Jeb Bush, Grover Norquist, and the Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Politico Arena Topic: Is Jeb Bush Right About Partisanship?

Governor Jeb Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would be out of sync with today’s GOP. Make no mistake, Reagan and Bush were conservatives; however, both were willing to negotiate, compromise, and cut deals with the other side, despite differences in ideology and policy. Such behavior is considered treasonous today but governing was the priority, not the 24/7/365 campaign that dominates in the twenty-first century.

One can see in the Bush 41 presidency a foreshadowing of what would come: when he agreed with Democrats to raise taxes in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 in an attempt to get America’s fiscal house in order and lower the deficit, he was assailed by the Right for discarding the “No New Taxes” pledge he made at the 1988 RNC Convention. In this instance, Bush acted with courage and did what he thought was in the best interests of the country. However, conservatives at the time such as Richard Viguerie assailed President Bush accusing him of abandoning conservative principles and being too willing to “cut deals with the Washington establishment.”

Today, the chickens have come home to roost. Most Congressional Republicans have signed Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes—ever. Republicans fear if they don’t sign the Norquist pledge, he will find someone who is willing to sign the pledge to defeat them in the next primary election. And with the Congressional map gerrymandered in such a way that most districts are safe, and with the invention of the SuperPAC and unlimited campaign spending, Republican members of Congress fear a primary challenge from an uber-funded fellow Republican more than anything. And so to avoid that primary challenge, Republican lawmakers uphold Conservative orthodoxy—regardless of merit and regardless of the consequences thus giving us stalemate.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

The Invisible Massachusetts Governor

Politico Arena Topic: Is Mitt Romney Avoiding Massachusetts?

The Romney campaign seems intent on emphasizing Mitt Romney’s time as a venture capitalist with Bain rather than his time as chief executive of a large Northeastern state (of course, no else is supposed to talk about Romney’s time with Bain). His reticence to highlight his years as Massachusetts governor is indicative of the Romney campaign’s fear of alienating the Republican base who loathe the more moderate actions and policies of Governor Romney. The Romney campaign is reluctant to reminding social and religious conservatives that he was once a supporter of abortion rights and creator of Romneycare upon which the Affordable Care Act is in part based.

So…if Romney is left to campaign without touting his record as governor, he must campaign as the candidate from Bain. The question is: will his record as a venture capitalist capture the hearts and minds of independent voters? The answer is probably not, especially when independent voters, who are largely not paying attention right now, realize that the purpose of a venture capitalist is to make money—lots of it—for investors, and not to create jobs, a top priority for most Americans in 2012. And when these same voters come to realize that Romney’s job creation consists primarily of the stablemen who care for his horses, the domestic help caring for his several homes, and the workers installing elevators for his numerous automobiles, they may switch their allegiance to his opponent faster than you can transfer money into a Cayman Islands bank account.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment.

Winning the Veepstakes: Exploring the Criteria of Running Mate Selection

Below is an essay I published in the Summer/Fall 2008 edition of Northeast Ohio Municipal Leader Magazine. Although almost four years old, it is still very relevant today.

Winning the Veepstakes: Exploring the Criteria of Running Mate Selection

“Don’t any of you realize that there’s only one life between that madman and the White House?”

--Ohio Senator Mark Hanna imploring his Republican colleagues not to place New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt on the ticket as President William McKinley’s running mate in 1900.
The Importance of the Running Mate Choice

The selection of a running mate is perhaps the biggest decision a presidential candidate will make during their candidacy. Though most pundits are obsessed with the decision from a purely horse-race driven perspective, it is a decision that could have monumental consequences given the fact that eight of the 42 individuals who have served in that office died—four by assassination and four due to natural causes. Add in the fact that one president, Richard Nixon, resigned before his second term was complete, and the historical track record shows that slightly over one in five U.S. presidents did not complete the term they were elected to. This doesn’t even reflect those presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower that were incapacitated during their term.

Such statistics would not be cause for alarm if party nominees chose their running mates based on qualification alone. However, they don’t and rarely have. Instead, the intricacies of the Electoral College and two party system dictate that strategic candidates consider other factors beyond mere qualification. Beyond that, many running mates have been picked with little care or vetting. This is the case even in the modern presidency leading to some deficient running mates, and worse yet, vice presidents.

