu....

 

[Obama Poll Watch Data:]

Column Archives

[Dec 09], [Nov 09], [Oct 09], [Sep 09], [Aug 09], [Jul 09], [Jun 09], [May 09], [Apr 09], [Mar 09]

 

Obama's All-Time Statistics

Monthly
Highest Monthly Approval -- 2/09 -- 63.4%
Lowest Monthly Approval -- 1/10 -- 49.2%

Highest Monthly Disapproval -- 1/10 -- 45.3%
Lowest Monthly Disapproval -- 1/09 -- 19.6%

Daily
Highest Daily Approval -- 2/15/09 -- 65.5%
Lowest Daily Approval -- 1/13/10 -- 47.6%

Highest Daily Disapproval -- 1/28/10 -- 47.0%
Lowest Daily Disapproval -- 1/29/09 -- 19.3%

 

Obama's Raw Monthly Data

[All-time high in bold, all-time low underlined.]

Month -- (Approval / Disapproval / Undecided)
1/10 -- 49.2 / 45.3 / 5.5
12/09 -- 49.4 / 44.9 / 5.7
11/09 -- 51.1 / 43.5 / 5.4
10/09 -- 52.2 / 41.9 / 5.9
09/09 -- 52.7 / 42.0 / 5.3
08/09 -- 52.8 / 40.8 / 6.4
07/09 -- 56.4 / 38.1 / 5.5
06/09 -- 59.8 / 33.6 / 6.6
05/09 -- 61.4 / 31.6 / 7.0
04/09 -- 61.0 / 30.8 / 8.2
03/09 -- 60.9 / 29.9 / 9.2
02/09 -- 63.4 / 24.4 / 12.2
01/09 -- 63.1 / 19.6 / 17.3

 

ObamaPollWatch site:

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

This doesn't (as a sop to the "overexposed" crowd) necessarily have to be a primetime event, either. It can be a little more informal than that, without the pomp of an evening press conference broadcast nationally on all channels. But it should be at least an hour long, and it should be held soon.

The last formal primetime press conference President Obama held was way back in July. Since that time, Obama has spoken directly to the press only (by my count, searching the White House website) six times -- four of which were joint press availabilities with foreign leaders, mostly on foreign soil. Obama met the press with the leaders of Canada, Japan, and South Korea on separate occasions in other countries. The most recent joint press availability was held in the White House a little over two months ago, with the Indian Prime Minister.

The other two times Obama spoke to the press were in Pittsburgh (at the G20 meeting), back in September, and then in December in Copenhagen. In Pittsburgh, Obama answered five questions during an event that took (including opening remarks) 26 minutes. In Copenhagen, Obama answered seven questions during an event that lasted 23 minutes -- again, including opening remarks. Meaning that since July of last year, Obama has spent less than an hour in front of the press, both times outside the White House.

This is a marked difference from the first half of Obama's first year in office. And it needs to change quickly if Obama truly has a chance of setting the agenda for the upcoming year. Besides, what better way to follow up Friday's appearance before the Republican meeting than by taking on all press inquiries? It would boost Obama's leadership credentials at a time when they sorely need a boost with the public, according to opinion polls.

I would even dare to suggest that Obama give such a press conference, and show he really is interested in "going over the heads of the press to The People" (as Ronald Reagan was famous for doing), by refusing to call on any major network's reporters -- and, instead, give a press conference where the only questions he takes are from smaller press outlets, local press, and bloggers from the Left and Right. [Full Disclosure: I do not have a White House press pass, and therefore am not trying to boost my own chances of asking President Obama a question by suggesting this.]

Actually, if he really wanted to make a splash, Obama could take precisely one question from a "mainstream media" reporter -- from Fox News. After all, what could Fox News throw at him that the Republicans didn't already try last Friday? This would send waves through the big media types (consumed with their own sense of self-importance as they are), and would allow Fox to brag endlessly about their "coup" in the press conference.

But even discarding my fantasy of seeing everyone in the back row called upon, to the chagrin of those in the front row being shut out, it is still nigh on time for Obama to talk to the press a little more regularly than he has done since last summer.

Because press conferences are a big part of the "transparency" which Obama so frequently professes. It's not just about government websites, and releasing facts and figures more often -- it's also about the American people's access to the president through the organ of the free press. OK, that's a little idealistic, I fully admit, but even with the ink-stained wretches we've currently got to work with in the White House press corps, it is still time for Obama to allow the Fourth Estate to confront him.

Obama should, in fact, announce that he will return to a regular schedule of holding press conferences (whether formal or informal -- morning, afternoon, or primetime) at least once a month.

Because while "the narrative" in the media spun wildly out of the White House's (and the Democrats') control in the past six months or so, you can't just blame Republicans or the media for this. Blame also rests with Democrats -- and most importantly, Obama -- for allowing their message to be all but squelched in such a fashion.

Because if you refuse to talk to the press regularly, then you simply don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about what the press is saying about you.

So here's hoping that whatever advisors Obama seems to be currently listening to (who are telling him: "Get out and talk to people!") are truly in the ascendancy in the White House. Here's hoping this is not just a minor political tactic rolled out for the week surrounding Obama's big yearly speech to Congress, but in fact a whole new political strategy from the White House. And the best way to prove that, at this point, is to call a press conference in the next few days. Or even "the next week or two." But not -- as in the recent past -- "twenty minutes or so, every three months."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

Phone problems? No, we're not having any phone problems, sorry. Tests? Well, OK, I guess you can run a test or two.

Sorry, where was I? Oh, right, today's column. Well, I have to say Obama's first State Of The Union address to a joint session of... what's that?

The punchdown block? You want to examine my phone system's main control box? But the phones are working perfectly... hey, wait a minute... can I see some identification?

Boy, that got rid of them quick!

Ahem. Where was I? Oh, right, last week. Last week, when conservative "journalists" weren't pulling fratboy pranks on federal property (and getting arrested for such -- here's a tip to conservative "gotcha journalism" types: if you're going to do something this risky, might I suggest not doing it in a federal building where the F.B.I. probably has an office on the next floor? I mean, you're making it too easy, guys, really.)

Heh.

All kidding aside, this was a big week for Obama, and a not-so-big week for Democrats in Congress. Obama followed up Wednesday night's speech with a town hall meeting in Florida, and then a truly stunning performance today, managing to "bell the cat" in the Republican lions' den. More on that in the Talking Points section, though.

Next week, of course, the Tea Party folks are going to be center stage with their convention, which is all but disintegrating before their very eyes. After Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn decided the speaking fee wasn't worth it, the big-ticket headline speaker, Sarah Palin said she would indeed still be attending (and raking in a $100,000-plus fee for doing so). The audience to hear her speak may be a bit thin, though, because this week Mother Jones reported that the tickets weren't selling quite like hotcakes for Sarah's speech, and that in fact many folks are actually demanding refunds. Perhaps they could give the tickets out for free on the sidewalk outside -- an old political trick to assure that Palin won't be speaking to a room full of empty seats. Meanwhile, other Tea Party factions are vowing to either show up and protest the convention, or hold a convention of their own across town.

In other words, stay tuned, next week should be interesting.

But we've got to get on with this week, because we've got a lot to get to, especially in the longer-than-usual Talking Points section at the end.

But before we do, we must mention first that this week was a sad one for New England trivia buffs. Mount Washington, the highest point in New Hampshire, lost its decades-long perch atop the wind speed record list. Since 1934, Mount Washington has been proud that it held the world record for recorded surface wind speed, at a brisk 231 miles per hour (no, that's not a typo). But the World Meteorological Organization just announced that -- 14 years after the fact -- a new record was achieved in 1996 during Typhoon Olivia, at an unmanned weather station on Barrow Island, Australia. The new record blows away the old record (I just couldn't resist that one), clocking in at a screaming 253 miles per hour.

I've been to the top of Mount Washington several times. I highly recommend taking the cog railway up to the top, as it is the coolest tourist thing to do in the entire state of New Hampshire. From the official Mount Washington observatory web page, before we get back to writing about politics:

Mount Washington's 231 mph wind gust remains the fastest surface wind ever observed in the Western and Northern Hemispheres and the fastest wind ever observed at a manned surface station. Mount Washington's bitter cold, freezing fog, heavy snow and legendary wind have contributed to its reputation as being one of the planet's most extreme places, the "Home of the World's Worst Weather".

 

Once again, this was an easy call this week. Pretty much any week that has a State Of The Union address is going to belong to the president, no matter what else is going on, unless he royally screws the speech up.

President Barack Obama did not. He delivered a speech that was an interesting mix of ideas, with something in the mix for just about everybody. While this didn't cause much of anybody to change their Washington ways overnight, it did set out a certain tone for the rest of the year's agenda from the White House.

Obama appeared a little more emotional than he has been of late, and he appeared to recognize the horrendous job Democrats (himself definitely included) have been doing of selling their ideas. He also recognized the knee-jerk Democratic response to pretty much anything Republicans have to say about them -- which is to either cower in a corner, or (as the president put it) "run for the hills."

Of course, the follow-through on his speech will be vitally important, to see if it truly will change anything. The ball is in Congress' court right now, and so far, congressional Democrats have been, well... um... cowering in a corner as if that ball is a live hand grenade. Sigh. More on that in the next section.

An early test of the president's political acumen will arise within days, or weeks at the most, as the Pentagon is set to deliver a plan on how to get rid of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy of not allowing gay people to openly serve in the military.

This is an interesting case, politically, for a few reasons. When Bill Clinton tried to allow gays to serve in the military, it was a political disaster for him which resulted in him signing the very DADT policy that Obama is now going to attempt to do away.

But it's 2010, not 1993. And American attitudes have changed dramatically on the issue in the meantime. Republicans, however, have not noticed this change yet. They are going to smugly try to block this move, confident that it'll play well with the voters. But again, this is 2010. So we'll see if that turns out to be such a smart strategy for them.

For Obama, this may play very well indeed. He can honestly tell gay rights supporters: "See, when I said I'd get to it, I meant it." And he can make a very strong case that waiting a year was the right thing to do -- because it allowed the Pentagon to (reluctantly) get on board. By telling the generals to prepare their own plan for getting rid of it, Obama has gained some buy-in from the military, as opposed to the pushback that would have resulted in their being told what to do, instead of asked how they could do it. And that may actually give the plan more chance of success, politically.

There's no guarantee it will be successful, I hasten to point out, but my read of the political situation is that taking it slowly may have increased the chances for success. And if it does succeed, it will go a long way toward Obama mending bridges with both gay rights supporters and the far Left. We'll see how it all turns out, but right now the outlook for success is better than it ever has been in the past, so I remain hopeful.

But for Obama's speech in general, and for his appearance today at the Republican enclave (again, more on that in the Talking Points), President Obama has walked away with this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate President Obama on the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

While the MIDOTW award was easy to pick this week, the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award was not. Because there were simply too many candidates -- pretty much the entire Democratic caucus in both houses of Congress.

Because that is far too many statuettes to hand out (we're on a budget here), I'm going to symbolically hand out two awards to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Democratic leadership (if that isn't an inherent oxymoron) in Congress was all but non-existent this week, as it was last week. What is going on with healthcare reform? Who knows?

It became painfully obvious that there simply was no "Plan B" after the Massachusetts special election. The Democratic disarray and dissembling was epic last week.

Representative Alan Grayson summed it up best, in a line that normally would have qualified him for MIDOTW, by stating that Americans were going to have a choice this fall between insane Republican ideas, and complete Democratic incoherence. Grayson put it as: "We can't let people around this country think that the only choices between the political parties are the crazies and the lazies." Other Democrats, sadly, have not heeded this message yet.

Now, some might quibble with the term "lazies" (even though it does make for a memorable rhyme), since it is true that running around in circles screaming "The sky is falling!" actually takes a lot of energy.

But it doesn't get you anywhere, in the end.

So, while Pelosi and Reid will have their names engraved on the MDDOTW awards this week, they are really given to pretty much the entire Democratic leadership on the Hill, for wasting yet another two weeks, and acting like there's plenty of time to pass legislation. To which I respond: how did that work out for you guys last year? The clock is ticking, folks. Get it together. Time is running out.

[Contact Speaker Nancy Pelosi on her Speaker contact page, and Majority Leader Harry Reid on his Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their (in-)actions.]

 

Volume 109 (1/29/10)

President Obama gave an extraordinary speech today, and then followed it up with an extraordinary question-and-answer session, as well. The "extraordinary" part was the audience he gave this speech to -- the House Republican annual strategy conclave. I can't say with 100 percent accuracy that no sitting president has ever done this before, but I can say that I certainly can't remember it ever happening in my lifetime. This is Daniel going into the lions' den, folks.

Even more extraordinary, while Obama spent his opening remarks offering yet another hand across the aisle to Republicans in a call for at least a tiny bit of bipartisan support, he followed it up during the question period by strongly defending both his record and his goals. The entire session was so out-of-the-ordinary that it deserves a lot more attention than the national media will likely give it.

Because the president actually made the Democratic case on a number of issues. This really shouldn't be extraordinary, but sadly, it is. Because Democrats simply aren't very good at doing so. Bill Clinton was really the last one who could do so consistently, in detail, and in such reasonable tones and language that it convinced the larger audience of the American public as well that his was a position that was principled and well-thought-out.

Today's Friday Talking Points run rather long, but in this case I actually would highly encourage everyone to read the full transcript of Obama's remarks to the Republicans, because it is well worth your time. In fact, we're going to turn over all our talking points to quotes from Obama's question-and-answer session, because other Democrats need some schooling on how to effectively do this stuff right.

Democrats have a chance to do better than people expect in this year's elections. To do so, they have to (1.) deliver on passing intelligent legislation, and (2.) drive home the message that the only thing Republicans are interested in is saying "no" to everything -- even to ideas Republicans came up with.

Because Republicans, right now, are convinced that (as the wife of one of their holy men used to say) "Just Say No!" is a winning election strategy for them.

The only way to counter this is to introduce some doubts. And the only way to do that is to make America see that they're going too far in their obstructionism. Democrats should remember the lesson of Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton's budget battle which shut down the federal government. Newt thought he won that battle, because on the face of it, he did. But in the court of public opinion, Newt lost badly and Clinton gained politically by the whole fracas.

So, Democratic office-holders, reflect on the Gingrich government shutdown -- and the political lessons to be learned from it -- while reading how the president framed some issues today.

 

   Facts on the economy and deficit

The first answer Obama gave showed two themes he would return to in subsequent answers: facts are facts, and the numbers have to add up. In the first section, Obama addresses Republican complaints about the stimulus package (the Recovery Act), and in the second takes on the idea that "across-the-board" tax cuts can solve every problem, every time.

We had lost 650,000 jobs in December. I'm assuming you're not faulting my policies for that. We had lost, it turns out, 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in. I'm assuming it wasn't my administration's policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs the subsequent month, before any of my policies had gone into effect. So I'm assuming that wasn't as a consequence of our policies; that doesn't reflect the failure of the Recovery Act. The point being that what ended up happening was that the job losses from this recession proved to be much more severe -- in the first quarter of last year going into the second quarter of last year -- than anybody anticipated.

So I mean, I think we can score political points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated how severe the job losses were going to be. But those job losses took place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken into effect. Now, that's just the fact, Mike, and I don't think anybody would dispute that. You could not find an economist who would dispute that.

Now, at the same time, as I mentioned, most economists -- Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative -- would say that had it not been for the stimulus package that we passed, things would be much worse. Now, they didn't fill a 7 million hole in the number of people who were unemployed. They probably account for about 2 million, which means we still have 5 million folks in there that we've still got to deal with. That's a lot of people.

The package that we put together at the beginning of the year, the truth is, should have reflected -- and I believe reflected what most of you would say are common sense things. This notion that this was a radical package is just not true. A third of them were tax cuts, and they weren't -- when you say they were "boutique" tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts, small businesses got tax cuts, large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules. I mean, it was a pretty conventional list of tax cuts. A third of it was stabilizing state budgets.

There is not a single person in here who, had it not been for what was in the stimulus package, wouldn't be going home to more teachers laid off, more firefighters laid off, more cops laid off. A big chunk of it was unemployment insurance and COBRA, just making sure that people had some floor beneath them, and, by the way, making sure that there was enough money in their pockets that businesses had some customers.

You take those two things out, that accounts for the majority of the stimulus package. Are there people in this room who think that was a bad idea? A portion of it was dealing with the AMT, the alternative minimum tax -- not a proposal of mine; that's not a consequence of my policies that we have a tax system where we keep on putting off a potential tax hike that is embedded in the budget that we have to fix each year. That cost about $70 billion.