For example, in 1968 and again in 1972, Richard Nixon tapped Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew as his running mate. A moderate from a Democratic-leaning border state, Agnew had a meteoric rise to the vice presidency having made the jump from Baltimore County Executive to Governor in 1966. His turbulent tenure as vice president ended abruptly when he resigned in October 1973 as part of a plea agreement to avoid federal prison time for money laundering and tax evasion during his time as governor.

In 1972, South Dakota Senator George McGovern picked first-term Missouri Senator Tom Eagleton, someone who shared his opposition to the Vietnam War, as his running mate. Even a shoddy background check would have quickly revealed what the newspapers uncovered almost immediately—that Eagleton had undergone electroconvulsive therapy in the early 1960s for mental illness. Eagleton’s stay on the Democratic ticket was short—he was replaced after 18 days by Sargent Shriver, brother-in-law to President John Kennedy and first-director of the Peace Corps.

In 1988 and with little consultation, Vice President George H.W. Bush shocked the political world by picking Indiana Senator Dan Quayle as his running mate. Never known as an intellectual-heavyweight, the fresh-faced conservative was just two years into his second term when he was tapped by Bush. Many political observers expressed shock that someone with so little political experience would be picked to be one heartbeat away from the presidency, despite the fact that Quayle protested he had as much Congressional experience as John Kennedy when he ran for president. Quayle’s tenure as vice president was a rocky one and provided ample fodder for late night comics. When images of President George H.W. Bush momentarily collapsing from intestinal flu at a 1992 state dinner in Japan aired in the United States, most Americans realized that an unqualified vice president, even one who can’t spell potato, wasn’t a laughing matter.

Criteria Considered

Many factors come into play other than sheer competence when a running mate is chosen. This has always been the case throughout American history—from Elbridge Gerry to Joe Lieberman. It may be even truer in the modern era.

Perhaps the most obvious factor that a presidential campaign considers is geography. The electoral math dictates that running mates should be able to carry (or at least make competitive) an important swing state for the ticket or at least solidify a region in the party’s base. Nearly all modern running mates have fulfilled this criterion and many pre-modern running mates have as well.

Senator John Kennedy’s selection of Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Majority Leader, was based on the calculus that Kennedy needed to carry Texas. Kennedy, an Irish Catholic from Massachusetts, carried LBJ’s home state—barely—just 46,000 votes separated Kennedy and Nixon, the Republican nominee. Former California Governor Ronald Reagan’s selection of primary rival George H.W. Bush in 1980 was based in part on geography. As the son of a U.S. Senator from Connecticut, Bush moved his family to West Texas following World War II to enter the booming oil business. Bush helped broaden Reagan’s appeal beyond the West to the Northeast, South, and beyond. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton’s selection of fellow Southerner Al Gore was an unconventional yet successful attempt to break the GOP’s lock on the South. The Senator helped Clinton win a number of border states including Gore’s home state of Tennessee, the first time a Democrat had won there since 1976. Most recently in 2000, Al Gore’s selection of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was an attempt to carry the battleground state of Florida. Lieberman, who is Jewish, appealed to the many transplanted Jews from the Northeast residing in the Sunshine State.

In order to make the ticket more palatable to a broad spectrum of the country, another important running mate criterion is that of ideological counterbalancing. If a presidential candidate is a staunch liberal or conservative, a moderate is often chosen to counterbalance their “extremeness.” Conversely, if the party nominee is perceived as a moderate, a running mate who better represents the party’s base might be in order.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter, the conservative former governor of Georgia, chose liberal Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale as a way to appeal to progressive Midwestern and Northeastern Democrats. Reagan’s selection of moderate George H.W. Bush helped Reagan broaden his appeal beyond Goldwater Republicans. Bush’s ill-fated choice of Dan Quayle was a nod to the conservative base which never trusted the elder Bush. Finally, Gore’s selection of Lieberman, a conservative Democrat willing to criticize President Clinton’s conduct during the Monica Lewinski scandal, appealed to mainstream voters uneasy about Clinton’s transgressions and Gore’s environmental activism.

Though geography and ideology are important factors, a prospective candidate’s resume is also important, despite examples in American history where the resume has been discounted. As a former member of Congress, Ambassador to China and the United Nations, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George H.W. Bush was very qualified to be president in his own right. The eight year apprenticeship he served as Reagan’s Vice President only strengthened his strong resume. Many other running mates in the modern era from Kansas Senator Bob Dole (Gerald Ford’s running mate in 1976) to Joe Lieberman had enough experience in national public office that they could have indeed assumed the duties of president should that have been necessary.

Occasionally, for various reasons, the presidential candidate will need to choose someone that not only meets some or all of the criteria previously discussed, but also is viewed by the American public as having presidential credentials beyond reproach—in other words, an individual who is viewed as a viable presidential candidate in their own right, even if they have chosen not to run themselves. Such an individual is said to possess gravitas—a murky concept connoting a mythical combination of wisdom, experience, and intelligence that would allow the individual to flourish in the presidential role if called upon.

Many pundits spoke of General Colin Powell in this manner, particularly as Republicans increasingly called upon George Bush to dump Dan Quayle from the ticket in 1992 as his campaign fortunes sagged. In 1988, Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis’ running mate, Lloyd Bentsen, was similarly viewed in this light. This perhaps explains why one Democratic elector chose to cast his vote for the Texas Senator instead of Dukakis. Finally, what else can explain Texas Governor George W. Bush’s selection of fellow Texan Richard Cheney in 2000? The selection of Cheney had nothing to do with geography since both men were from Texas (though Cheney later registered to vote in his native state of Wyoming). Nor did ideology factor in since both Bush and Cheney had genuine conservative credentials. Rather, the selection of Cheney was an attempt to calm the fears of those who thought Bush’s qualifications, both in terms of previous political experience and intelligence, did not rise to the presidential level. As a former chief of staff to President Ford, a member of the House of Representatives from 1979 to 1989, and as Secretary of Defense for President George H.W. Bush, Cheney had a resume fit for a president and the respect of most of the political establishment. Despite his controversial tenure as vice president, no one can dispute that he had, and has, gravitas.

The 2008 Veepstakes

As of this writing, neither party nominee in the 2008 election has yet chosen a running mate. However, given the obvious challenges of a post-9/11 world and sinking economy, and given some glaring shortcomings of each party’s nominee, this year’s selection of vice presidential running mates is of crucial importance, not only to the horse race aspects of the campaign but the public policy aspects of governing.

Arizona Senator John McCain will have to contend with the fact that at age 72, he would be the oldest U.S. president ever elected to a first term. Ronald Reagan, elected at 69 and sworn-in at 70, was previously the most aged president. Reagan suffered memory lapses throughout his presidency and was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease five years after he left office which will serve as a stark reminder that presidential illness and disability are always a possibility, particular for a septuagenarian president. Beyond the challenge of advanced age, McCain is also distrusted by the conservative base of his own Republican Party. This distrust is the result of his embracing the maverick role in the U.S. Congress for decades and earning a reputation for bucking his own party, even when politically inexpedient to do so.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the presumed nominee for the Democratic Party, has the opposite problem. At age 47 and just three years removed from being a state senator in Springfield, it is relatively easy to portray Obama as too inexperienced for the job. Also, with one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, opponents can paint Obama as out of touch with mainstream America.

The challenge for both candidates will be to select individuals that simultaneously boost their chances of winning the election but are also viewed as presidential in their own right. As career legislators, both men lack executive experience so helpful in the White House, thus a running mate with executive experience is logical and perhaps essential. McCain, often viewed as a moderate will likely want to bolster his credentials among the GOP base, perhaps by selecting a conservative Southern governor. Obama will need to increase his allure among moderate and independent voters, particularly since McCain has a built-in advantage there. Perhaps a moderate governor from a battleground state would help Obama broaden his appeal.

Given the fact that a number of presidents have not survived their term, and several have been unable to perform their duties at some point during their presidency, a running mate should be chosen based on qualification first. In a post-9/11 world, the office of vice president is too important to select an individual solely based on electoral or political expediency.

Bain and the Political Street Fight

Politico Arena Topic: Should Democrats Stop Bain Capital Attacks?