And then the last portion of it was infrastructure which, as I said, a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon-cuttings for the same projects that you voted against.

Now, I say all this not to re-litigate the past, but it's simply to state that the component parts of the Recovery Act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do -- rebuilding our infrastructure, tax cuts for families and businesses, and making sure that we were providing states and individuals some support when the roof was caving in.

And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me you could do this cheaper and get increased results that I wouldn't say, great. The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.

. . .

Here's what I'm going to do, Mike. What I'm going to do is I'm going to take a look at what you guys are proposing. And the reason I say this, before you say, "Okay," I think is important to know -- what you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffet. You may be calling for an across-the-board tax cut for the banking industry right now. I may not agree to that.

So I think that we've got to look at what specific proposals you're putting forward, and -- this is the last point I'll make -- if you're calling for just across-the-board tax cuts, and then on the other hand saying that we're somehow going to balance our budget, I'm going to want to take a look at your math and see how that works, because the issue of deficit and debt is another area where there has been a tendency for some inconsistent statements. How's that? All right?

 

   America is falling behind

I wrote about this yesterday, in my thoughts on Obama's State Of The Union. Obama is totally reframing the "clean energy" debate in a masterful way -- it's not about arguing about global warming, it's about America leading the world. If we don't lead, we are destined to follow. Are you going to be the one deny America the chance to be Number One in the future?

The one thing that I've also said, though, and here we have a serious disagreement and my hope is we can work through these disagreements -- there's going to be an effort on the Senate side to do so on a bipartisan basis -- is that we have to plan for the future.

And the future is that clean energy -- cleaner forms of energy are going to be increasingly important, because even if folks are still skeptical in some cases about climate change in our politics and in Congress, the world is not skeptical about it. If we're going to be after some of these big markets, they're going to be looking to see, is the United States the one that's developing clean coal technology? Is the United States developing our natural gas resources in the most effective way? Is the United States the one that is going to lead in electric cars? Because if we're not leading, those other countries are going to be leading.

So what I want to do is work with West Virginia to figure out how we can seize that future. But to do that, that means there's going to have to be some transition. We can't operate the coal industry in the United States as if we're still in the 1920s or the 1930s or the 1950s. We've got to be thinking what does that industry look like in the next hundred years. And it's going to be different. And that means there's going to be some transition. And that's where I think a well-thought-through policy of incentivizing the new while recognizing that there's going to be a transition process -- and we're not just suddenly putting the old out of business right away -- that has to be something that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to embrace.

 

   Republicans are the ones with radical rhetoric

It's a very weird day in America when Republicans applaud the phrase "Bolshevik plot," I have to say. This is in line with the whole "remember Newt Gingrich" theme -- warn Republicans that they are the ones painting themselves into a corner that may be seen by voters as radical. [Obama is responding to the healthcare reform issue here, for context.]

But if you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. No, I mean, that's how you guys -- (applause) -- that's how you guys presented it.

And so I'm thinking to myself, well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist -- no, look, I mean, I'm just saying, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans -- is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

So all I'm saying is, we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.

 

   Where are your numbers?

The Republicans are all set to make lots of political hay over the fact that they "have ideas" but that they "are ignored" by Democrats. The Democrats need to counter this with the fact that Republicans never offer up actual numbers with any of their plans, or submit them to the Congressional Budget Office (C.B.O.) for independent analysis. "If wishes were horses, all men would ride," in other words. If it cannot be scored in numbers, it is opinion, and not a serious proposal. Drive this point home.

...let's just take the health care debate. And it's probably not constructive for us to try to debate a particular bill -- this isn't the venue to do it. But if you say, "We can offer coverage for all Americans, and it won't cost a penny," that's just not true. You can't structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage, and it costs nothing.

. . .

[After being interrupted] Let me -- I'm using this as a specific example, so let me answer your question. You asked a question; I want to answer it.

It's not enough if you say, for example, that we've offered a health care plan and I look up -- this is just under the section that you've just provided me, or the book that you just provided me -- summary of GOP health care reform bill: The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing America's number-one priority for health reform. I mean, that's an idea that we all embrace. But specifically it's got to work. I mean, there's got to be a mechanism in these plans that I can go to an independent health care expert and say, is this something that will actually work, or is it boilerplate?

If I'm told, for example, that the solution to dealing with health care costs is tort reform, something that I've said I am willing to work with you on, but the CBO or other experts say to me, at best, this could reduce health care costs relative to where they're growing by a couple of percentage points, or save $5 billion a year, that's what we can score it at, and it will not bend the cost curve long term or reduce premiums significantly -- then you can't make the claim that that's the only thing that we have to do. If we're going to do multi-state insurance so that people can go across state lines, I've got to be able to go to an independent health care expert, Republican or Democrat, who can tell me that this won't result in cherry-picking of the healthiest going to some and the least healthy being worse off.

 

   You aren't driving the bus

Republicans (and the media) need to be told in no uncertain terms that "bipartisanship" does not mean that Republicans get 100 percent of everything, all the time. The media loves to buy into this framing, and it has to be forcefully countered.

You know, Mike, I've read your legislation. I mean, I take a look at this stuff -- and the good ideas we take. But here's -- here's the thing -- here's the thing that I guess all of us have to be mindful of, it can't be all or nothing, one way or the other. And what I mean by that is this: If we put together a stimulus package in which a third of it are tax cuts that normally you guys would support, and support for states and the unemployed, and helping people stay on COBRA that your governors certainly would support -- Democrat or a Republican; and then you've got some infrastructure, and maybe there's some things in there that you don't like in terms of infrastructure, or you think the bill should have been $500 billion instead of $700 billion or there's this provision or that provision that you don't like. If there's uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn't get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it's going to be hard to get a deal done. That's because that's not how democracy works.

 

   Facts are facts -- deal with it

Beat the drum of "you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts" as often as Republicans hand you the opportunity to do so.

...with all due respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.

Now, look, let's talk about the budget once again, because I'll go through it with you line by line. The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. -- $1.3 [trillion.] So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the -- a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by the Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true.

And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade -- had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000 when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for.

You had a prescription drug plan -- the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades -- that was passed without it being paid for. You had two wars that were done through supplementals. And then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession. That's $8 trillion.

Now, we increased it by a trillion dollars because of the spending that we had to make on the stimulus. I am happy to have any independent fact-checker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said.

 

   Dissing talking points?

Hey, wait a minute! I resemble that remark....

Now, I just want to point out -- and this brings me to the second problem -- when we made a very modest proposal as part of our package, our health care reform package, to eliminate the subsidies going to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage, we were attacked across the board, by many on your aisle, for slashing Medicare. You remember? We're going to start cutting benefits for seniors. That was the story that was perpetrated out there -- scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors.

No, no, but here's my point. If the main question is going to be what do we do about Medicare costs, any proposal that Paul makes will be painted, factually, from the perspective of those who disagree with it, as cutting benefits over the long term. Paul, I don't think you disagree with that, that there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that's probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul's plan.

And I raise that not because we shouldn't have a series discussion about it. I raise that because we're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterized, whatever proposals are put out there, as, well, you know, that's -- the other party is being irresponsible; the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens; that the other party is doing X, Y, Z.

That's why I say if we're going to frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them, then we can't start off by figuring out, A, who's to blame; B, how can we make the American people afraid of the other side. And unfortunately, that's how our politics works right now. And that's how a lot of our discussion works. That's how we start off -- every time somebody speaks in Congress, the first thing they do, they stand up and all the talking points -- I see Frank Luntz up here sitting in the front. He's already polled it, and he said, you know, the way you're really going to -- I've done a focus group and the way we're going to really box in Obama on this one or make Pelosi look bad on that one -- I know, I like Frank, we've had conversations between Frank and I. But that's how we operate. It's all tactics, and it's not solving problems.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

I first interviewed the Chairman of the Populist Caucus last year (Democratic Representative Bruce Braley, from Iowa) soon after their formation. He was graciously willing to talk to me today, and even suggested doing two interviews -- one before and one after the speech. So we will be presenting this article in two parts, which isn't exactly "liveblogging," but is about as close as you can get with someone who will actually be sitting in the room listening to President Obama speak tonight. I encourage everyone to check back here after the speech is over, to read Braley's immediate reactions to what Obama had to say.

The Populist Caucus was formed almost exactly a year ago, on February 12, and has since grown from 23 members to 30 (the last of whom just joined in the past few days). With Populism obviously being the new White House theme, it seems more than likely that this group will grow in the coming year, as more and more Congressmen realize that Populism may be the overarching theme not just of one presidential speech, but also of this November's midterm elections.

Modern Populism, in the spirit of its historical forerunners, is focused on getting legislation passed that benefits the American middle class -- the most important political demographic group in existence. Last year, when asked about the difference between the Populist Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, Braley had this to say:

There are a number of Progressive Caucus members who are Populists, but the Progressive Caucus tends to focus on a broad range of foreign and domestic policies. The Populist Caucus is the only caucus in Congress devoted solely to addressing middle class economic issues. We formed the caucus because the founding members felt like there wasn't enough focus on middle class issues in Washington, and we're going to keep it focused on middle class issues. I think that Blue Dogs, Progressives, and New Democrats can all find common ground on middle class issues, which is why we formed this caucus -- to bring people together and to expand and strengthen the middle class.

Which sounds very timely indeed, if the leaks about what Obama will include in his speech are to be given credence.

When I talked with Braley today, I intentionally (for the most part) kept the focus of the conversation on the speech itself, and what his hopes and expectations from the speech were. After the speech is over, we will talk with Braley once again, to get his reactions and response to Obama's speech. Once again, I invite everyone back here approximately an hour or so after the speech is over, to read Chairman Braley's reaction to it.

[If you're interested, more information on the Populist Caucus can be found at the Populist Caucus webpage, which Chairman Braley has created on his official House webpage.]

 

Populist Caucus Chairman Bruce Braley
Photo credit: Office of Rep. Bruce Braley

 

Before the speech

Congratulations on the Populist Caucus's upcoming first anniversary. I notice you've now got 30 members, up from your original 23. Do you expect to see more House Democrats joining the caucus this year, now that Populism is apparently going to be a big part of President Obama's agenda for the upcoming legislative year?

We started the Populist Caucus for the sole purpose of strengthening America's middle class families. As the Congress' legislative agenda begins to focus more closely on the priorities that matter to Main Street Americans -- the right to a decent education, a good paying job, access to quality and affordable healthcare, fair trade policies, and consumer protection from powerful corporations--I think more of my colleagues will understand the value of these core Populist principles. We certainly hope and expect that as more members learn about our cause and develop an interest in crafting meaningful legislation that will strengthen our middle class families, the Populist Caucus will welcome them with open arms and continue to grow.

 

If President Obama came to you and asked what your top two or three priorities were for new Populist legislation, what would you say to him?

The key to any successful recovery for America's middle class must focus on three priorities: Compensation, Speculation and Job Creation. In the Populist Caucus, we've put together four legislative initiatives that we believe are a "Blueprint to Recovery."

Compensation: We need to change the culture of limitless bonuses by passing the Wall Street Bonus Tax Act (H.R. 4426). The targeted tax would apply only to executives at banks that received Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding who took bonuses in excess of $50,000. The Wall Street Bonus Tax Act would generate billions of dollars of new revenue that would be directed exclusively to reward small businesses who are investing in new jobs.

Speculation: We need to stop excessive and risky speculation on Wall Street by passing the Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act (H.R. 4191). This legislation would reinstate a tiny transaction fee on speculative stock transactions by Wall Street traders, creating $150 billion annually in new revenue that would be dedicated to job creation and reducing the deficit.

Job Creation: We need to take the following two-pronged approach to creating good-paying jobs that can't be outsourced: We need to pass The National Infrastructure Development Bank Act (H.R. 2521), which would establish a wholly-owned government corporation to prioritize infrastructure improvement projects that would create good paying jobs. We also need to pass the Buy American Improvement Act (H.R. 4351) to eliminate loopholes in existing domestic sourcing laws and ensure that taxpayer money is used to purchase American-made products and support American jobs whenever possible.

These four pieces of legislation represent true populist policies that are about building America up... not tearing it down.

 

What do you expect to hear in President Obama's State of the Union speech tonight that will make the Populist Caucus happy?

I think the most important thing the President can do is let middle class families know that he understands their concerns and their frustrations. For too long, our economic agenda has focused on restoring Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. I think President Obama will serve himself well if he is able to effectively communicate a real desire to answer the passionate pleas of the millions of middle class Americans who rallied to elect him.

 

What would you really like to hear -- but don't expect to hear -- in the President's speech?

I would like to hear President Obama outline a clear agenda, like the Populist Caucus' Blueprint for Recovery, to create good-paying jobs that can't be outsourced for America's middle class families. A "jobless recovery" isn't a recovery for middle class families and the President and his Administration need to understand that.

I'd also like to hear the President make a firm commitment to getting out of Washington more frequently to meet with middle class Americans -- people who have lost their jobs, who can't afford their health care and who don't have Ivy League degrees -- so he can truly understand the challenges many families are facing.

 

The word "populism" was applied (for different reasons), during the 2008 campaign, to both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Do you see any common ground between what Populist Democrats advocate and the current "Tea Party" movement on the right, or are they so far apart that the gap is unbridgeable?

A lot of America's middle class families are justifiably concerned and upset about the direction of our country. Populism isn't about pitchforks and torches. It's about giving voice to the legitimate concerns of Americans who make America great. They watched their hard-earned tax dollars rescue the same Wall Street banks that created this financial crisis, all while waiting anxiously for the Recovery to come to THEIR street. Once we get the economy working again for America's working families, I believe that a lot of that anger and frustration will dissipate and we'll be able to find more common ground.

 

After the speech

What was your reaction to the President's speech tonight, Chairman Braley?

Tonight's speech by President Obama underscores what many of us in Congress have been saying all along: the key to a full recovery is to strengthen America's middle class by investing in small businesses, job growth, and infrastructure development while also finding ways to pay down our national deficit.

Tonight, President Obama outlined an agenda that gives middle class families many of the tools they need to recover, while also making oil companies, hedge fund managers and the richest one percent of Americans finally pay their fair share.

I was especially pleased to hear President Obama's ideas to spur job creation by investing in Iowa's small businesses and communities.

In the past year, we cut more than 25 taxes for middle class families and I applaud President Obama's for supporting the elimination of capital gains taxes for small businesses and a temporary payroll tax credit for businesses who hire unemployed workers.

America's families can no longer afford inaction. I hope that tonight's speech sends a clear signal to middle class Americans that we hear their concerns about the direction of our country and that we will show strong leadership on the issues they care about most.

Thank you for taking the time to share your response with us tonight.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

Allow me to explain, because I'm about to stake out a position here that may not make me many friends. The Tea Party movement is currently hard to define and hard to pin down on the issues, but last month there was an extraordinary Wall Street Journal / NBC News poll which showed the Tea Party was seen more favorably than either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Meaning that the sentiments driving the Tea Party movement are a lot broader than anyone in Washington may fully realize.

Excepting perhaps the national Republican Party, who is downright terrified of the Tea Partiers. But the Democrats should realize that, when the hotheaded rhetoric is stripped aside, there are some natural similarities between what Democrats (should) stand for, and what the Tea Party folks are upset about. Meaning it would be possible to co-opt some of their key issues in this year's election campaign, in the hopes of siphoning off some of them by election day.

The Tea Party movement is a loose collection of some very disparate causes, who have banded together politically for now, but who also risk being torn apart at any moment by disagreements between factions.

Anyone who laughs at this description really shouldn't -- because it could just as well be applied to the Democratic Party on any given day.

Dissecting the makeup of the Tea Partiers is hard to do, given their nascent status as an emerging political movement -- one that may well coalesce into an actual third political party, if its factions don't self-immolate and descend into fratricidal squabbling.

First, there are the screaming lunatics. These are the folks who get on television, and these are the target of ridicule and scorn from the mainstream media and the Left (here's a good example of such ridicule). These are the folks for whom someone should really invent posterboard with a built-in spell-checker. People who wave signs (even with correct spelling) saying ridiculous things like: "Government -- hands off my Medicare." Added to this mix are the haters. There are some Obama-haters in this group, some flat-out racists, and then there are outside haters who merely show up at Tea Party rallies because they know they'll get on television (the most prominent of whom are followers of Lyndon LaRouche, who actually calls himself a Democrat).

These are the most visible of the Tea Partiers, because, as I said, television loves them. But what many on the Left fail to realize is that these are not the entire movement. Sure, it's easy (and fun) to mock someone with an idiotic sign, but that ignores the non-idiotic folks standing next to them.

But while the Left loves to mock the loudmouths, the media's mockery is of a more knee-jerk quality: they mock any sort of third-party movement, on general principles.

Then there is the corporate/fake-grassroots slice of the Tea Partiers. These are the deep-pocket folks who pony up the seed money for the bus tours and rallies, and their corporate news outlets who follow along for the ride. But even these guys aren't really the core of the movement, and already there are signs of strain between the fake grassroots and the real grassroots in the movement. This may come to a head next month, during the "Tea Party Convention," since the event itself is causing a lot of mixed emotions (it may even wind up being two competing events).

This is an inherent danger to any newborn political movement -- factionalism. The Tea Party folks have not yet adequately defined what they stand for (they are much better defining what they are against, at least so far). But, if you look very closely (and strip away all of the idiocy from some of the rallies), the Tea Party movement resembles a faction of the Republican Party which has been all but forced out -- what used to be called "fiscal conservatives." Fiscal conservatives, as opposed to social conservatives, used to be quite common in the Republican Party. They usually (but not always) hailed from New England. And they really didn't care about making America a theocracy, or what folks did in their bedrooms. Add to these Northeasterners the Libertarian strain from the Mountain West, whose members also cared more about the government's bottom line than any hot-button social issue.

This may be why the Tea Party did so well in the poll I cited earlier. In "favorable/unfavorable" terms, here is how each party ranked: Republicans -- 28 percent favorable / 43 percent unfavorable; Democrats -- 35 / 45; Tea Party -- 41 / 24. That should make it clear why the Tea Partiers are nothing to laugh at. They rank six points above Democrats, and thirteen points above Republicans in favorability. On unfavorable numbers, they rank roughly half of the disapproval of the two major parties.

What this means, in blunt terms, is that there are a lot of people out there who have never attended an actual Tea Party rally, but are still sympathetic to the movement's goals. More sympathetic than they are to either major party.

Robert Reich recently wrote a piece that comes a lot closer to taking things more seriously than anything else I've read. He identifies not only the Tea Party movement, but also the Progressives angry at the performance of the Democrats, and lumps them together as the "I'm-Mad-As-Hell" Party.

Now, as I said, the Tea Party is a very recent phenomenon, meaning it is almost impossible to make sweeping statements about them, their goals, and their sympathizers. But I would bet there are quite a few of what used to be called "Reagan Democrats" in the group (today, they'd be more likely called "Independents"). Whatever you call it, it's a fact that moving this demographic can win national elections.

The danger for the Tea Party movement itself, even without their factionalist problems, is going to become clear during their convention. Because, at heart, it's basically a one-issue movement right now. But that doesn't mean other groups aren't eyeing it for possible hijacking. It will be interesting to see, for instance, whether the Tea Party takes any sort of stand on issues like abortion, gay rights, or gun rights. If they're smart, they won't, because they'll have a wider appeal by refusing to take positions on all the favorite Republican social issues. A little-commented-on fact from Massachusetts was that the winner of Ted Kennedy's Senate seat is actually a pro-choice Republican, for instance.

This is another truth that not many have seen yet: many of the Tea Partiers are as disgusted with the Republicans as they are with the Democrats. The Republican Party itself -- the national apparatus, and the politicians currently in office -- are quaking in fear at the power the Tea Party represents. They will be kowtowing to them all year long, in an effort to co-opt the entire movement, and absorb them into the Republican Party itself. But the Tea Partiers are actually countering this with their own low-level movement to take over all the Republican precinct spots -- meaning who co-opts who (and who winds up being absorbed by the other) is still a very open question.

This is where the Democrats should sense an opportunity. Not to co-opt the movement itself (which would likely be next-to-impossible), or to co-opt the loudest and angriest of the people in the movement (who are pretty clearly anti-Obama, on general principle). But rather to co-opt the core issues that sympathizers of the movement do care about.

President Obama is about to attempt something very like this. Because the Tea Party movement has more than a hint of Populism about it. And, traditionally, Populism has been against Big Business and Wall Street more than they've been against Big Government. To be fair, Populism has also been anti-immigrant as well, but until that issue is raised by Congress it will likely remain dormant in the Tea Partiers' priority list.

This is the opportunity, and this is why it could be a very beneficial thing for Obama and Democrats -- if the Democrats start tilting at the windmill of Wall Street, the Republicans are going to show their true colors as defenders of unfettered capitalism. Which, I'm guessing, would not go down all that well with the Tea Party's members.

Republicans will counter with "abolish all taxes forever" (or some flavor of this theme), and try to turn the anger towards Big Government and away from Big Business. But the real issue this time around is going to be jobs, and not taxes. That's my guess, anyway. And Big Banking is seen by many as the real culprit, meaning Republicans are going to be defending the banks if Democrats truly do try to pass some Populist legislation. Putting them at odds with the Tea Partiers' objectives.

Now, I'm not suggesting that all (or even a major part) of the Tea Party folks are going to vote Democratic this fall. I think the mood of the country right now is a lot closer to "anti-incumbent" than anything else, meaning there are a lot of folks in both parties who may be surprised by how deep this feeling goes come election day. I think the most accurate portrayal of what American voters are feeling right now is "throw the bums out!"

Democrats, though, do have an advantage -- they're supposed to be the party of "the little guy." If Democrats return to these roots (and quickly) and start fighting some battles for Main Street, it will pit such stances against a solid wall of Republican obstructionism. Which would clarify, to many, the differences between the two major parties. Anyone who thinks these differences don't need clarifying should read this truly sobering letter from an unnamed Democratic Senate staffer, which ends on a seriously dismal note:

I simply can't answer the fundamental question: "what do Democrats stand for?" Voters don't know, and we can't make the case, so they're reacting exactly as you'd expect (just as they did in 1994, 2000, and 2004). We either find the voice to answer that question and exercise the strongest majority and voter mandate we've had since Watergate, or we suffer a bloodbath in November. History shows we're likely to choose the latter.

It may wind up being a futile effort to try and coax some Tea Party sympathizers to vote Democratic this fall, but it would go a long way towards rededicating the Democratic Party to what they should have been doing all along: fighting for the little guy. Even with this, though, the anti-incumbent anger may win the day. On the other side of the aisle, the Republicans may successfully co-opt the whole Tea Party, or the Tea Party may successfully take over the whole Republican Party. We're still a long way from election day, meaning nothing is set in stone yet.

But one thing is for certain. Even the possibility of the Tea Partiers taking over a major American political party should show that they are stronger and more numerous than a lot of folks inside the Beltway now realize. So you'll forgive me if I don't join in the jokes and the ridicule directed towards the Tea Partiers by some. I will not be looking for ways to poke fun at them during their convention in a few weeks -- instead, I will be very interested to see what sort of "platform" they agree upon (if they do, that is).

It may be a lonely position to stake out now, but I'm willing to bet that in the very near future a lot of other folks will be taking the Tea Party movement a lot more seriously than they now do.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

That's right. This column was moved to 12:05 in the morning, and Jay Leno announced he'd be taking over the normal Friday Talking Points column.

Heh. No, seriously, there was this election up in Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are "persons" with full First Amendment rights, and then Barack Obama pivoted hard -- to Populism, of all things. Which led me to offer up a rare Thursday column, where I tried to encourage the "Let Obama be Obama" moment that had apparently just happened.

So, for those HuffPosters who feel it's been too much, well, my apologies.

But it is Friday, and Fridays are what we enjoy most around here, since it's time for the weekly wrapup/smackdown known as the Friday Talking Points.

Here's a bit of news you may have missed: Democrats still control the Senate. Really! This seems to have escaped a lot of people, leading the Village Voice to run the hilarious tongue-in-cheek blog headline: "Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate."

Although portrayed as Doomsday by both the media and by Democrats themselves, everyone seems to have forgotten that Democrats only held the 60 votes (really, "59 plus Lieberman") for a period of a few months. Most of last year, they only (even counting Lieberman as a "Democratic" vote) had 58 or 59 votes, and they still managed to get a few things done.

But if it scared the living daylights out of Capitol Hill Democrats, then I guess there is a silver lining to the whole Massachusetts fiasco. And it fits right in with the White House's plans to "pivot" (more on this pivoting, in a bit) after health care reform was done... or, maybe, during the State Of The Union speech next week.

Those two used to mean pretty much the same thing, but health care reform now looks like an even bigger trainwreck than the Massachusetts election. The only thing certain at this point is that it ain't going to happen before the State Of The Union speech.

But since Democrats are taking some time to figure out what to do next, we shall do the same here, and skip over the entire health care reform subject, after highlighting (in the "if I doesn't laugh, I'm sure gonna cry" spirit) two hilarious commentaries on the situation. The first comes from Tom Toles, Pulitzer-Prize-winning cartoonist at the Washington Post (Oh, let's go for the field goal, whaddya say?). And the second I noticed on Salon, in the "War Room" column, an ad for "Balls Beer" that is just as funny.

 

While the Awards Committee here at FTP had some reservations about this one, we're going to remain optimistic and positive, and go ahead and award President Barack Obama this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

Obama didn't start the week strong, of course, since his last-minute campaign blitz into Massachusetts last weekend didn't really accomplish much. A backdrop to the early part of the week that helped Obama nationwide, however, was his handling of the Haiti earthquake situation, which seems to have done him a bit of good in general. But this, and his celebration of Martin Luther King Day were overshadowed by the Massachusetts Senate loss.

Luckily, Obama was ready. There's a reason for this, and the reason is that about a month (or so) ago, the White House reportedly woke up to the fact that the Obama administration was generally seen by the public as sucking up to Wall Street, while simultaneously ignoring Main Street.

This both astonished and dismayed Obama's advisors, from all reports.

But, to their credit, they started working on the problem. And, for the past month, the White House leak brigade has been continuously squeaking about how Obama was going to perform a massive "pivot" -- after health care reform was signed -- to economic issues average Americans worried about, like jobs (for instance). And taking on the Big Banks on Wall Street.

So they had a lot of this stuff teed up and ready to drive down the fairway, right after health care reform was done. Problem was, health care reform is still not done, and now that the Senate's makeup is going to change, it just got a lot harder.

So Obama's team decided not to wait. They announced that the State Of The Union would take place in January (early leaks were that it was going to be pushed back to February), all but guaranteeing that the speech would fall before the health care bill's signing ceremony (this was even before Massachusetts voted). In other words, Obama was ready to pivot.

Then Massachusetts happened. And Obama, to his credit, executed his pivot without even waiting for the big speech next week. He is obviously annoyed at the perception of being in bed with Wall Street (especially since, honestly, that particular rhetorical shoe must have fit pretty well when he tried it on), and he is going to try to change that with a vengeance.

"About time!" I hear many of you say.

But timeliness (and his first year in office) aside, we simply have to recognize that Obama's pivotal moment has sent him off in a new and welcome direction. There seems to be a struggle within Obama's economic team, and for once Paul Volcker (look for his name in the news a lot more in the immediate future) seems to have come out on top.

The first three shots across Wall Street's bow from Obama are (1.) a bank tax, levied on how risky the bank is behaving, (2.) support for restoring Glass-Steagall rules for banking, and (3.) defining what "too big to fail" means, and drawing a line that says "no company should be too big to fail."

All admirable goals, I have to say.

Now, these are likely just the first proposals in a whole raft of proposed legislation we should look for in the coming weeks from the White House. And, really, they're not too hard to come up with, which I'll get to in the Talking Points part of the program, in a minute.

Obama still does face a lot of suspicion and mistrust by voters, mostly due to his own actions in the past year. Obama's known for talking a good game, and then quietly allowing Rahm Emanuel to "give away the store" in negotiations with Big Business -- while most people aren't even paying attention. So we'll see what the actual follow-through is on Obama's newfound Populism.

But my guess is that a new day is dawning in the White House. Obama is no fool. He can read his own poll numbers just as well as the next guy can. And they've been on a slow slide ever since he took office. He knows that he's got to act soon, or watch his presidency's opportunities slip away. My guess is that he knows full well that he's got about half a year or so to prove himself on the issue -- to many who are seriously skeptical about his commitment right now.

Time will tell, in other words. But for now, for this week, Obama's pivot simply has to be acknowledged. Obama has pivoted hard, and he has pivoted in the right direction. For this, he has earned his Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate President Barack Obama on his White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

This one is easy, this week.

Martha Coakley, erstwhile Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate, was easily far-and-away the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Disappointment reigned far from Boston this week, as Coakley blew an enormous lead in the foreshortened 42-day campaign, to lose this past Tuesday's special election.

Now, there's plenty of blame to go around in this particular fiasco, there is absolutely no doubt about that. But Coakley was head and shoulders above (below?) the rest, in the running for MDDOTW this week, for her (to put it mildly) uninspired campaign.

Here's a hint for all up-and-coming Democratic candidates for higher office: don't take a six-day vacation in the middle of a 42-day race! Sheesh! I'm surprised I have to explain this stuff, as the renowned philosopher Joe Bob Briggs would put it.

Also, the Hillary-esque "I'm inevitable, don't bother me with the campaign, I'm busy measuring the drapes for my new office" campaign strategy is not particularly a good one for the mood the country's in right now.

But Coakley's been beaten up enough this week, both in print and at the ballot box. So we'll just hand her the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, and move on. To dwell on it anymore would be the equivalent of rubbernecking at a particularly bad trainwreck, which would be unseemly. Ahem.

[No contact information is available for Martha Coakley, which is not all that surprising, really.]

 

Volume 108 (1/22/10)

Today's talking points are directed at President Obama and the White House Team Of Economic Muckety-Mucks.

The following are seven suggestions for issues to champion, to follow up on President Obama's pivotal week. They come complete with an easy way to explain what you are doing to the public. That's a key part of these reforms -- they should be simple. The legislation should be twenty pages each, tops. And they should be easy to explain to average Americans -- because they are issues that will greatly benefit average Americans. I should mention that it took me about five minutes to come up with these seven ideas, proving that there are many, many different ways to tackle the core Populist issues.

Because once you begin, Mister President (and assorted Muckety-Mucks), I believe you'll figure out this core truth: this Populism stuff is easy!

 

   C.F.P.A.!

The reason this one is first is that it is currently grinding its way through Congress. But, unfortunately, as with almost all financial reform legislation, it is being gutted in the process. Obama has already taken a stronger stand on this than many expected (quite recently, I should mention), and it, like the issues mentioned in the MIDOTW section, has already been debated in Congress. Obama needs to issue his first veto threat over this one, in no uncertain terms.

"I believe Americans need a strong agency that fights for their rights against the banks. Congress is considering a Consumer Financial Protection Agency right now, and some have suggested that it is going too far, or that it is somehow too much. I disagree strongly, and I say to Congress that any bill which reaches my desk without a truly independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency will be returned with a large 'VETO' stamped upon it. Because anything short of this is a giveaway to Wall Street, instead of protecting Main Street as it should. If this is the first bill I veto, then so be it. I will fight for the C.F.P.A. until Congress gets it right."

 

   Credit card caps

This one is easy, and would require revisiting an issue that Democrats previously watered down. Luckily, one of the ways they watered it down was to delay implementation, so there is still a short window where they could just amend the new credit card rules which are about to take effect. This one issue -- more than any other financial issue -- would reap an overwhelming amount of support from average folks. Which is why it should be pushed -- hard.

"Looking at credit card rates today brings to mind a word from the Bible -- 'usury' -- which, in modern terms, might be called 'loan sharking.' I call for a federal law that no credit card or debit card would be allowed to have interest rates over twenty-five percent. Even that's too high, but anything over that is just flat-out wrong. I intend to end these abominably high interest rates from greedy Wall Street firms, and instead pass a law to change it overnight. This wouldn't have to be a long and complicated law, it could consist of about two or three paragraphs. No interest over 25%. I call on Congress to pass such a law immediately and put it on my desk so that this change can take effect when the other credit card reforms already passed take effect. And if there are bought-and-paid-for Congressmen from either party who are holding it up, I want to know their names so I can share with the American people exactly who is on the side of obscene bank profits, and who is fighting for the middle class."

 

   TARP to go to small businesses

This one probably would need a little tweaking, but I still think the core idea is a good one, once again, because it is such a simple concept to comprehend.

"I am calling on Congress to pass a bill which frees up all the remaining TARP funds, so that instead of shoveling money at Wall Street forever, we send this money instead to the Small Business Administration, so that they can lend this money directly to American small businesses, to jumpstart our economy. Small businesses create around seven of every ten jobs in America, and they have been hurt by the tight credit situation on Wall Street. To rectify this situation -- since Wall Street doesn't seem interested in making loans available to small businesses -- we will offer to loan this money to these small businesses directly, at the same rate we lend money to the big banks on Wall Street. That's right -- the same rock-bottom rates the big banks get will be offered to the public instead, on hundreds of billions of dollars. We may lose a little money on these loans, but I am betting American small businessman will take this money, expand their business, and create some jobs -- and then successfully pay it back to the taxpayer. I'm willing to bet the federal government will actually make money on this deal, because I believe in the power and in the future of American small business."