“They apparently looted the companies, left people unemployed and walked off with millions of dollars. Look, I’m for capitalism, I’m for people who go in to save a company... if somebody comes in takes all the money out of your company, and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.” Those were not the words of President Barack Obama but rather Newt Gingrich, one of Mitt Romney’s chief rivals for the GOP nomination, just four months ago. Bain was a major target during the Republican Primary season. So what has changed? Absolutely nothing except that some Democrats are getting squeamish about attacking Romney’s one supposed advantage in the election—his business experience—for fear of angering Wall Street and Corporate America. Here’s a news flash Democrats: they already don’t like you nor trust you, just check the campaign finance records.

The Obama campaign is exactly right to take on Romney’s business credentials by delving into the world of Bain Capital and private equity. After all, Romney touts his business acumen at every campaign stop. And the Obama campaign appears to be on the correct side of public opinion on the issue of wealth in general. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll released today, 56% of Americans agreed that “unfairness in the economic system that favors the wealthy” was a “bigger problem in this country” compared to 34% who felt “over-regulation of the free market” was a more important problem.

Finally, the notion that it is somehow unfair to examine a candidate’s past record is laughable. After all, a campaign should be about the issues and record/experience that each candidate brings to the table. In 2008 (as will be the case in 2012), the Republican Party and McCain campaign had little hesitation inspecting every vote Barack Obama cast and every public utterance he made as a U.S. Senator or Illinois legislator. Obama’s life as a community organizer and even as a student also came under great public examination. Even Sarah Palin, who took so much issue recently with scrutiny of Bain, did not hesitate as John McCain’s vice presidential running mate to accuse Obama of “palling around with terrorists” and other attacks perceived as way out of bounds and simply not true. If the Obama campaign were to give-in to the criticism and relax its investigation of Romney’s record as a venture capitalist, it would be unilaterally disarming.

It is common practice for campaigns to cry foul and argue that attacks by the other side are unfair. The Obama campaign will certainly do the same. However, a presidential campaign is not a high-minded game of chess played over wine and finger-food but rather a street fight fought in a dark alley with sharp implements for the most important office in the land. And just about anything, from Swiss bank accounts to birth certificates, is fair game.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment
 

The Ohio Presidential Connection

Below is an essay I published in the Winter 2008 edition of Northeast Ohio Municipal Leader Magazine. Although it is four years old, it is still very relevant today.

The Ohio Presidential Connection

“There’s nothing like an early morning rally in the great state of Ohio. I can’t think of a better place to kick off the last day of this campaign.”

--President George W. Bush, November 1, 2004, in Wilmington, Ohio.

Ohio has always played an important role in the presidential election system since achieving statehood in 1803. Because of its size and diversity, both in terms of geography and population, Ohio has been, and will continue to be, a microcosm of the rest of the country. In recent elections, Ohio has been a key electoral battlefield—a must win state for those seeking the presidential office. It’s possible to win the presidency without winning Ohio’s electoral votes; it’s just not likely. Since 1964, no individual seeking the presidency has won the office without winning the Buckeye State and only twice since 1896 has that happened. In fact, no Republican has ever become president without winning Ohio. It is also no accident that eight presidents can trace part of their lineage to Ohio.

The Buckeye Eight

Ohio has a long rich history of playing a vital role in American presidential elections. This is most keenly embodied in the number of presidents and presidential contenders who have had connections to the Buckeye State, earning Ohio the moniker, “mother of presidents.” In 1836, William Henry Harrison became the first Ohioan to win electoral votes in a presidential election and in 1840 was elected as the nation’s first Whig president. Though born in Virginia, Harrison had served in the Ohio State Legislature as well as represented Ohio in both the U.S. House and Senate. Harrison also became the first president to die in office, expiring after only 30 days from pneumonia, likely the result of giving the longest inauguration speech in history without a hat or overcoat during inclement weather.