 

   Call it "the Mr. Magoo rule"

OK, this one is trivial, I'll be the first to admit. But it bugs me no end, and always has.

"I am calling for new rules for television advertising, which will permanently ban 'the fine print.' Right now, anyone advertising anything on television is free to put whole paragraphs of text (legally-required notices, mostly, that the businesses don't like) into such tiny text that it is completely unreadable, even on the new digital televisions. This practice must stop. From now on, any legally-required notice on television will have to meet readability standards. I want legal notices on ads to be so large that Mister Magoo can easily read them. It's time for advertisers to end the 'fine print' forever."

 

   End the hedge fund managers' gargantuan tax loophole

If you're a banker, your obscenely-large salary, even with bonuses (which we'll address in a moment), is taxed as income -- because it is. If you're a hedge fund manager, your salary is taxed at less than half the rate everyone else pays, as "capital gains" -- even though it is clearly income. This one is an easy target.

"I call on Congress to make sure that people whose job it is to make other people money are all taxed at the same rates -- and at the same rates all other American employees are taxed. This means taxing hedge fund managers at the same tax rate as bankers. It means taxing people raking in millions of dollars at the same tax rate everyone else pays, instead of letting them get away with paying a lower tax rate than policemen, firefighters, teachers, and secretaries. Congress needs to close the loophole that hedge fund managers use to pay lower tax rates than the rest of us, and declare the money that they make as 'income' so that they pay the tax rates that all other Americans pay. Fairness demands it."

 

   No business can "write off" any salary or bonus above what the president makes

This one is easy, too. The White House has been trying to say one thing on this issue, and then turn a blind eye to it, for far too long now. Obama needs to see the error (and political stupidity) of these ways, and get on the bandwagon before it leaves town without him.

"I propose a new law for all American businesses. Any compensation paid to any employee of any business which is above the salary America pays the president will not be tax-deductible on the business' tax returns. And I mean any compensation whatsoever -- salary, bonuses, stock options, any other way businesses try to find loopholes to reward their workers -- any of it. Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that any business isn't free to pay any amount of money they choose to any employee they wish. There will be no law saying they can't. But for them to write off on their taxes as a 'business deduction' millions upon millions of dollars (that are, quite frankly, obscene amounts) will come to an end! In other words, any money paid to an employee over $400,000 per year will come out of that company's profits, and will be fully taxed as such. The fat cats have had a free ride for far too long, and I propose to end this free ride once and for all."

 

   A "bonus" for the American people

This last one has the added benefit of being a Republican idea. So any Republicans who now come out against it will have to explain to voters why they supported it last year and are now against it, just because Obama's for it.

"Last year, Republicans offered a suggestion that I think bears a second look -- a 'payroll tax holiday' from all payroll taxes for one year. For the next year, American workers would get a boost to their take-home earnings by exempting them all from Social Security and Medicare taxes. This will boost the economy by giving folks a break on taxes for one year, until the economic recovery is fully underway. This may push the deficit a bit higher for a single year, but I think it is worth it in the end. I have to say that after seeing one company on Wall Street hand out over sixteen billion dollars in bonuses and compensation last year, that it is about time the average American worker got a 'bonus' -- since many of them have never gotten one in their lives, much less sixteen billion dollars in one year. I call upon the Republicans who originally proposed this idea -- as well as all Democrats in Congress -- to immediately pass a temporary one-year payroll tax holiday. And I suggest you call the bill 'The Main Street Bonus' bill, as well."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

 

To which, I say: it's about time.

It's about time to start fighting for the little guy and against the fat cats. It's about time to start fighting, when it comes right down to it.

To say, however, that this is what I expected Obama to do would be to monumentally overstate what my expectations were. What I really expected the White House's reaction to losing Ted Kennedy's Senate seat was the standard Democratic response to (sadly) just about everything -- moving further to the right. I expected the White House to sit down, read the polls which said "voters are angry about Democratic weakness," and immediately decide that they had to weaken their agenda even further.

It defies logic, but it's what Democrats usually do. Which is why it's exactly what I expected Obama to do.

Instead, it seems Obama is going to take the gloves off and start battling Wall Street. Astonishing, when you think about it -- instead of the usual "we've got to be more timid!" Democratic knee-jerk response, we're about to see "we've got to get stronger!" for once.

Maybe.

As I've written before, this is the traditional season where trial balloons are floated by the White House, to garner reaction in preparation for the State Of The Union speech. This whole "Populism" thing could be just a feint, and may be squelched in the speech's final text. But, thankfully, the speech will be given a week after the Massachusetts special election, and not before. Because it has given Obama time to react.

And maybe, just maybe, Obama's staff went through a "Let Obama be Obama" moment, and they really will come out fighting.

[To explain that reference will take a few paragraphs. Anyone who doesn't care that much, or already is a fan of The West Wing and knows the reference, should just skip down to the end of the quotations and continue reading. Fair warning.]

In preparing to write about the end of Barack Obama's first year in office, I recently watched a few old episodes from The West Wing. OK, call it escapism from the reality of what was happening in Massachusetts, if you must. Because, during the Bush years, the favorite form of Lefty escapism was indeed to pretend for one hour each week that we all lived in an alternate universe where America was run by President Bartlet. Truth be told, maybe I needed a little bit of that, last weekend.

The first episode I watched was far and away the most poignant, because it is exactly what a lot of people have been waiting for all year long. A minor plotline in the episode revolves around an opposition memo, which includes the stark assessment: "The reality of the Bartlet White House is a flood of mistakes. An agenda hopelessly stalled and lacking a coherent strategy. An administration plagued by indecision....' "

Bartlet is dealing with (sound familiar?) what to do on gays in the military, an approval rating that is in the high 40s, and of course, Congress. Bartlet is wondering whether to strongly take on the issue of campaign finance reform by his appointments to the Federal Election Commission (F.E.C.). Even more familiar is a line by a reporter in the episode, talking to the White House Press Secretary: "You guys are stuck in the mud around here, and none of it is the fault of the press. I know you're frustrated. But it ain't nothing compared to the frustration of the people who voted for you...."

The line that was most familiar, though, in respect to what just happened in Massachusetts, was in response to the president's "You didn't know it was raining?" where an advisor lamely responds: "To our credit sir, we knew it was raining once it started to rain."

But the real conflict was between President Bartlet and his Chief of Staff Leo McGarry, which resulted in one of the more memorable scenes from a memorable episode of a very memorable television series. It's long, but it is powerful enough to include the whole scene:

BARTLET:  Just once, in this job, I'd like to end a day feeling as good as I did when the day started. [Pause.] Are you bothered by this?

LEO:  The memo?

BARTLET:  Yeah.

LEO:  Yes.

BARTLET:  We've heard it all before, Leo. You drive me to political safe ground. It's not true.

LEO:  I know it's not true.

BARTLET:  Good. [Heads for his desk.]

LEO:  You drive me there.

BARTLET:  [Turns.] What the hell did you say?

LEO:  And you know it too.

BARTLET:  Leo?

LEO:  We're stuck in neutral because that's where you tell me to stay.

BARTLET:  You're wrong.

LEO:  No. I'm not, sir.

BARTLET:  You want to do this now?

LEO:  Sir?

BARTLET:  You came to my house, Leo.

LEO:  Mr. President?

BARTLET:  You came to my house, and you said, "Jed, let's run for President." I said, "Why?" And you said, "So that you can open your mouth and say what you think!" Where'd that part go, Leo?

LEO:  You tell me, Mr. President. I don't see a shortage of cameras or microphones around here. What the hell were you waiting for?

BARTLET:  Look...

LEO:  Everything you do...

BARTLET:  This morning-

LEO:  Everything you do says: "For God's sakes, Leo. I don't want to be a one-term President."

BARTLET:  Did I not say put our guys on the F.E.C.?

LEO:  No sir. You did not do that.

BARTLET:  Leo!

LEO:  You said -- No! You said, let's dangle our feet in the water of whatever the hell it is we dangle our feet in, when we want to make it look like we're trying, without pissing too many people off!

BARTLET:  You're writing a fascinating version of history, my friend.

LEO:  Oh, take a look at Mandy's memo, Mr. President, and you'll read a fascinating version of it.

BARTLET:  You brought me in on teachers. You brought me in on capital gains. You brought me in on China. And you brought me in on guns.

LEO:  Brought you in from where? You've never been out there on guns. You've never been out there on teachers. You dangle your feet, and I'm the hall monitor around here. It's my job to make sure nobody runs too fast or goes off too far. I tell Josh to go to the Hill on campaign finance, he knows nothing's going to come out of it.

BARTLET:  That's crap.

LEO:  Sam can't get real on Don't Ask, Don't Tell because you're not going to be there, and every guy sitting across the room from him knows that.

BARTLET:  Leo, if I ever told you to get aggressive about campaign finance or gays in the military, you would tell me, "Don't run too fast or go to far."

LEO:  If you ever told me to get aggressive about anything, I'd say "I serve at the pleasure of the President." [Pause.] But we'll never know, sir, because I don't think you're ever going to say it.

BARTLET:  I have said it, and nothing's every happened!

LEO:  You want to see me orchestrate this right now? You want to see me mobilize these people? These people who would walk into fire if you told them to? These people who showed up to lead? These people who showed up to fight? [Points at Charlie.] That guy gets death threats because he's black and he dates your daughter. He was warned: "Do not show up to this place. Your life will be in danger." He said, "To hell with that, I'm going anyway." You said, "No." Prudent, or not prudent, this 21 year old for 600 dollars a week says, "I'm going where I want to because a man stands up." [Pause.] Everyone's waiting for you. I don't know how much longer.

BARTLET:  I don't want to feel like this anymore.

LEO:  You don't have to.

BARTLET:  I don't want to go to sleep like this.

LEO:  You don't have to.

BARTLET:  I want to speak.

LEO:  Say it out loud. Say it to me.

BARTLET:  This is more important than re-election. I want to speak now.

LEO:  Say it again.

BARTLET:  This is more important than re-election. I want to speak now.

LEO:  Now we're in business!

[Leo goes to the table and picks up a pen and writes on a pad.]

BARTLET:  What's happening?

LEO:  We got our asses kicked in the first quarter, and it's time we move up the mat.

BARTLET:  Yes!

LEO:  Say it.

BARTLET:  This is more important than re-election. I want to speak now.

LEO:  [While writing.] I'm going to talk to the staff. I'm going to take them off the leash.

BARTLET:  You have a strategy for all this?

LEO:  I have the beginnings of one.

BARTLET:  What is it?

LEO:  I'm going to try that out for a little while.

[Leo puts the pad on the desk in front of the President. It reads:

"LET BARTLET BE BARTLET"

The President looks at it and back to Leo, as his Chief of Staff goes back into Leo's office. The staff are still inside. Leo takes off his jacket and leans on his desk.]

LEO:  Listen up. Our ground game isn't working. If we want to walk into walls, I'd want us running into them full speed.

JOSH  What are you saying?

LEO:  Well, you can start by telling the Hill the President has named his nominees for the F.E.C.

[Josh looks surprised.]

LEO:  And we're going to lose some of these battles, and we might even lose the White House, but we're not going to be threatened by issues. We're going to put them front and center. We're going to raise the level of public debate in this country, and let that be our legacy. [Turns to Josh.] That sound all right to you, Josh?

JOSH  I serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States.

LEO:  [To C.J.] Yeah?

C.J.  I serve at the pleasure of the President.

[Leo turns to Sam.]

SAM  I serve at the pleasure of President Bartlet.

LEO:  Toby?

TOBY  I serve at the pleasure of the President.

While it's admittedly kind of hard to see that scene playing out between President Obama and his own Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, it seems something in their relationship has now shifted, or is in the process of shifting.

Lefty bloggers have been playing the blame game for a while now over whether (A.) Rahm Emanuel has been doing exactly what Obama wants him to do all year long, or (B.) everything is Rahm's fault, and Obama is being "held back" by him and his tactics. Similar blame games have happened in relation to Obama and his economic team [Note (breaking news, while editing this): White House shakes up economic team.] Is it Obama's fault? Or is it his advisers' fault?

The hard truth is it doesn't really matter, and we'll all have to wait for the tell-all books to be written years from now to discover who was on which side of which fight. What matters for the present is the position the White House winds up taking in these fights. Which, so far, has been rather disappointing to many.

But now Obama's had his wake-up call (insert your own "3:00 A.M." joke here, if you must). If the early reports of Obama embracing Populism prove to be true, and if it becomes the major theme of his State Of The Union next week, then we may look back on this week in the future as his "Let Obama be Obama" moment.

Obama can regain his momentum. He can get his mojo back. And this would be the best route to do so. If Obama and his administration truly does take up the banner of full-throated Populism, things could turn around for him virtually overnight. Even with 41 Republicans in the Senate.

Remember this -- Obama took office with less than 60 seats in the Senate. Even counting the two independents as Democrats, he only had 58 last year. It wasn't until Arlen Specter switched sides that he got 59, and it wasn't until Al Franken was eventually seated (since it wasn't that long ago Republicans were playing the game of "delay seating him as long as possible," instead of decrying the tactic as un-American) that Obama got the magic number of 60 to work with.

And things did actually get done.

The beauty of a Populist agenda for the Democrats is that it completely and firmly paints Republicans into a political corner they've been squirming hard to avoid. Because if Democrats, led by President Obama, come out strongly for reining in Wall Street and strongly in favor of the middle-class working American, then to oppose them, the Republicans (by default) have to take the side of Big Business and Big Banking. Which will absolutely enrage their new "base" of Tea Partiers. If specific legislation aimed directly at the fat profits on Wall Street emerges, and if Obama is shouting from the rooftops why these new laws are necessary to protect Main Street, then Republicans are going to be faced with a Hobson's choice: either join with the president, perhaps giving him a political victory; or oppose the president, and appear utterly out-of-touch to the average middle-class voter.

That's a battle worth having, as we enter the midterm election season. Rather than cowering in fear before the Tea Party movement, instead co-opt some of their issues. Steal their thunder. Democrats, after all, are supposed to be the party of "the little guy." They somehow seem to have forgotten this of late, but a battle that shapes up on these lines is one designed for them to win.

Wouldn't it be nice, if (for all of next year) Democrats and Republicans fought a knock-down battle over which party could improve Main Street better than the other? And wouldn't it be nice if Democrats were actually fighting for real bills with real reforms that had real teeth to them? Wouldn't that be better than fighting over some stupid hot-button issue, the way Republicans are usually wont to do in election season? Even if the Democrats lost in Congress, if they were seen as fighting on the right side -- and fighting as hard as they could -- then even legislative losses could be chalked up as political wins, as the country sees who is on which side of the fight. Forcing such votes on Republicans (and corporatist Democrats, for that matter) is an excellent way to drive the debate and move the country towards eventually passing such bills. Even if you lose the first time around.

For this to successfully happen, however, President Obama has got to get out of his bubble. He's got to lead these fights. He's got to get out there and tell the American people -- over and over again, "overexposure" be damned -- what he is fighting for, and why. This will give a lot of timid Democrats in Congress the political cover to jump on board as well.

This year's midterms could go down in history as the Year Of Populism. It could generate some of the most Populist rhetoric and (more importantly) Populist legislation in Washington in an entire century.

So I truly hope that President Obama has received the Massachusetts wake-up call loud and clear. I truly do hope that he has "seen the light" on the fact that voters perceive him as being Wall Street's best friend -- which is destroying the Democratic Party's chances in upcoming elections. I hope he comes out swinging, and follows up the most scathing anti-Wall-Street, anti-greed State Of The Union since Franklin Delano Roosevelt next week, by channelling Teddy Roosevelt's bully pulpit for the next year to come.

In other words, I really do hope that we just witnessed the "Let Obama be Obama" moment.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

Because I am turning the column over today to two people I shared the Inaugural Day experience with, both of whom are less than half my age. I and my wife stayed with a D.C. friend who attended the Inauguration with us, who also brought along her high-school-age daughter. I also met up with a college student I know in the region, for lunch, after the big ceremony was over.

I approached each of them recently with a fairly wide-open invitation: write about what the Inauguration meant to you. No limits, just write what you felt. I got back two very different essays, and I would like to beg your indulgence to read both of them, as I think they are representative of what a lot of young Americans are thinking, and continue to think, about President Barack Obama. And of how they see the future.

The first of these essays is from Alexandra Butcher. The second is from Eric Varela. I present them today in the spirit of "the first anniversary of Barack Obama's Inauguration." I think Alexandra and Eric need no more introduction, as their words stand up admirably on their own.

[For those of you wondering, as you read the first piece; here is what I had to say on the subject of milkcrates, when writing up my own Inaugural experience last year:

Our intrepid group of four not only had seats together on the train, we also had room for our four milk crates. "Why milk crates?" I hear you ask, so allow me to explain. I had seen an article in the Washington Post which had Inauguration tips from folks who had attended them in years past, and the one tip which leapt out at me was: "take a milk crate." The Secret Service had not disallowed them, and they serve a dual purpose -- you can sit on them (rather than the frigid ground) and you can stand on them later (to see over the crowd). This turned out to be the single most valuable piece of advice we received for the entire event.

I have to say, this led to an amusing incident later, when we went to lunch at a super-ritzy D.C. restaurant. They are not used to Californians asking plebian questions like "where's the milkcrate check room?" but I have to admit, the oh-so-snooty waiter took it in stride and dealt with us admirably well.]

But I digress. Without further ado, here are the views of two young Americans on what Obama's Inauguration meant to them, looking back at it one year later.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Alexandra Butcher

When I think about why I attended Barack Obama's inauguration, I guess some of my reasoning was: "What do I want to tell people later in life?" When I'm older and wiser, I'll have a story I can reminisce about... perhaps for somebody to listen to, with genuine curiosity and intrigue. If, when I'm a 95-year-old woman, I'm asked to speak to a class in school about "What was it like?" I'd talk about how not only was Barack Obama the first African-American to be elected president, he was also the first Democrat in a while to be elected, and he talked really well compared to the previous eight years. After the children had sat and listened to my talk (because some teacher told them to) I would sit back and watch as children bounded off to whatever their next assignment was, only to be interrupted, as one little girl wanders up to me and asks with wide, curious eyes: "What did it really feel like?" I would gladly tell that child a more emotional piece of history, as I personally remember it. I would tell her something like this:

One of the reasons I went to Obama's Inauguration was for that crazy caught-up-in-the-moment, "You know what, I think I will bungee jump off that cliff!" feeling. When every other person in the D.C. area was fleeing, hiding out, and/or staying put (while millions of tourists came to rampage through the city), my Mom and I decided to take part in their rare variety of mad curiosity, and actually go see it for ourselves. Of course, I didn't feel that way when I woke up that morning.

To be honest, what I felt was: "It's co-o-old!" I knew that before I even woke up, because every day of the month leading up to the 20th was cold, blistering, freezing (I know that people from colder states and cities and countries were there, and they might have thought it wasn't that bad... well... I'm from Maryland and I was COLD).

We woke up at 3:00 A.M. to get ready. I think I wore: two shirts, a sweater, a sweatshirt and a ski jacket, leggings and jeans, one pair of regular socks, one pair of hiking socks and hiking boots, ski gloves, a scarf and a sheepskin hat. I think it took fifteen minutes just to get dressed, even with all my clothes laid out. Mom made a giant Thermos of coffee while Chris and his wife and I got some breakfast. We got out our milkcrates (to stand and sit on) and stocked them with emergency blankets and everything else we needed.

My Dad drove us to the Metro station. He knows a secret back way in that only people in the neighborhood know about, so we had no trouble getting there. I'm glad we did, because not only was the parking lot packed and every scrap of pavement in and out of there covered in cars and people, but we were able to get seats in one of the train cars. As we were walking up the path to the station, the first train was leaving at 4:00 A.M. -- hours earlier than Metro normally opens. We ran to the gates. Inside, it was mayhem! I know they had only just opened up, but already the place was packed, and everyone was having a lot of trouble operating their farecards. A couple people commented (to put it lightly) on how we shouldn't have to pay, since it just holds up the gates. Me? I just followed the others, elbowed my way through, slid my smart card smoothly over the machine and was pushed over to the other side. The whole place was crammed with the noise of people shouting, complaining, footsteps, thousands of footsteps, calming words, crying from children, shushing coos. The groggy, bundled-up faces of the crowd followed me to into the second train of the morning. My group found some seats together and we settled in for the ride downtown.

We started taking pictures with our cell phones. My Mom was posting every five minutes on Facebook to document the experience, while Chris was writing in his notebook. I was in a good mood, but didn't want to talk, so I mostly looked around at the other passengers. Some were also taking pictures and trying to send off texts before the train entered the tunnels. I had ridden the Metro many times before, but this time around something was different... but I couldn't tell what, at the time.

When we got on the train, it was fairly crowded even though we got on a car at the end. As we pulled out of each stop I thought the car had reached its limits, but was continuously proven wrong. Every time I thought we were a full car, people would continue to push and shove on board. It continued like this until we were about a mile into the city. At that point everyone who would have normally taken Metro was taking a bus, walking, or riding a bike to get to the Mall.

There were two main stops to get off the Metro, one for people going to the parade, and one for people going to see the swearing-in. Our group was heading to the Mall for the swearing-in, so at our stop we (and I think everyone else on the car) practically threw ourselves onto the platform and migrated up stairs, where we met a giant crowd of people trying to get past the ticket gates. Apparently something had happened to the machines, and people were having trouble getting through. We stood in that crowd for about ten minutes with our milkcrates over our heads. We learned to appreciate how mobile a milkcrate can be if you hold it in the right spot (later, we were the envy of everyone who saw our milkcrates). Finally, someone came up with the brilliant idea of letting everyone go through without paying. The gates were opened and the temporally insane released into the heart of Washington DC.

When we got out on the streets Mom immediately headed to the closest vendor to buy the day's newspaper, to document the occasion. I might have mentioned this earlier but outside the Metro station: It. Was. Cold. And the fact that the sun wasn't going to rise for another three hours wasn't helping. After we left the station I don't remember much except for a lot of walking, occasionally running, stopping, thinking we had found our spot and settling down, policed to a new location due to some mix-up, more running, walking, standing, crowding, sneaking, escaping, following some Girl Scouts... and finally arriving in our boxed piece of grass before the police decided to close it off to everyone else.

It was 4:30 AM -- two and a half hours until the sun rose, and five and a half hours until the swearing-in. We set down our milkcrates and sat in a circle. I lasted about two minutes. I thought I was going to lose my toes if I didn't do something. So I decided to walk around to keep the blood moving and heart rate up, to keep me warm. I wandered up the side of one of the rows of porta-johns, making note of landmarks, so I would be able to find my way back. I saw an ember orange-colored rectangle glowing at the top of our grassy block. As I got closer I could hear the faint sounds of one of the fans form the Metro tunnel. It wasn't until I was right on it that I realized that it was a vent to pump out the hot stale air from the tunnels. True, the air was stale but it was also warm. Not walking-into-a-hot-shower warm, but warm enough to bring the feeling back into your face and fingers. I chatted with one of the few people there, and after three minutes of warming up, I was ready to move out, knowing I was feeling something different about this experience in DC.

I headed over to largest line for a concession stand I had ever seen. I stood in line for an hour and a half. Even standing around in line was different from usual. Commonplace actions became memorable and special. But I couldn't figure out what it was. When I got back to our group the Girl Scouts were passing out little American flags, so that even if you forgot to bring one, the crowds of people would still be painted red, white and blue. I went along with cheering and rising of the crowd like a cork bobbing in an ocean. The sun had warmed our faces and moods as the day went on. When Obama finally stood up for the vows there was so much noise and electricity in the air I thought for a minute that that city could be run off the energy of the crowd alone.

After the main event, our group trekked through a city bustling with people but void of any motor vehicles (aside from a few buses and police cars). I got to walk though the Third Street tunnel, under the Capitol building (not normally open to pedestrians). A lot of people described it as a scene you might see after a major disaster. But to me -- who couldn't help but hold a smile shared with thousands all the way through -- it felt more like a day at the carnival. All thoughts of cold melted away with some sun and companionship.

Our group had reservations at a local restaurant were we had some amazingly warming food. We said good bye to people we had met up with, and headed back to the Metro. As we were riding back, Mom spun around and after two minutes of quick introductions, was deep in conversation with the man who just happened to be standing next to her. As other strangers started to join in, it suddenly hit me as to why the whole day had felt different.

Everyone you met was happy, ecstatic even. In the train, on the street, standing in an enormous line for food. It was like a great big family reunion -- everyone was happy to talk to you, stand and freeze with you, or maybe even cry with you. For one day, I had relatives from Alabama to Minnesota, from Kansas to California. For one day, it felt as though the entire United States of America had forgotten their regular life, to be reunited with their long-lost brothers and sisters, or aunts and uncles, to take part in a universal feeling of joy, life, and hope. Everywhere you looked, you saw a smile. Every conversation spoken had a happy tone. In the same way that a local theater production can go from a third-grade presentation to the feel of a Broadway production -- because of the audience -- D.C. became the happiest and most memorable I had ever seen it. To think that this happened due to one man was the most amazing part of all. No mater what the future brings, good or bad, when I hear Obama speak, I'm reminded of the man who got all the Metro trains to run early, and the man that gave a connection that I -- and two million others -- shared, for that day. And that is the reason I will never forget January 20th, 2009.

The little girl I was talking to would then probably turn to me, and ask if she could have a cookie -- and I'd give her a reward, for listening to an old woman reminiscing about the past. And no matter what people say or do in the future, I will still have that day full of feelings of pure bliss -- when I decided to be just a little crazy, and join up with and become connected to two million other Americans, in a way that will stay forever preserved in my heart... my own personal snapshot of a great moment in history.

 

Eric Varela

I've never been much of one for dates. I must admit that, even now, I am just starting to realize that "January" means it's a whole new year, and that somewhere out there are a few forms that are going to be misfiled with my name (and the wrong date) on them. That being said, the one-year anniversary of Barack Obama as our nation's president sort of snuck up on me; and before I scramble around trying to find some roses to save our relationship, I thought I'd take a moment to reflect on how far we'd come.

I guess to do things properly we have to start back in November, during the actual election. I was 19 years old, and had finally made it to my first election. Being a student at an art school in Baltimore, I make no secret of my political alignment: I voted very much against anything that even looked like a Bush. And I'll also admit that I didn't vote for Obama in the primaries, I went Hillary all the way. The primaries came, and -- even before the tallies came in -- I realized that it would be a highly symbolic nomination, regardless of the outcome. It seemed we were done with the "old white guys," one way or another.

Obama got the nomination, and by the time the general election rolled around, I had forgotten that my candidate was out, being swept up in Obamania. He came to give a speech in Baltimore's Inner Harbor, and half of my school skipped class to go stand around downtown for a chance to hear him speak. This was a time for "Change!" Everyone kept saying it, so it must be true! There was no doubt in anyone's mind that things were going to get better, if he could only get elected. Anything must be better than the other guy!

The entire city of Baltimore was on the edge of its seat, on election night. The tension in the air was thick enough to stand on. Everyone simultaneously felt elation at the prospect of his victory, and absolute despair that American would never actually elect a black man.

The news hit CNN, and the whole of the dorms exploded with cheers. Students ran through the halls screaming with delight, and music started blasting through the building. I got a text message that said: "Im cute and in PJs, Make out for Obama?" and another that said "Jack Daniels + Obama lets celebrate" ...and they kept coming in. In the streets, some had taken up pots and pans and were marching up and down the blocks. There were hula-hoopers for Obama, there were runners for Obama, there were impromptu bands, there was free champagne at the liquor store... there were people out in the city at night looking for something, for someone to share this complete feeling of happiness... of "Hope"... of "Change." The police drove by and blared their sirens, seemingly to keep order, until an officer leaned out of his window and shouted: "Obama!!! Yeaaaaaaaaah!!!" while honking his horn. This was more than a political victory. This was something else. This was the start of something new.

Fast-forward to January 20, last year. Again, I am outside, surrounded by people, only this time there are literally millions of them, standing in D.C., waiting to hear this man speak. It was supposed to be the first day back in school for me, and I am skipping my sculpture class to be here; frozen and sweating at the same time, half a mile away from a Jumbotron that will soon show the man that I elected as our nation's new leader. I can't move, I can't feel my feet -- all around me as far as I can see are people, people, and more people... and they keep coming. A brief thought crosses my mind that if there is some kind of panic, then there is absolutely nowhere to go and I am going to be trampled to death for sure... but looking at these people's faces, there is no such fear, no agitation at how long they've been here, or how cold the weather is, or how far they've come to get here -- every single one of them has a smile on their faces, and is friendly, in a good mood, and happy to talk with the strangers around them....

The actual speech is somewhat anticlimactic, and (in my opinion) pales in comparison to his acceptance speech at the convention -- but none of that really matters, because I was there for it!

All of that was a year ago. And now, here we are today. Somewhere along the line, things changed, but I don't think it was the big "Change" we were hoping for. The magic Barack Obama brought with him died off quickly, and Washington soon returned to business as usual. He wasn't able to eliminate the corruption of Washington in a year, he wasn't able to bring us peace in the Middle East in a year, he wasn't able to fix eight years of destroying our economy in a year. We were promised "Change," and we quickly became disillusioned when we realized that our problems were bigger than one man. Obama became the boy who cried "Hope," but forgot to whisper "Time."

And so, our fleeting attention spans drifted to our vanishing jobs and growing debt, and were instead turned our backs on our once-beloved, with an eye of scorn. My friends who were once parading in the streets with cauldrons and ladles have again grown bored with politics. The ones who still do talk about Obama only do so in the sense that he has not done enough for whatever group that they are part of, who helped him get into office. We were promised "Change," and we still had problems afterwards. In perspective, at only one-fourth of the way through his elected term, it seems a little unfair to expect him to have changed the world... but it would still be nice to see some of the old magic back from the beginning of the relationship, and to see him develop as a leader as we continue our growth as a nation.

What I'd like to see happen in Obama's next three years, and what he is going to need to do (I think) are entirely different things, because there isn't anything he is now doing that is essentially wrong, or leading me to oppose him. What he is doing is something that we are not used to, however, and that is planning for the long run. Healthcare, education, infrastructure -- these things pay for themselves. These are the things that we should be demanding as a people, and these are the things that lawmakers should be concerned with making the best that is legislatively possible, but -- as usual -- we like to focus on the petty and irrelevant.

Policies I would like to see Obama push forward include finishing this healthcare bill he's been pushing so hard for. It looks more impossible every day, because it seems that what he is fighting is misinformation, and party opposition. I would love to see a diversified energy portfolio laid before the nation -- full of wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, wave conversion, hydrogen -- to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. At the same time we would the increase construction/manufacturing jobs that we've seen disappearing in this recession. We need to build and support these new energy producers, build new high-capacity power lines, improve the distribution outlets, and (if not directly) at least fund the research necessary to improve, implement, and install these systems so that they can become cheaper, faster and more powerful. I would love to see educational reform, but that's a whole book's worth of arguments, and I believe he is headed in a good direction with his grant program. All of these create jobs, increase the economy, and strengthen the nation. Maybe not tomorrow, but certainly down the road, and Obama realizes this -- and that much, at least, is refreshing in a politician. We as a people demand immediate fixes to problems that have taken years -- even decades -- to create, but sometimes those problems can be fixed before they become problems. The things that aren't completely broken can be improved.

Before anything can be done he needs to somehow gain back the support of the people and of the legislature. He was able to mobilize a large group of people on his side for the election -- and anger plenty in the opposition. After he got into office, he has turned many of his supporters apathetic -- and many more turned to the side of the angry. It's not as if he isn't talking to these people, because I've heard him talking to the unions, to the Native American tribal leaders, to the Human Rights Campaign, and (very shortly) to the whole American Union; and his ability to make powerful speeches has never been in question. So communication is not the problem in this relationship. I would say instead it is the follow-up that needs to be seen. At this point, we've been sweet-talked enough and (in relationship terms) we're sick of "first base." It's time for Obama to get more serious in his commitment -- to us, the people. Its been a year and we've still got three more to go. We're on shaky grounds with Obama, but I think he can still win us back if he really tries. When he does, then maybe I'll go get those roses.

 

 

Good question. The answer, in my humble opinion, is that the infamous presidential "bubble" has, sadly, descended over Obama's White House. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, probably had the most impenetrable presidential bubble of modern times (although a good argument can be made for his father, as well), but this is a danger virtually every president faces. Fresh new presidents enter office, convinced that they will be able to keep in touch with "The People," only to soon discover that safety and security (and the Washington "who gets invited to what party" culture) slowly smothers these "common man" ambitions. President Bill Clinton famously drove the Secret Service crazy by not only jogging, but stopping off at any handy McDonald's along the way. But even that faded, over time.