Union Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant was born in Point Pleasant, Ohio, in 1822. He was elected president in 1868, and reelected four years later, beginning a succession of Gilded Age Republican presidents with Ohio ties. Fremont’s Rutherford B. Hayes and Mentor’s James A. Garfield followed in 1876 and 1880 respectively. Hayes, winner of perhaps the most controversial election in American history, became president despite losing the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden of New York. A corrupt Electoral Commission reversed the contested electoral votes of three Southern states (Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina), thus handing the election to Hayes with an electoral vote margin of one. Hayes pledged to serve only one term—a term most notable for his ending Reconstruction of the South and ushering in a new era of discrimination that would last well into the latter part of the Twentieth Century. James Garfield, only 49 years old, became the second American president felled by an assassin’s bullet when he was shot by a frustrated office-seeker just shy of four months after his inauguration. Garfield’s murder cut short a promising presidency—the former president of Hiram College, Union General, and U.S. Representative was perhaps the most prepared and most intelligent of all the individuals elected in the Gilded Age. After a four-year respite, North Bend-born Benjamin Harrison, the grandson of William Henry Harrison, defeated incumbent President Grover Cleveland in an exceedingly close election. Harrison lost the popular vote by 90,000 votes but won the electoral vote. In 1892, Cleveland exacted his revenge on Harrison by defeating him in a rematch, becoming the first and only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.

In 1896, William McKinley of Canton became the sixth president with Ohio connections, and four years later became only the second Ohioan to win a second term. McKinley continued the streak of bad-luck for Ohio presidents becoming the third U.S. president to be assassinated, this time by an anarchist in Buffalo at the Pan-American Exposition in 1901. Eight years later, Cincinnati’s William Howard Taft succeeded the iconic Theodore Roosevelt only to have his predecessor challenge him in 1912, thus ensuring his defeat. Warren G. Harding of Marion was elected eight years later and during his term appointed his Republican predecessor, Taft, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Ohioans couldn’t lose in 1920—Ohio Governor James M. Cox was the Democratic nominee who lost to Harding that year. Harding became another Ohio president who failed to survive his entire elected term, serving just over two years before his death from an embolism while in San Francisco.

Not all of the eight presidents with Ohio connections were the best and the brightest. In fact, some such as the intellectually-challenged Harding were much less than that. However, they all had one thing in common—a lineage traced to electoral vote-rich, yet often up-for-grabs Ohio. In the pre-modern era of brokered conventions and backroom deals, sacrifices were made regarding the qualifications of individuals—instead, strategic considerations based on geography ruled the day.

Though U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft, the son of the 27th president and another in the long line of Ohio Tafts, nearly wrested the GOP nomination away from General Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Ohio’s grip on the White House ended with Harding’s death. A large reason for this is that as the era of the post-1968 primary system was ushered in by both major parties, Ohio’s power during the nomination stage decreased dramatically. This is due to the fact that Ohio’s primary usually occurs later on the calendar when the results are all but official, at least in the recent era of rampant frontloading. Thus in the primary season, Ohio is largely ignored by the campaigns in favor of states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina that are much less representative of the nation as a whole, but are important simply because they are at the head of the line.

This situation is particularly exacerbated in 2008 as the Iowa Caucus will occur January 3, and a scant five days later the New Hampshire primary will take place, both contests occurring far earlier than at any point in history. Ohio lawmakers have not given into temptation and followed the great rush by other states to move Ohio’s primary date to the beginning of the calendar. Because of this, Ohio’s March 4 primary will hold little interest as both party nominees will have likely been chosen long before. However, both campaigns will have all but taken up residence in the Buckeye State as the general election phase will have begun, and few states will equal the attention Ohio will garner.

The Presidential Connection and 2008: An Ohioan as VP?

The 2008 election has brought rampant speculation as to whether or not Ohio’s popular Governor, Ted Strickland, will be chosen as a runningmate by the eventual Democratic nominee. Strickland’s endorsement in November 2007 of Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party favorite, has fanned the flames of speculation. The choice of Strickland as a runningmate makes all kinds of tactical sense. The Lucasville-born Strickland is exceedingly popular with the Ohio electorate with approval ratings consistently hovering between 60% and 70% in his first year. As a moderate Democrat and Methodist minister whose base is Southern Ohio, Strickland appeals more to crucial border and Southern states than any potential Democratic nominee. Strickland has cross-over appeal as evidenced by the support of large numbers of Republicans and independents in his 2006 gubernatorial election, as well as in his easy reelection victories as a U.S. Representative from the 6th Congressional district in Southeast, Ohio. Strickland’s support of Second Amendment rights and his good working relationship with the NRA, who endorsed him in 2006, further increases his across-the-aisle appeal.

And let’s not forget Ohio’s electoral vote bonanza of 20—a total sure to bring victory to any Democrat able to capture it. And this more than anything means Strickland is at or near the top of any short list of potential runningmates. Strickland may well turn down a future offer for the VP slot and has publicly and repeatedly stated that he is “not interested.” However, that won’t quell the speculation. No serious Democratic Party nominee could fail to consider the popular Ohio Governor as a vice presidential runningmate.

Perhaps no election demonstrates the importance of Ohio in the electoral milieu as does 2004. No state was visited more by the major candidates in the nine months leading up to the election. An immense amount of money was spent by both campaigns in Ohio as well as their surrogates. Ohio voters were repeatedly inundated with political advertising, including the infamous Swift Boat ads, throughout 2004. The 2008 election will be no different. In a state carried by President George W. Bush by only 119,000 votes, a mere 2% of the popular vote total, Strickland’s name as part of the Democratic ticket could be just the elixir to make Ohio a blue state for the first time since 1996.

Obama, the Newsweek Cover, and a Changing America

Politico Arena Topic: Does the Newsweek Cover announcing Obama as "The First Gay President" help or hurt Obama's reelection chances?

Well you can bet the Newsweek cover declaring Barack Obama to be the first gay president will make its way into more than one anti-Obama ad. However, I believe it will be a net positive for the Obama campaign going forward. Social and religious conservatives who are appalled by the President’s support for same-sex marriage were never going to vote for him anyway—even if he were the last eligible candidate on the planet. And the drop off in support for Obama among some independents will likely be offset by increased support among other independents and an energized base that, for the first time since 2009, sees glimpses of the hope and change candidate they voted for in 2008.

The fact is that a majority of Americans now view same sex relationships as socially acceptable (54% according to a recent Gallup poll compared to 55% who found it unacceptable just 10 years earlier). And 50% of Americans now think same-sex marriage should be legal. The GOP is out of step with America on this issue and will be increasingly at odds as the trends are moving toward even greater acceptance. The real key for Obama is that young people (18-34) are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage with 2/3 supporting it according to Gallup. This is absolutely an issue that could energize younger folks to get out and vote for Obama which will help him compete in many of the battleground states in 2012.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Neptune Spear, Politics, and the 2012 Election

The Osama bin Laden killing is an absolute net positive for the Obama administration and should be highlighted as evidence of President Barack Obama’s leadership on national security matters. After all, Republicans and the Republican primary candidates have been criticizing Obama’s foreign and national security policy for months and it is appropriate for the Obama campaign to respond to those attacks. What better way to do this than to show a contrast between Obama and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney using Romney’s own words against him?

And to the complaint by Republicans that the Obama campaign is “turning a unifying event into a divisive political attack”: in 2004, the Bush reelection campaign did not hesitate using the events of 9/11 for campaign purposes. Who can forget Vice President Richard Cheney warning that a vote for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was asking for another 9/11: “It’s absolutely essential that…on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because ifwe make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again.” And perhaps the most powerful ad of the 2004 campaign featured President George W.Bush hugging and comforting Ashley Faulkner, an Ohio girl who lost her mother in the attack on the Twin Towers.

So, yes the Obama reelection campaign should milk the very successful bin Laden killing for all it’s worth. The fact remains that after eluding justice for almost a decade, it was President Obama who made the difficult call to green-light Operation Neptune Spear. Not all commanders-in-chief would have made the same tough decision.

Obama's GSA-Inspired Headache

Politico Arena Topic: Vegas Spending Spree an Administration Embarrassment?

The General Services Administration Vegas spending spree may not be a migraine for Democrats and the Obama administration yet, but it’s definitely a big headache. Anytime a Federal government scandal happens, the president in charge gets blamed regardless of how complicit they are. And a scandal involving a government agency wasting taxpayer money plays directly into the narrative that Republicans love to tout about Democrats—that they are big government-loving, money-wasting, free-loaders. And what better way to corroborate this in the minds of critics than by throwing a huge Las Vegas kumbaya-get-in-touch-with-your-feelings-and-build-our-team-tax-payer-funded-fantasy-trip for GSA employees? (Too bad they didn’t hire a mind-reader to read the public reaction if this went public).

The Obama administration has to exercise massive damage control at this point. A slew of very public denouncements and firings needs to happen—sooner rather than later. With the Secret Service prostitute scandal also making headlines, the Obama administration has to demonstrate it has no tolerance for this kind of behavior, has no empathy for the perpetrators, and is in control of the Federal government. Failure to contain the fallout would make it a bigger part of the presidential campaign—something the Obama campaign will desperately want to avoid because this an issue they lose.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

For the Record: Josh Mandel, Akron Press Club, and the Campaign Fishbowl

Over the course of the year, the Akron Press Club has hosted events by both major party candidates for Ohio’s U.S. Senate election occurring in November 2012. On January 6, incumbent Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) spoke to the Press Club; on March 1, Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, the soon-to-be Republican nominee, announced his candidacy at the Press Club. As a former VP for Programs and current member of the Akron Press Club board, I moderated both the Brown and Mandel events.

Following the Mandel event, media reports surfaced that the Mandel campaign attempted to prevent opposition trackers from recording Mandel’s speech to the Press Club. Since I was present at the event and since questions continue to be raised, I wanted to post, for the record, my thoughts about what transpired.

Mandel's staffers acted unprofessionally and were clearly trying to intimidate the folks that came to record the event. The Mandel campaign tried to prevent one individual from entering the room until I intervened, and also tried to obstruct the views of two of the cameras with their heads and by holding up pieces of paper until I told them to stop. I explained to Mandel’s staff that the Akron Press Club was an open forum and that the Press Club was also recording the event and would be putting that video online ASAP. And those individuals that came to record the event, by the way, despite what the Mandel campaign has said, did not try to disrupt anything—in fact they did not say a word while they were recording nor did they ask for help while they were being harassed. And I know this because during Mandel's speech, I was standing in the back of the room as all this occurred.

It is the policy of the Akron Press Club that anyone can record audio or video of our events. Period. Had Mandel-affiliated trackers been sent to record Sherrod Brown’s appearance on January 6 and been met with the same kind of treatment, I would have made sure that they were able to record freely and without interference. The Mandel Campaign knew going into the event that the Press Club is an open forum and that anyone who wished to record could do so (the only thing that would be prohibited would be having lunch—unless they paid for it). When Mandel’s campaign staff tried to block one of the trackers from entering the room, I reminded them of the policy. They then proceeded to continue to try to block the recording after I told them they couldn't. Huffington Post published a story about the incident and what you see near the end of the Huffington Post video is the second time I had to speak with them to tell them they couldn’t do that.

Running for office, especially a U.S. Senate seat, is a very serious thing. Congressional candidates and campaigns should not expect that their words uttered in an open forum are somehow private or not privy to public scrutiny. Ultimately, they are operating in a fishbowl. Attempting to prevent video and audio recording of a candidate speaking in a public forum is a losing proposition and does not reflect well on the campaign or the candidate—especially when a campaign is fully aware that such recording is permissible. It makes the campaign look amateurish and not fully confident in their own message or candidate.

Mitt Romney: An Etch A Sketch Candidate in an Era of Permanent Ink

Mitt Romney’s Etch A Sketch moment may be the defining moment in what can only be described as a tumultuous primary season. Romney’s longtime aide Eric Fehrnstrom caused a firestorm of criticism for his boss when he said on CNN that the general election offered a chance to hit the “reset button for thefall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You cankind of shake it up and we start all over again." When scholars perform their post-mortem of the 2012 campaign, they may be able to point to the Etch A Sketch moment as the precise point in time when Mitt Romney lost the election.

Fehrnstrom’s comments are both illustrative and important in two very different ways. First, Etch A Sketch may well be the last straw for many conservatives who already do not trust Romney. Whether it is Romney’s Mormon faith, the moderate policy positions he cultivated as Massachusetts Governor, or the air of inauthenticity that clings to Romney like an ill-fitting suit, conservatives have never embraced him. The Etch A Sketch comments validate the feeling among conservatives that Romney has no core, that he is a political chameleon who will do or say anything to win, that he is not one of them. Etch A Sketch may not cost Romney the nomination, but it could very well cost him the general election should he be the Republican Party nominee. The first order of business for any presidential campaign is to turn out the base in November. And if part of the GOP base decides to stay home rather than vote for their party’s candidate that they view as a charlatan, especially in crucial battleground states like Ohio and Virginia, Romney cannot win.

Secondly, the Etch A Sketch comments reveal that the Romney campaign is utilizing a playbook that is outdated in the 21^st Century. There is no reset button in presidential politics—not anymore. The ubiquity of social media means that the lines drawn on the Etch A Sketch during the primary season are drawn in permanent ink. You can shake the toy as much as you like but the lines will still be there. Every event is recorded. Every speech, every public utterance, every awkward joke lives on in perpetuity, only one Google search away from being the next viral campaign ad run by the opposition. I’m pretty sure that the Obama campaign is adept at navigating that series of tubes we call the Internet, collecting for later use every Romney misstep, gaffe, and controversial statement from tree height to Cadillacs to Planned Parenthood. In 2012, a candidate can no longer tack to the extremes of their party during the primary season only to sprint to the middle during the fall campaign without repercussion. The social media microscope—often primed by a well-conceived 140 character tweet—makes that impossible.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment 

Mitt Romney: Trouble Signs Ahead

Politico Arena topic: Does Romney's Win Make the Nomination Clearer?

Mitt Romney’s win certainly helped boost his chances of securing the GOP nomination. Illinois represents his first convincing victory in a large industrial state—the kind of battleground state Romney would need to win in a general election matchup against President Barack Obama (though Obama should be able to carry Illinois easily in November). But underneath the veneer of his Illinois win rests some continuing trouble signs. According to exit polls, Romney lost the white evangelical vote once again to Rick Santorum. Evangelicals compose much of the Republican Party’s base across the United States—a base Romney must turnout in droves in November if he is to defeat Barack Obama, especially in battleground states like Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia. But evangelicals have yet to embrace him. Romney also lost among protestants who attend church weekly, those that maintain that the religious beliefs of the candidates matter a great deal, those who said they were looking for a true conservative, and those that said they wanted someone with strong moral character.

Is this enough to sink Romney’s nomination campaign? That’s not likely at this point as his superior organization and deep pockets give him an advantage in the delegate count in what has become a nomination season marathon. However, in the general election, a party’s nominee has to motivate the base and it is not clear whether the GOP base will be motivated by a guy that they don’t view as a true conservative. A certain percentage of those base voters, though they are unlikey to cast their ballots for Obama, may stay home on election night—a situation Romney could not afford in so many of the swing states he would need to carry.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Rush Limbaugh and the Death Spiral of Incivility

Politico Arena Topic: Has the 'War on Women' Gone Too Far?


Rush Limbaugh crossed the line last week with his offensive statements about Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law Student and Democratic activist. But crossing the line is nothing new for Limbaugh—he has a long and sordid history of attacking women, minorities, and Democrats. The guy is a school yard bully with a large megaphone.

I am heartened by the fact that many of his advertisers have pulled their ads—they clearly saw Limbaugh’s venom affecting their bottom line. Some like Carbonite CEO David Friend saw the moral debauchery in Limbaugh’s comments noting that Limbaugh “overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency.” However, I am disappointed but not surprised that so many of Limbaugh’s fellow conservative commentators have not only stood by his side, but have chosen to follow Limbaugh’s lead in attacking Ms. Fluke and women in general.

And where has the Republican Party been? Some, like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), have belatedly criticized Limbaugh’s comments, but GOP lawmakers are not exactly sprinting to the microphone to publicly repudiate him. As George Will said Sunday on This Week, “Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran,but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.” To top it off, we get Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential front runner, who gives Americans a half-hearted—“it’s not the language I would have used”—in discussing Limbaugh’s discourse. (So what language would he have used? Harlot? Strumpet?) What a tremendous missed opportunity. Romney could have demonstrated his moral backbone by publicly smacking Limbaugh. But Romney, like many in the GOP, are simply afraid of offending Limbaugh’s mythical audience or being on the receiving end of Limbaugh’s future tirades.

Perhaps what is most disheartening is this episode demonstrates once again that our politics are gripped by an ugliness and mean-spiritedness that pushes the bounds of basic decency. As a country, we seem to be in a death-spiral of incivility that wounds the body politic and makes it increasingly difficult for our institutions to govern. Politicos and members of the media across the ideological spectrum will need to publicly and forcefully repudiate the destructive speech of personalities like Rush Limbaugh in the future if we are ever, as a country, to escape the spiral.


Permalink to Politico Arena comment