Obama, like many other presidents before him, entered office determined to keep in touch with average Americans. He announced, very early on in his term, that he would be attempting an insanely optimistic schedule of holding a town hall type event once a week. He would get out and talk to average people -- without the ideological screenings that marked Bush's presidential events -- once every week, to stay in touch with the mood of America.

Needless to say, this lofty goal didn't last long. It died an unheralded death right about the time the summer congressional town hall audiences became so unruly, and has never been spoken of since.

A second attempt at "keeping the common touch" was more successful, and still (to the best of my knowledge) continues to this day: Obama instructed his staff to bring to him ten representative letters from average people, each and every day, so he could read some of the stories people felt compelled to tell their president. Obama referred to these often during the whole healthcare debate, and one sincerely hopes that those ten letters still land on Obama's desk every morning.

But, at this point, the question arises which letters seem to be getting through. Because such letters are screened by Obama's staff, one has to wonder if, by now, letters which express disappointment and frustration with Obama simply aren't getting through. Because, watching the White House of late, it seems the Obama bubble is getting stronger and harder to penetrate by such average American voices.

My main evidence for making such a sweeping statement is the White House's recent surprise and astonishment. I heard rumors of this about a month ago, and the more whispers I hear, the more I'm coming to believe it is true. The White House is surprised and astonished that Barack Obama is seen as Wall Street's best buddy, and is also seen as having done nothing for (or even sold out) Main Street. While, on the face of it, this is astonishing, since he was elected as the champion of the Little Guy against all the various Big Things Crushing The Little Guy; it is striking how a completely opposite narrative has taken hold. But what astonishes me is not that the White House is now seeing this, but that the White House is only seeing this now. You can measure the thickness of the bubble's walls by how long it took this message to penetrate it.

Because this image actually took root in the public's psyche about the same time Obama stopped trying to schedule town halls, and about the same time he stopped giving regular once-a-month press conferences -- say, the beginning of the summer. But it took until December for the White House to notice.

That is indeed worrisome. Because it is the measure of how Obama has drifted into the backwaters known as "The Great Dismal Out-Of-Touch Swamp."

Obama has been showing some signs, very recently, of realizing this, and making an attempt to turn it around. His language has gotten a lot more populist recently, in other words. This is a good sign. But at this point, people want to see his actions match his words -- because his words, no matter how well spoken, are simply not enough any more.

Obama put together an incredibly diverse coalition to win the presidency. You simply cannot speak of "the average Obama voter," because that label encompasses so many different groups. Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, new voters, the disaffected, the disillusioned, moderates, Independents, the young, the old, and even some Obama Republicans were all part of his electoral victory. Grouping these broadly for the sake of conversation, there was: The Left (Progressives and Liberals who saw Obama as more of a lefty than he actually ever was); The Party Base (happy that it was a Democratic year, but who would have been just as happy with Hillary as the standard-bearer); The Hopeful (people who hadn't really participated in politics much, before Obama); and The Independents (who really wanted to believe Obama could "change the way Washington works," even though that meant different things to different people).

To differing degrees, and at different rates, the support from these groups is falling away. Many members of each of these groups have decided, at some point or another, that Obama talked an awfully good game in the election, but has since failed to follow through -- or even abandoned his position entirely. They feel cheated, and they feel used. And they do not feel inclined to give the benefit of the doubt any more.

The biggest disappointment is probably felt among The Left. When Obama came into office, he immediately did some things which raised hopes, but also did some things which caused a lot of Lefty concern as well. Since that early flurry of presidential directives and early congressional victories, however, it has seemed like The Left is the one continually getting thrown under the proverbial bus by Obama's White House. The Left sees Obama, time and time again, refusing to stand up and fight for their issues. Instead, they see Obama, time and time again, turn and pick a fight with The Left itself.

This probably would have been acceptable, since political sausage-making always involves a lot of give and take -- if only Obama had stood fast on a few issues dear to The Left, while battling them on others. If The Left had seen such a balance -- between the compromises made on one major issue, with a firm refusal to compromise on another -- then they would likely be more willing to cut Obama a little slack at this point than they are.

Instead, The Left watched as the healthcare reform debate was absolutely dominated by the "centrists" (more correctly: "corporate whores") in the Democratic Party. Obama, aside from giving one major speech on the issue, was largely silent throughout, preferring to work through his minions to influence the debate on Capitol Hill.

The only problem is, Obama's minions are even more hostile to Progressive positions than Obama appears to be. Rahm Emanuel, in particular, has enraged many on The Left, both by his willingness to throw the Progressive baby out with the legislative bathwater, as well as his apparent willingness to state in interviews exactly how he feels about The Left (basically, that they can safely be ignored, because, after all, who else are they going to vote for?).

That conventional inside-the-Beltway political logic only goes so far, however. While approval numbers for Obama are still extremely strong among self-identified Democrats (80 percent approval and up), these Party Base folks aren't always as indicative as is usually thought. Because the people who walked miles for Obama, the people who knocked on thousands of doors, the people who volunteered their time and money -- in other words, the people who got Obama elected -- these are the people who feel most betrayed right now by Obama. And without them, you get what is happening in Massachusetts right now. Democratic apathy. Multiplied by the fact that the Democratic candidate followed the Hillary Clinton campaign model: declare yourself inevitable, clap your hands, and wishing will make it so... obviating the need for all that messy campaigning.

The stunning thing, once again, is that the White House is stunned by this turn of events. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, perhaps putting a wee bit of spin on things, nevertheless was quoted today saying Obama is "both surprised and frustrated" by the Massachusetts Senate race.

That, right there, is the bubble at work.

Welcome to the club, Mister President. There are a lot of people out here who have been surprised (not in a good way) and frustrated by your performance in the past few months. No matter who wins tonight, we would all appreciate it if you tapped into some of that surprise and frustration.

Because it is out here, in bucketfuls. All you have to do is reach outside the bubble a tiny little bit, and you will get an earful of it.

The biggest problem with inside-the-Beltway thinking is that everyone believes their own P.R. Very serious pundits all agree that "the mood of the country is X" or that "this is what people out there are saying," but these very serious statements bear little in relation to reality most of the time. The problem is, these same very serious pundits are as far as most politicians look to see what "The People" are thinking. They discount what their actual constituents are saying, and believe that warm, gooey spin from the chattering class instead. At their peril, it should be noted.

I saw one very interesting interview a few weeks back (don't remember where I saw this, so I can't give credit, sorry) where a political operative -- a nuts-and-bolts type of guy who digs for data -- said something so brilliant and astonishingly simple it has remained with me ever since. He said every politician in Washington should essentially employ someone whose sole job would be to get out of Washington every week. Travel the country (among their constituency) and just stop by, at random, any coffeehouse, diner, bar, or bowling alley. Sit down and listen. Say "I work in Washington for politicians, and they want to know what you have to say." And then sit there and listen. Go to P.T.A. meetings or the local mall, and talk to a few folks. Pick people at random off the street, even.

This is exactly what about 99 percent of Washington politicians desperately need. A conduit for what "people really are thinking and saying out there" -- directly into the office of the politician. And there's no reason why it shouldn't extend right up to the president himself.

The White House should, in my humble opinion, immediately hire someone in their political office or their communications office, and give them an unlimited budget for travel. They should spend eight days out of every ten randomly tossing darts at a U.S. map and then jumping on a plane and flying to the nearest airport to where the dart lands. Spend a day or two there, then repeat the process. At the end of every two-week period, fly back to D.C. and have a long meeting with President Obama himself, to tell him what the country is really feeling and saying.

This may be some utopian concept that will never happen, I realize. But whether it happens by appointing a Listening Czar or not, Obama needs to get a lot more back in touch than he appears to be now.

As I said, every president surrounds himself with people and then has to basically trust those people to give him accurate information. Increasingly, it seems that those closest to the presidential ear have been either giving him bad advice, or are so out-of-touch themselves that they don't realize what's happening outside of the Beltway. Because it is one thing for Obama to be dissatisfied with what he hears; but it is quite another for him to be surprised by it. Surprise indicates hearing something new, something you didn't realize previously.

Surprise at the Massachusetts election situation from Obama means that he has been listening to people who have been soothing him by telling him that angry Lefty voices are confined to the blogosphere, and that it's safe to ignore them because they aren't representative of the Democratic voters out there. These same voices will be telling Obama tomorrow, if the Republican wins, that "the Democratic candidate was weak," or that "she lost because she campaigned badly," or that "your voters will come back to you when the economy improves, it's all about the economy."

Well, no. Instead, it's becoming (to paraphrase the Clinton slogan): "It's all about the bubble, stupid." If you're disappointed at the political scene in Massachusetts, Mister President, that is understandable. If you, however, are surprised by it, then something is drastically wrong with your advisors, because you simply are not getting the information you desperately need to be hearing right now.

The time for Obama to honestly reach outside his bubble is now. The White House just announced that Obama's first official State Of The Union speech will be given next Wednesday. This is the week when the White House staff decides on an agenda for the upcoming year. There are some interesting signs that Obama is considering tapping into the anti-bailout, anti-Wall-Street rage out there right now. But he should also realize that he needs to toss some political red meat to his base as well.

Because 2010 may be the year of the Enthusiasm Gap. This term was coined to refer to the difference in enthusiasm between Righties and Lefties, especially concerning this year's midterm congressional elections. But it could just as easily refer to the gap between the enthusiasm Obama's core voters felt at this time last year, and how they feel now.

There is only one way to close that gap. And that is for President Obama to truly fight for something he believes in. This fighting spirit has been all but absent from the White House for many months now. Obama's biggest legislative fight this past year was for healthcare reform. He, to put it mildly, did not engage in this fight at the level he could have. Other than one nice speech in September, he largely sat on the sidelines for the entire fight. This would have been excusable if there was a bigger issue on his plate which required all his political capital to fight for, but that simply wasn't the case. This was pretty much the only fight for the last half of his first year, and Obama inexcusably sat it out.

If Obama doesn't want to be similarly surprised in early November about Democratic prospects in the elections, he needs to do two things immediately. First, he has to fight against the bubble which has descended upon the Oval Office. And second, he has to realize that the image of him fighting constantly for Wall Street, and fighting constantly against The Little Guy, is going to destroy any chances he has for a successful rest of his presidency. Obama likes to think of himself as a transformational president along the lines of F.D.R. and L.B.J. But he, so far, hasn't realized that Roosevelt and Johnson had to take an awful lot of political risks to win the battles they did. Obama needs to realize that fighting for what you believe in doesn't always lessen your political capital, it can also increase it. He needs to stop listening to the voices soothing him with "politics of the possible" pablum, and instead rededicate himself to fighting the good fight -- even if he loses fights along the way.

Or, he can comfortably sit back as the bubble descends, thickens, and hardens into such a shell that nothing gets through. He can allow the energy and enthusiasm which elected him to wither and die on the vine, as millions of people become cynical outside the Beltway, and start truly believing that the only difference between our two major political parties is that Republicans are honestly for Big Business (they'll tell you so to your face); while Democrats say they're for the little guy -- but they are just flat-out lying, because they are just as much for Wall Street and against Main Street as the Republicans.

Your choice, Mister President. You can either enjoy your bubble, or you can get back in touch with why you got elected in the first place. For all our sakes, I hope you choose the latter.

 

[Program Note: I realize I am "jumping the gun" by a day here, with my first-year anniversary column on the Obama presidency. Tomorrow's news from Massachusetts (no matter who wins) is likely going to overshadow this anniversary. But I invite you all to a special column tomorrow, where I turn this space over to two people I attended the Inauguration with, both of whom are students. I thought it would be most interesting to take a look back through the eyes of the upcoming generation, to see what America's youth has to say about things now. So check it out tomorrow, both on my site and at the Huffington Post.]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

Beginning the week, mere hours after last week's article went to press, was the story of Harry Reid's gaffe on the campaign trail last year. Following closely on this was Rod Blagojevich, cramming his foot so far into his mouth his ankle was no longer visible.

Much of the frenzied activity took place this week behind closed doors (and most decidedly not on C-SPAN), as healthcare reform entered its final negotiating phase. President Obama even decided to get involved, meaning we must be almost at the end of the fight. Ahem.

This fight, I should mention, may be speeded up considerably, due to tanking poll numbers for the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Massachusetts, but we'll get to these pathetic details in a bit.

First Lady Michelle Obama sported a new haircut, which caused swooning and other fits of the vapors among the chattering classes, at least momentarily. She took the time to read Green Eggs And Ham to some children, which (while adorable) will not go down in history as the most memorable reading of this literary masterpiece ever, since that position is held for all time by the Reverend Jesse Jackson, for his interpretive reading on Saturday Night Live years ago, when Theodore Geisel ("Dr. Seuss") passed away. With all due respect to the First Lady, Jesse's stentorian preacher's voice will, in my opinion, simply never be bested in the Green Eggs And Ham category, ever.

But then everything faded into being simply trivial, once the earth shook in Haiti. This was a monstrously large earthquake (the same size as the San Francisco quake of 1989 -- but which shook the ground for twice as long), and the city of Port-au-Prince was flattened.

The Haitians' misery was soon compounded by the arrival of the coiffed American News Anchor brigade of idiocy. For the first night after the quake, we got lots of interviews with white Americans about what they thought about the situation (I wish I were making this up, but sadly, I am not). The second night, we finally got a few interviews with actual Haitians (perhaps the blow-dried folks forgot their French interpreters the first night, who knows?) -- by underlings, mostly. The anchors' attempts at doing actual journalism, rather than the "journalism" they're used to (which consists of reading badly-phrased idiocy in a non-threatening accent) were, in a word, pathetic. Of particular note was Brian Williams of NBC, interviewing what looked like an 8- or 9-year-old child. After ascertaining that his house had collapsed and killed most of his family -- by asking the child "what happened to your house?" -- BriWi's brilliant followup (which he repeated more than once, obviously since he could think of no other question to ask) was to ask the child whether he was "OK" or not. The hook to the story -- again, you simply cannot make this stuff up -- was that "a child can still manage to smile in all of this."

Here's a clue, just for BriWi -- NO!! The kid is NOT OK!! There was a BIG-ASS EARTHQUAKE, BriWi, and that is probably the reason his HOUSE IS NOW TWO-DIMENSIONAL!! This house has HIS DEAD RELATIVES IN IT, so asking him if he is "OK" is probably the STUPIDEST QUESTION YOU COULD POSSIBLY HAVE ASKED. Once again, NO NO NO NO NO!!! The kid is NOT OK.

I'm surprised I have to say this stuff, because apparently television news folks seem to think this is "the story" when the only story here is the monstrous cruelty and asshattedness of American "journalists" today, which is the only possible explanation of Brian Williams' behavior.

Thankfully, Bill Clinton finally hit the airwaves, to provide a scintilla of intelligence to the news reports on Haiti. More on that in a moment.

 

President Barack Obama was under heavy consideration for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week, but unfortunately "the week" is in the wrong place on the calendar.

To his credit, Obama looked downright presidential in his actions this week on hammering out a final healthcare bill. Long meetings have been happening at the White House between House and Senate negotiators, and Obama is by all accounts personally involved in these, shuttling from meeting room to meeting room to encourage everyone's efforts and negotiate final details. He even brought in the unions, to win their support back.

It's been an impressive week of activity for President Obama, and surely would have won him the coveted MIDOTW award, were it to have taken place... oh... say, last September. Or even October. It would have begrudgingly even won him a "Golden Backbone" statuette in November or even possibly December.

But at this point, it all just has a feeling of "too little, too late" about it. Too little -- Obama is working with what came out of the House and the Senate, and either (or both) of those could have been a lot stronger with some earlier White House involvement. Too late -- Democrats are now staring down into the abyss. This abyss has a name on it and it is (oh, the irony!) "Teddy Kennedy's Senate Seat."

Democrats (are you sitting down?) may lose their 60-vote Senate supermajority not this November, but instead next Tuesday when Massachusetts has a special election to fill Kennedy's seat. And the Democratic candidate appears to be in trouble. If she loses, there will be about a ten-day delay before the Republican is seated in the Senate. And that will be the window to get healthcare reform passed.

Now, even making the outrageously optimistic assumption that the House and the Senate leaders can manage to get a bill fully written by the end of today, ten days may not be enough time to get it passed in the House and Senate and onto Obama's desk. In other words, if Democrats lose the Senate seat, healthcare reform could already be dead.

You can bet this is what has led Obama to his furious activity on getting a compromise. Now just imagine for a minute if this had all happened in October, and you can see why Obama qualified for a MIDOTW award, but missed it due to it being about four month's worth of weeks too late.

But the real Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week was none other than Bill Clinton. The former president was just about the only intelligent voice on television in the past week on Haiti. And, since pretty much every voice for the past three days on televised news has been speaking about Haiti, that is truly saying something impressive.

Clinton showed off his very best side this week: his sheer wonkiness. Clinton was in a good position to do so, as he has been the United Nations Special Envoy to Haiti for a while now. But still, while all around him were losing their heads, Clinton was the one who calmly explained exactly what was in the works, what would take place over the next few days, and what their plans were after the search-and-rescue period had ended and the monumental task of digging out and rebuilding begins.

For his command of the details, for his reasonable answers to some very stupid questions by "journalists," for his emotion in pleading for Americans to dig deep and help the aid efforts, for his all-around projection of statesmanship, Bill Clinton is without a doubt the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. We all like to make fun of the "Big Dog," but in doing so sometimes we forget why most Americans loved Bill Clinton when he was in office -- he's just so downright competent, no matter how big or detailed the task at hand.

Well done, Mister Former President, well done. You've got a big job ahead of you, but you're made a good start on the public relations front so far. In keeping with Clinton's stated wishes, we urge everyone to give what help they can afford to the cause, instead of providing contact information for Clinton himself.

[Donate to the Haitian earthquake relief effort at clintonfoundation.org, which lists a number of good organizations you can donate toward Haitian relief. One hundred percent of donations to Clinton's organization will be spent on Haitian relief.]

 

A very early contender for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for his gratuitous use of the word "Negro" in support of Barack Obama's candidacy during the presidential race.

This was quickly topped by none other than Rod Blagojevich, who set a whole new bar of crazy this week when he proclaimed he was "blacker than Barack Obama." Blaggy, for those unaware, is of the melanin-deficient type usually known as "white." For this comment from the far reaches of lunacy, Blaggy is awarded a MDDOTW.

But also winning her own MDDOTW this week is Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley, who is running in a special election for the departed Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Now, Massachusetts is quite possibly the "bluest" state in the country, on the blue/red Democrat/Republican scale. Its entire congressional delegation is Democratic -- something even California can't claim. Voter registration is something like three-to-one Democrat over Republican. And yet, Coakley might just lose this race to a Tea Party-supported Republican.

This has enormous implications, since if Democrats lose this seat, they will have two options: pass healthcare reform in lightning speed before the Republican is officially seated, or kiss healthcare reform goodbye for (at a casual guess) at least a decade.

Those are not good options.

Coakley, from all reports, ran a terrible campaign, did not do well in the debates, and generally just assumed she'd get the seat in the heavily-Democratic state. Her opponent, on the other hand, has been campaigning like mad all over the state. They are now basically even in the polls. So, for pulling a Hillary-esque "inevitability" campaign, and for putting in danger Democrats' 60-vote supermajority in the Senate ten months earlier than anyone expected, and for her lackluster campaigning, we award Martha Coakley the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Here's hoping next week will go better for Coakley, or we're all going to have to rethink the entire political scene for 2010.

[Rod Blagojevich is out of office, and therefore we have no contact information for him. Martha Coakley is currently a candidate for office, and our rule of thumb here is never to give out candidate information, so as not to fall afoul of campaign finance laws. Besides, Coakley's got enough problems, and probably doesn't need any of our irate messages at this point. Sigh.]

 

Volume 107 (1/15/10)

The Friday Talking Points are a bit disjointed today, but then it's been a few weeks since we actually put together the traditional list, so we're a bit out of practice.

There is no overarching theme this week, in other words, but rather some random points offered up (as always) to Democrats everywhere, and most especially to those Democrats who are officeholders being interviewed this weekend.

Without further introduction, let's get right to it.

 

   The Fed ran a $45 billion profit

Here's one of those stories which amaze me because it should have been big news, but instead was barely even noticed. Democrats really need to present things in an entirely different light, or else they are going to get buried in the midterms later this year. This is a good example of how to do so.

"I'm surprised I didn't see any reporting on the fact that the Federal Reserve just made a 45 billion dollar profit last year. Contrary to popular belief, and contrary to what television news likes to infer, all that 'bailout' money was simply not just handed to Wall Street as a giveaway. We, as taxpayers, are loaning that money out, not giving it away -- a fact which escapes many. That money is now starting to come back, as was always planned. This, among other things, allowed the Fed to make the highest profit in history, over ten billion dollars larger than any other year posted. This money goes straight into the Treasury, and helps reduce our national debt and the deficit. So why wasn't the story of the Fed's astoundingly good year for the taxpayers bigger news?"

 

   And Bernanke didn't get a multi-million bonus, either

This is really a followup to the previous point.

"And you know what? The Fed just made a profit larger than Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and J.P. Morgan Chase made last year -- combined -- and for all that talk of how it is absolutely necessary to hand out multi-million dollar bonuses like candy to Wall Street traders or else they will bolt to mythical jobs elsewhere, the man at the head of the Federal Reserve -- Ben Bernanke -- last year made less than $200,000 in salary. With no bonus -- not one thin dime. So it is possible, I guess, to make a bunch of money without paying obscene compensation in order to do so. Maybe we should pass a law stating that no banker can make more than the Fed Chairman, maybe that would help."

 

   Obama rolling up his sleeves

This one is going to have to be more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger, I guess.

"We are pleased to see President Obama truly become engaged in the process of producing a final healthcare reform bill that can pass Congress. The president has rolled up his sleeves, and spent the better part of this week focused on getting House and Senate Democrats to agree on something. While we certainly appreciate the president's recent efforts, at the same time I would urge President Obama to consider, in the next key piece of legislation he proposes, to get involved a little earlier in the process, in the hopes of speeding things up a bit. Now, don't get me wrong, Obama's done some excellent work this week, as evidenced by reaching a compromise the unions can support, for one, but all I'm saying is that this sort of energy would be appreciated a little earlier than the last minute, next time."

 

   Another Republican announces his retirement

Yet again, the mainstream media takes a pass on reporting that there will now be fourteen open seats in the House from retiring Republicans. Much ado was made last week over Democratic retirements, but nary a peep when another Republican steps down.

"I noticed there weren't a lot of headlines over the fourteenth Republican House member to announce he will not be running for re-election. Funny how when a Democrat retires, it is some dire news event, but when Republicans retire, it isn't even mentioned. For those keeping score, this makes fourteen Republicans retiring in the House, to the Democrats' ten, and six Republican senators retiring, to the Democrats' two. Just wanted to mention that, since the news media doesn't seem capable of such basic math."

 

   Massachusetts (sigh)

OK, this one is some grade-A pure spin, I have to admit. Since nobody will know the reality until it happens, it's best to put a brave face on things in the meantime, in the hopes of motivating voters to go vote this Tuesday. Or scare them into it, one or the other. Sigh.

"Democrats fully expect Martha Coakley to win her election next week. We know it's going to be a close race, and we know that it is an important race with national implications. Which is why we're doing everything we can to get Democratic voters to the polls next Tuesday. President Barack Obama is going to appear in support of Coakley this weekend, and I really don't think he'd do that if she was seen as some sort of lost cause by the White House. I'm not saying her election is guaranteed, because every vote is going to count and we need every Democrat to realize the importance of voting in the special election. But we do feel that our efforts will pay off, and the Democratic voter turnout will be a lot bigger than expected."

 

   Reid and race

What with all the other news, this seems to have largely died down. But questions may still be asked this weekend about Harry Reid's comments on Barack Obama's candidacy, so be prepared.

"Harry Reid, no spring chicken himself, regretfully used an old-fashioned term to describe Barack Obama's lack of distinctive accent during the presidential campaign. He has apologized to, as he put it, everyone within the sound of his voice, and Obama himself accepted Reid's apology. But please understand that, aside from an outdated word, what Harry Reid had to say was in no way racist, but rather an honest statement about politics and race in America. It may have been too honest for some, but Reid was merely pointing out a historic fact about African-Americans who have been elected to higher office in America. Just because the subject has to do with race doesn't make every statement a racist statement."

 

   Isn't he in jail yet?

And finally, there's Blagojevich. Fortunately, this one has a snappy answer built in.

"Rod Blagojevich? Isn't he in jail yet? Wow, I'm surprised he isn't behind bars already."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged on Wednesday that progressive voters' disinterest and unhappiness was threatening what traditionally should be a blowout Senate election victory for Democrats in Massachusetts.

Briefing reporters in his office, Gibbs said he did not know "why some segment of political observers don't seem to be as motivated" going into the special election between Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley and Republican State Senator Scott Brown.

"There is a lot at stake," Gibbs stressed. "There is a lot at stake in the election for Massachusetts. There is a lot at stakes... as to whether or not we are going to go forward with ideas for economic recovery, creating a new foundation or are we going to go back to some of the policies that caused this type of economic devastation to take place."

Asked if that was an admission from the White House that the Democratic Party was having trouble rallying its base, Gibbs replied: "That was the premise of [the] question and I didn't dispute the premise."

Got that? The White House and the Democratic Party are having trouble rallying their base, and Gibbs doesn't know why progressive voters are disinterested and unhappy.

Coupled together with a rather in-depth look at the first year of Organizing For America (OFA) from Politico, it seems to me to be time to send the White House a message. Organizing For America is the organization which was born from Barack Obama's mailing list (more accurately: emailing list) of 13 million names which he amassed during his historic campaign.

The organization, Politico reports, is having some problems fitting in. This is because, early on, the decision was made to put it under the control of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Which leads to problems, when the core purpose of the DNC (electing Democrats to office) clashes with the core purpose of OFA (supporting Barack Obama's agenda). Snide quotes are reported from the party chairs of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, although many more state party leaders went on the record as being pleased with OFA. The obvious conclusion is that the party might be out of touch with The People in a few states, due to picking weak candidates to support, is not made within the article, however.

There's another obvious conclusion the article fails to make, as well. This is that OFA is having some enthusiasm problems of its own among its supporters, and that this lack of enthusiasm is not due to problems with the supporters, but rather problems with the leader of the movement, President Barack Obama himself.

Here's an excerpt from the Politico article, to show you what I mean (the entire article is fascinating, and well worth reading in its entirety).

Perhaps most troubling for the party, former Obama aides and other Democrats say, OFA simply hasn't been as effective as they had hoped. And as 2010 shapes up to be a difficult year for Democrats, the quiet hand-wringing among party officials over the organization's capacities has been matched by a new public hand-wringing among Democratic activists, with both struggling to diagnose the ills of the group that was meant to change the game.

"'Fixing health care' was a tough initial assignment for Organizing for America. It was both too diffuse and abstract," said Simon Rosenberg, president of the Democratic think tank NDN, who said he thought OFA "could get back on track" next year by focusing on the economy and the elections.

. . .

Susan Smith, an OFA activist from Tampa who is heavily involved in local Democratic politics, complained that OFA "from the beginning has not been really clear about what their mission is" on health care and other issues.

She said the group's stances on even key issues like the public option seemed to vacillate from one day to the next. "On one day the public option would be in their paperwork and on their website, and the next day people couldn't find it. Then all of sudden, it was back and it was No. 8 in an 11-point plan. It's just been very amorphous."

Now go back and re-read this excerpt, except that while you do, replace (as you read) the term: "OFA" with the name: "Obama," and see if it doesn't ring true. The Deputy Director of OFA, after all, is quoted in the same article as saying that OFA, "no matter where it was, was going to be identified with the president." OFA's web address is actually: barackobama.com. So it's a fair measure, even by their own admission and example.

In other words, if Press Secretary Gibbs is looking for reasons why Democratic voters "don't seem to be as motivated" now as they were a year ago, he probably doesn't need to look much further than the Oval Office. The Politico article ends with:

The group's key challenge, however, is balancing that focus on the hard core with an effort to keep the larger membership of a list that has more than 10 million e-mail addresses interested. Stewart said that the e-mail open rate -- a key measure for online groups -- is "extremely healthy if you compare it to any other organization out there" but declined to go into detail. Critics have complained that the e-mails -- notable during the campaign for offering a straightforward take and, sometimes, breaking news, have grown trite and interspersed with gimmicks like online holiday cards.

Politico reported last month that the response to e-mail appeals had fallen by half over the course of the fall, while discontent among supporters over the details of health care reform grew.

With OFA's effectiveness in dispute, its clear test will come in this year's midterms. Stewart declined to discuss its plans in detail, but the group sent a survey to supporters asking them about their willingness to participate in two key activities: voter registration and working to ensure that Obama's 2008 voters -- many of whom stayed home in Virginia and New Jersey last year -- return to the polls in 2010.

"We are in a unique position to help reach out to some of the Democrats or folks who are supportive of the president who are apathetic right now," Stewart said.

So, my advice to OFA is not to send out surveys asking whether people are interested in trying to make their fellow Democrats enthusiastic about voting this year, but rather instead to identify the real source of their problems: why Barack Obama is not making voters as enthusiastic as he once did. Because unless you fix that problem, I think the other may be unsolvable.

So here is my suggestion for a survey to send out to that multimillion-name email list. A quick quiz for OFA supporters, as it were. Actually, to save time, I would suggest just choosing 1,000 names off the list at random, and send the quiz out to them. Because I would bet that even a random sampling of their supporters right now would be cause for deep concern at the White House. At the very least, it would tend to give Gibbs (and his boss) some sort of idea why they have lost so much support so quickly.

Here is my OFA opinion survey. OFA members, former OFA members, and anyone else -- feel free to post your responses in the comment section.

 

Organizing For America member survey

Below are three options. Choose one of them to show your support for the direction you believe President Barack Obama should take in the coming year. In other words, which of these three would make you more enthusiastic about the president, more enthusiastic about OFA as an organization, and more enthusiastic about getting out the vote for this year's congressional elections?

(A.) President Obama should redouble his efforts at changing the way Washington works by appealing to the Republicans in Congress for a more bipartisan approach to legislating. People are tired of the partisan mudslinging, and want to see Obama reach out across the political divide in order to do what needs to be done for the country.

(B.) President Obama should continue his largely-successful strategy of identifying the broad concepts of legislation he requests of Congress, and then allowing the Legislative Branch to write such legislation in its own fashion, as our Constitution lays out. At the end of this process, Obama can honestly say he got 90 percent of what he asked for and claim victory for his effort, even if the final bill doesn't contain every detail he wanted.

(C.) President Obama should choose a few key issues core Democrats want to see enacted, say exactly what he wants in specific legislative detail, and then lead the fight to pass such a bill -- even if he ultimately loses such a fight in Congress. Obama should choose a few issues from his campaign, use the "bully pulpit" of the Oval Office in a more effective manner than he has yet, and draw some clear lines in the sand. Obama should strongly stand up and say: "I will not sign a bill without these exact provisions -- anything less will be unacceptable." Rather than standing quietly on the sidelines while Congress debates, Obama should make it crystal clear where he stands, and be a fierce advocate for his position -- even if he winds up losing such a political fight with conservatives in his own party. "Change we can believe in" is simply not going to happen without picking a few big political fights -- with Wall Street, for example.

 

I bet that 1,000 random OFA members, responding to such a survey, might just open Gibbs' eyes a fraction, and give the White House some valuable data on the subject of why Democratic voters (especially the "base" represented by OFA members) are feeling so disillusioned, apathetic, and downright unenthusiastic about donating their time or money to the Democratic Party in this year's elections.

Any OFA members out there? Anyone who volunteered during the Obama campaign? What are your thoughts?

 

[Note: While posting in the comments is fun, you can perhaps also have your voice heard by those who really matter in this situation. I heartily encourage everyone to copy the text of their comment and send it to either the Democratic National Committee or directly to the White House itself. The OFA web contact page, if you don't click "sign up to be a volunteer," just redirects you to the White House comment page anyway. Maybe they'll listen, in time for it to do some good.]

[Full Disclosure: I do not join political organizations as a general journalistic rule, and have never been a member of OFA, or the campaign organization which preceded its formation. I have, however, been registered as a Democratic voter ever since California scrapped their open primary system, so that I am able to vote in Democratic primary elections.]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

Harry Reid's situation seemed to me to be a perfect opportunity for him to follow in Chris Dodd's footsteps, and announce that -- after healthcare reform legislation is successfully put on Barack Obama's desk to sign -- Harry Reid would be stepping down as Senate Majority Leader, and giving someone else a shot at it. My reasoning had very little to do with the recently-revealed gaffe from Reid.

But, as I said, someone else had already said exactly what I was going to say, so I will direct you to Dylan Loewe's excellent article today up on Huffington Post, and you can read it for yourself. Loewe made exactly the points I was going to make, used exactly the reasoning I would have, and did it in probably about one-third the space I would have taken. So I have to take my hat off to him, and say "Well done!" And encourage everyone else to read his article.

So please don't read the rest of this article as a defense of Harry Reid, for sheer political reasons. Reid has a few political options now, none of which have much to do with what he said to a reporter during the 2008 presidential campaign: he can stick it out, hoping for an upset victory which would allow him to remain Majority Leader; he can step down from the leadership position, campaign as just another senator in the midterms; or he can announce he will not be running this year, and give another Democrat a shot at his Senate seat. My preference would actually be for that last one, but my political instincts tell me that he'll run and not step down from his leadership spot, choosing instead to "tough it out," and hoping that he can spend enough during the campaign to convince Silver State voters to send him back to Washington.

Instead I would like to deconstruct what Harry actually reportedly said that caused the furor in the first place. Because, with the exception of one poorly-chosen word, it seems to me to fit the classic definition of a "Washington gaffe" -- accidentally speaking a bald truth, and having to immediately apologize for such unseemliness.

Let's separate the two, and take a look at the poorly-chosen word first, and then take an overall look at his statements with a bit of badly-needed context. First, the full quote from the new tell-all political book which raised the controversy in order to sell more books (which is why I refuse to name them here, the authors having had enough publicity already, it seems to me):

He [Harry Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he later put it privately.

The word "Negro" fairly jumps off the page there (or, more accurately for my readers, "off the screen") when casually reading that sentence. That is because it is the year 2010.

Time is an important part of this discussion. Because, over time, terminology which was originally intended to be "polite" and "genteel" and "proper" usually migrates (in the mouths of racists) into becoming a negative term or slur, which is then slowly abandoned as a "polite" term, in favor of a more-politically-correct term (which will also then follow the same cycle). The speed at which this happens differs, depending on the usage and depending on the minority group being spoken of. In fifty years, I can easily see an American politician castigated for using the newly-offensive term "African-American," for instance. The wheel turns, in other words. Or perhaps, "the wheel turns towards other words."

A good example is the fact that nowhere in America could a sports team decide to name itself "The Blackskins"... and yet, Washington, D.C.'s football team is quite comfortable still using such terminology when it refers to Native Americans (who don't have nearly the political power of other groups).

Even in our so-called modern and enlightened age, Native Americans are routinely referred to in terminology which harkens back to about where African-Americans were in the 1950s. For the most part, we don't even bat an eyelid when it happens, either.

The head of the Republican Party, for example, just used the term "Honest Injun!" in a broadcast interview last week, which didn't stop him from calling for Harry Reid to resign his leadership post this past weekend. The phrase "off the reservation" is routinely used in American politics, and again, nobody bats an eyelid when it happens.

The terminology for those of African ancestry here in America has changed over the years. Negro was originally the "polite" term to use, post-Civil-War, rather than the racially-charged term which preceded it (and which is deemed so offensive today that editorial standards dictate only referring to it with the euphemism: "the N-word"). Up until perhaps World War II, the term "Negro" was embraced by the group to which it referred. In the early 1930s, it was even officially capitalized in both the media and by the federal government, as a result of pressure from the black community.

The word-of-choice soon changed, though, and the following words (as well as others, this should not be seen as a complete list) went through their own time of being favored: colored, black (or, sometimes: Black), Afro-American, African American (sometimes: African-American), and person of color. Today, any person not part of the group being referred to (from, for instance, a white guy such as myself) very carefully chooses what term to use. "African American" is the most common, followed by "black," especially as a modifier (the "black vote" or "black presidential candidate" for instance).

But even "African American" has its problems. I know a teacher in the D.C. suburbs who routinely (due to the embassies located in the area) is confronted by students who demand which racial box they should check. "I'm not an American!" they protest, being from the Caribbean or from Africa itself. "Why don't I have a box?" Well, because we mixed up geography in our "correct" racial terminology, sorry about that.

So Harry Reid appeared out of date, and out of touch, by saying "Negro dialect." But the episode wasn't without irony. When the first reports surfaced over the weekend, Reid's quote was paired with denunciations from various members of the N.A.A.C.P. -- without ever pointing out that they themselves are using a term just as old-fashioned, and just as offensive to some within their group's very name! "Colored" is what the "C" stands for, and yet nobody bothered to point out just how out of date that particular word is nowadays.

Times change, and sometimes a "brand" becomes so ingrained that it never changes, even while the language around it does.

Let's go back and try Reid's statement again, with this one word updated, and see what the rest of the fuss was all about:

He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no black dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he later put it privately.

The rest of Reid's problem stems from two other phrases in the quote: "light-skinned," and "dialect." Neither, it should be pointed out, is a "slur." Both are actual facts, which people on all sides would agree with, if stated outside of political speech: Barack Obama, being half-white, is indeed lighter-skinned than some other African-Americans; and there is indeed a "dialect" which is associated with African-Americans.

Going further, Reid isn't really saying anything shocking here, because he is being honest (see above: "Washington gaffe"). Remember, this comes in the context of Reid being proud he backed Obama very early on, and praising Barack Obama's electability factor. Reid said that he considered Obama's chances with the American electorate at large to be better because he had lighter skin than some African-Americans. And that Obama did not use black dialect, unless he chose to -- and that, again, his chances of being elected were greater as a result.

These might be controversial subjects, but it is pretty hard to argue that Reid is, sadly, right about both. Obama being half-white, and Obama being raised to speak in (if anything) a Kansas accent probably did help convince a certain segment of white voters that Obama was "safe enough" to vote for. As I said, this reflects quite a number of ugly realities in America on the subject of race, but seen as purely election-season handicapping of politics, it's hard to argue that Reid was wrong on either count.

In other words, it might indeed be offensive that a lighter-skinned African-American who spoke without a black accent has a better chance of winning the presidency in America today. But is it really offensive to point this out? Isn't the truly offensive thing that Harry's probably right? Even if he was inarticulate in how he chose to put it?

But that's where the problem really lies. Because the quandary any white person faces when even bringing up the subject of race is that there are simply too many pitfalls and landmines strewn about the linguistic landscape to even know how to begin the conversation. Which leads, in many cases, to abandoning such efforts before they are even begun -- "it's safer not to even talk about it" becomes the smart choice.

And that is a shame, because if the conversation itself -- the dialog and the concepts involved, and not just the language used -- becomes so fraught with the possibility of offending someone, then the conversation simply will not happen at all.

Which, sadly, appears to be the lesson all politicians are taking away from the entire episode. Meaning such things will continue to be said, but not in public.

Now, I'm not really defending Harry Reid here, or what he said. That's up to Harry to do. But I do have to say that Republican leader Michael Steele doth protest a wee bit too much on the issue. Here is Steele, from a few months back, on a radio call-in show:

CALLER: It's just like the L.A. Times said last year, or two years ago -- he [Obama] is "the magic Negro."

STEELE: Yeah he is -- [laughter]. You read that too, huh?

Funny how Steele didn't immediately denounce the caller, or have some fit of pique about it later, isn't it? Which, together with his recent "Honest Injun!" comment, shows what a flaming hypocrite he truly is, as he attempts to make as much political hay out of this as is humanly possible.

But none of this, Steele's hypocrisy included, changes the political reality Reid now faces. He was down in the polls, and that was before this story broke. Now, Nevada is only about 8% African-American (or "Black," as the census lists the group), meaning that it's less of a factor than in states where that percentage is higher. At the same time, when you're down so far in the polls, any bad news can be enough to put re-election out of grasp. Which is why I agree with the notion that Harry would do his own party a lot of good by turning the reins over to some other Democrat in the Senate, if not deciding to retire altogether. But then (to be scrupulously honest), I thought that last Thursday, too, before the Reid gaffe story broke.

But as for Harry's scandalous comments (and with apologies in advance to William Shakespeare), methinks those loudly protesting are making much ado about very little indeed. Because "Negro" is simply not that derogatory a term, unless uttered with clearly derogatory intent or context. I keep wondering if someone will chime in on the debate from the wonderful organization whose sole purpose is to fund higher education for African-Americans. You know -- the one with the slogan: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." Because it might put the controversy in a little different perspective to have a spokesman join in the debate from the United Negro College Fund.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

Of course, in Washington, the craziness goes on as usual, forcing us once again to pay attention to various bits of lunacy. Topping the list of lunatics this week was a man arrested for jogging naked near the White House. Now, I've got to admit, although "streaking" is a fad we all wish would make a comeback, you've got to hand it to this guy for pulling such a stunt in January in Washington, rather than waiting until at least the cherry blossoms had peeked out. Jogging around The Ellipse naked in January? Brrr!

The media continues its ongoing lunacy, this week hitting their well-used chorus of: "everything is bad news for Democrats, all the time." But we'll get to that a bit later, in the actual talking points.

The final bit of lunacy is the breathlessness which awaits the decision of when to hold the State Of The Union speech, which was earlier rumored to possibly pre-empt the season-opening episode of Lost. This will likely go down in history as the first time the biggest speech the president makes each year had to worry about enraging fans of a television show. This is mostly due to the fact that previous presidents didn't have to worry about such lunacy, and the fact that television used to actually have "seasons," and the "season" started in the fall and went through uninterrupted to spring, after which time re-runs would air until the "season" started again. Nowadays, television has mini-seasons which start and end for no particular reason, at random times during the year, resulting in fewer actual new episodes for viewers. Don't even get me started on that particular lunacy, please.

But we can all breathe a sigh of relief, as the White House is now reassuring everyone that Obama will not pre-empt Lost, but will instead pre-empt the last ten minutes of the Super Bowl.

Heh. Just kidding. Because that really would get some folks annoyed at the president. Hoo boy.

 

The Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week was an easy choice. Senator Chris Dodd made an impressive announcement this week, that he would not be seeking re-election this year.

This is good news, because Dodd's chances of winning weren't good, and instead this virtually guarantees Democrats will hold this seat. Dodd, quite plainly, put his party's interests ahead of his own self-interest. And that is a rare thing indeed in politics, even when you are faced with poll numbers which say you're going to lose.

Senator Byron Dorgan decided to step down as well, but Democrats don't have as good a chance in North Dakota of holding on to his seat. Dorgan was faced with the same bad polling news as Dodd, and decided one more run wasn't worth it. To be fair, we'll give him a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week as well.

Because politicians who step down early from a losing race at least give some up-and-comer a shot at winning back the seat. The alternative is to run a campaign everyone knows you are going to lose, and by doing so, give the other party an easy pickup. At least this way, even if Democrats lose, they'll at least have a better shot at winning than if Dorgan had tried to run again. The betting is that Republicans will pick up North Dakota anyway, I have to admit.

But for putting party ahead of ego, we congratulate Senators Byron Dorgan and Chris Dodd for winning Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. The award is Dodd's ninth, putting him in third place on the all-time rankings, and Dorgan's third, putting him in a nine-way tie for eighth place.

[Congratulate Senator Chris Dodd on his Senate contact page and Senator Byron Dorgan on his Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

I almost couldn't think of a Democrat who disappointed me, which is remarkable since we're really covering a three-week period this week (due to ourselves being pre-empted by our own annual McLaughlin Awards columns, of course).

But then Tim Geithner's scandal sprang to mind.

Now, Geithner hasn't been actually convicted of anything, but what leaked out this week was pretty damaging. Geithner, at the New York Federal Reserve, apparently was in the center of some hanky-panky involving AIG and the whole financial collapse last year (before Geithner was named Secretary of the Treasury). Geithner may have told AIG executives to keep quiet about some payments made (after AIG got billions of taxpayer bailout money), so the Securities and Exchange Commission wouldn't find out about them.

This could be a big enough scandal to force Geithner to resign, although for now it seems he (and the White House) is hunkering down and hoping it will blow over.

Whatever comes of it, though, for telling a bailed-out company to essentially lie to a government regulatory agency, Geithner has more than earned Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Secretary Timothy Geithner has no contact info on the Treasury Department webpage, but you can always let the White House know what you think of his actions.]

 

Volume 106 (1/8/10)

The usual talking point from the media, no matter the subject or circumstance, is how bad things are for Democrats, as I mentioned previously. This week, it reached a crescendo of fantastical proportions, as news headline after news headline screamed: "Democrats retiring -- midterms will be Republican blowout!"

Democrats, as usual, appear befuddled by the whole thing. Democrats need to wake up, and start sounding a little more confident about their chances in the upcoming election. Not to the extent of appearing Pollyannaish, but still, they need to realize that doom-and-gloom can quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the political world.

Democrats face the same conundrum that faces teenage boys everywhere -- girls aren't interested in guys who exude self-doubt, they are drawn instead to those who appear self-confident. The electorate, in this twisted metaphor, are the teenage girls (which actually isn't that bad a comparison, considering the fickle nature of both).

So instead of individual talking points this week, I offer up instead one big talking point -- how to talk about the upcoming elections, and Democrats' prospects. This may be seen by some as sheer laziness on my part, which is probably a fair criticism, but in my defense, I am in the process of preparing to upgrade my ChrisWeigant.com website this weekend, and have been swamped with lots of details on this front. Next week, I promise, we'll get back to a regular format here.

So, for Democrats everywhere, especially those about to be interviewed, let's have a little rah-rah go-team talk for a change, because the Republican spin is solidifying in the media's myopic eye, and will soon set as hard as concrete. Democrats need to counter this -- soon -- with some of their own spin. To wit:

 

"I see the media is obsessed over two Democratic senators announcing their retirement. But what goes completely unmentioned in these stories is the fact that six Republican senators have also announced they're not running.

"Let's do a little math, shall we? Two Democrats out of 58 is a little over three percent. Six Republicans out of forty is fifteen percent. So, the media's focus on three percent of Democrats retiring, while completely ignoring the fifteen percent of Republicans retiring strikes me as a little one-sided in its reporting.

"Over in the House, much has been made over Democratic retirements as well, while ignoring the fact that more Republicans are retiring from House seats than Democrats. This is not exactly 'fair and balanced' reporting, guys.

"In actual fact, the two retirement announcements by Byron Dorgan and Chris Dodd were actually good news for Democrats. Before the retirement announcement, people were betting that both of them would lose their seats to Republicans. Net loss to Democrats, two seats, in other words. After the announcement, the smart money is that Democrats will hold onto the Connecticut seat. Net Democratic loss, one seat. By these announcements, Democrats' chances in the Senate actually improved -- but I must have missed all those news stories which examined this fact.

"History shows that a new president's party will lose some seats in Congress in the midterm elections. But we Democrats do not see this as any sort of 'landslide' election, because we fully expect to start 2011 with a majority in both the House and Senate. We simply do not think that it is in the cards for Republicans to take control of either house of Congress this year.

"We've got some mighty good candidates running in some very competitive races, and if we ran the table, we even have an outside chance of picking up a few seats in the Senate. We do face some tough races to hold onto a few of our seats, it is true, but we also have some opportunities in other states of picking up a few seats as well. So I wouldn't be writing the obituary of Democratic control of Congress quite yet, if I were you.

"Democrats have shown in the past year that we are willing to tackle the enormous challenges our country faces at the moment, and offer solid solutions for how to improve America in the future. Republicans have shown that they know how to say the word 'no.' Over and over and over again. It seems to be their entire party platform -- stand in the way of progress, and obstruct everything rational adults know needs doing.

"We don't think voters are ready to go back to the way Republicans ran things when they were in charge. We don't think voters trust Republicans to be fiscally responsible, because when they were in power they refused to even pretend to pay for anything. Democrats have taken the lead in what is called 'pay as you go' legislation -- making sure that things are paid for, and not just heaping on more spending.

"The voters are understandably annoyed over all the bailout money which President Bush had to ask Congress for, after the economy collapsed on his watch due to deregulation. But that money is starting to be paid back, and the taxpayers may even eventually turn a profit on the money, as the economy enters full recovery.

"Democrats are proud to run on our record, and will be making this case to voters everywhere this election season. And we are fairly confident that the voters are going to take a good hard look at both parties, and they're going to see Democrats as the party that gets things done, and Republicans as the party of 'no.'

"If the voters can even figure out who is a Republican and who is not, that is. It seems there is a gigantic intra-party struggle between Republicans and the insurgent Tea Party folks. The Republican Party is moving to a very radical, hard-right fringe position, and we don't see that as a recipe for success in getting elected.

"Americans want to see their government work. Most of them aren't interested in destroying government for some ideologically narrow viewpoint. But that, it seems, is what the Republican Party is offering them this year.

"Which is why I'm actually feeling pretty good about Democrats' chances in the upcoming election. We think we can energize our base, and convince swing voters that we are the ones offering good ideas for moving the country forward. And, with Republicans offering nothing more than a vision of moving this country backwards, we think our chances are actually pretty good this year -- especially since it looks like Republicans will be defending more open seats than Democrats."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank