Reid's Secret Weapon

Now that Senator Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.) has left the Democrats' health care reservation with his declaration that he would not vote to end a Republican filibuster of the so-called "public option," President Obama's hope of securing 60 Senators in support of any plan that emerges appears more and more a matter of wishful thinking. Accordingly, expect the media's attention to turn away from key swing Senators (Snowe, Ben Nelson, etc). Instead, the attention will now focus on the key Senate strategists charged with steering a plan through the Senate that -- though it may gather less than the 60 votes necessary for cloture -- may still secure passage thanks to those Senators in opposition who are still willing to vote in favor of allowing a full-fledged debate on the floor of the Senate.

Senator Charles Schumer (D.- N.Y.), for example is considered an expert vote counter and deputy to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev):

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/schumer-spins-liebermans-filibuster-threat.html

Don't be fooled by Senator Schumer's remarks that Reid is the "best vote getter" and counter that he's ever seen ... Schumer may be banking on the warm relationship he enjoys with Lieberman to get him through this growing quagmire ...

President Obama vs. FOX

President Obama’s Director of Communications, Anita Dunn, made it clear recently that the Obama Administration was going to take on FOX. Dunn said “We are going to treat them (FOX) the way we would treat an opponent . . . We don’t need to pretend that this is the way legitimate news organizations behave.”

Despite these and other criticisms from the White House, FOX has continued the trend toward even greater domination of cable news programming. FOX's Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly shows struck huge audience shares last week and across the past month. The Nielson ratings show that these shows, along with FOX news programming, are on pace for their best year yet. In the past two weeks, since the White House first began it’s criticism, FOX’s ratings have soared 9%.

Many of FOX’s gains in audience share appear to have come at the expense of MSNBC’s Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow shows, which tend to be more supportive of Obama’s policies.

This situation sets up an interesting class discussion about the dynamic relationship between the White House and the press. Did Obama’s attack on FOX backfire? Or did it simply mobilize those viewers who were already critical of Obama’s policies? Notwithstanding the FOX surge in ratings, is there any political advantage for Obama in casting FOX as providing a biased perspective?

Another useful exercise to generate class discussion on media bias: Divide the class into three groups, with one assigned to watching FOX, the second to MSNBC, and the third to CNN. Ask each group to watch one hour of programming on a particular evening, and in class ask students to report on the way news of that day was covered...

Momentum for warmaking

W. Taylor Reveley famously wrote two decades ago that while it takes just one man (the President) to start a war, it takes "two-thirds plus one" members of both houses of Congress (the number needed to override a presidential veto) to stop it.

In this light, consider the political bind that most presidents find themselves in when their generals publicly press for an expanded war effort: stand up against the general's demands, and risk being called weak; go along with the general and you at least enjoy some political cover if things go wrong.

In today's Washington Post, Richard Cohen draws historical comparisons between General McChrystal's current request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan, and General Westmoreland's request for more troops in Vietnam in 1967 (You may have to register to view the column):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102602645.html

Like it or not, our system of warmaking rests greatly on the shoulders of generals, and their fallibilities may have grave consequences. A great question thus arises for class discussion: Is a President --any president -- in a position to stand up against pleas made by their generals?

Money and the Congressional Elections

While all 435 Houses seats will be contested next November, only about 10-15% of these races will be competitive. The most competitive races are, of course, characterized by large amounts of campaign fundraising.

Rep. Joe Wilson from S.C., who famously yelled "you lie" to President Obama during his address to Congress last month, finds himself in a 2010 matchup with Democrat Rob Miller which has raised $4.5 million ($2.7M for Wilson and $1.7M) in the third quarter of 2009 alone.

Opensecrets.org, the website for the Center for Responsive Politics, contains a wealth of information about campaign fundraising activities. It profiles the most competitive races:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/10/across-the-nation-big-money-co.html#)

The website also allows users to identify individual and corporate/PAC donations to indivdual campaigns.

Try having your students use this site to do research on their home congressional district: Is it considered a competitive district? Who are the candidates and how much money are they raising? Who is donating to their campaigns?

Blagojevich's Revenge

ABC News is reporting that Senator Roland Burris's recent threat to vote against any health care proposal that lacks the public option makes him "suddenly relevant"...

See http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8859311

Who would have guessed that the indicted former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich might actually exact a bit of revenge against President Obama and the Democratic forces who abandoned him in his time of need ... Could his hand-chosen appointment, Roland Burris, singlehandedly derail the Administration's hopes of acheiving a compromise?

Highs and Lows of Presidential Approval

President Obama's Approval rating, according to the Gallup Poll, now stands at 53%. 41% of Americans now say they disapprove of the job that Obama is doing as President.

The very first Gallup approval rating taken on Obama was 69%, and that was the highest rating the President has received to date. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx for a history of Gallup's approval rating on Obama. The lowest rating obtained by Gallup was in early September when it registered at 50% approval for Obama.

If history is any clue, we can expect to find much variation in the approval of Obama over the course of his presidency. For example, President George W. Bush received the highest approval rating ever recorded by Gallup (92%)right after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Seven years later in February 2008, as the nation's economy worsened and the Iraq War drug on, Bush's rating fell to 19%, the lowest rating ever taken by Gallup.

Similarly, President Harry Truman registered an 87% approval rating in May of 1945, toward the end of WWII. Truman also holds the second lowest approval rating in Gallup history at 22%, taken in February 1952.

Leadership on Health Care from the Pine Tree State

Maine has always maintained a distinctive political character -- famous for its pointed firs, steady habits and unpredictable politicians. At the level of presidential politics Maine went for George H.W. Bush in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 1996; but it also gave 6 percent of its vote to Ralph Nader in 2000 and a whopping 30 percent of its vote to Ross Perot in 1992.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Me.) fits this state like a glove. Defying the Republican party line on Obama's health care plan, Snowe has nevertheless refused to jump on board fully with the Democrats. In the tradition of Maine's independent politics, Snowe has gone her own route, eventually signing on to the Senate Finance Committee's plan on Tuesday, while still hedging away from any commitment about her final vote on the floor. Maine politicians of every stripe have been lining up to sing her praises as she has become a key player in determining the bill's final outcome.
(See http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=289449&ac=)

Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R.-Me), the longest serving female Senator in history (1949-1973), exasperated liberals by supporting the Vietnam War, and exasperated conservatives by opposing Nixon's more extremist Supreme Court nominees.

Olympia Snowe becomes only the latest Maine politician to follow in this Pine Tree state tradition.

Some comic relief ...

For those in search of comic relief from all the hyperpartisanship featured in the recent discussion of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, consider handing out to your students copies of the story below, or perhaps posting the story to your blackboard or WebCT class sites ....

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-fails-to-win-nobel-prize-in-economics-2009-10-12

World Views of U.S.

Surveys around the world conducted by the Gallup Organization have asked the question: "Do you approve or disapprove of the job performance of the leadership of the United States of America?"

This question has been asked in surveys in 42 countries. In 16 of those countries, the question was asked both prior to and after President Obama became chief executive. In Dijibouti, Lebanon and Palestinian Territories, those who approve of U.S. leadership has declined. In the other 13 nations, the approval ratings of the U.S. have improved.

Among all 42 nations with a U.S. rating tapped this year, here are some of the findings:

* In Kenya, where Obama has roots, the approval rating of the U.S. is now 93%. The U.S. tends to also get very high approval ratings from other African countires (Senegal 87%, South Africa 87%, Uganda 91%).

* The lowest U.S. rating comes from Palestine, where 7% approve. The rating from Iraqi is also low, 15%.

* In Afghanistan, however, the approval rating of U.S. leadership is 50%.

* In the United States itself, the rating of U.S. leadership is 58%.

For a look at the full Gallup study, see: http://www.gallup.com/poll/121991/World-Citizens-Views-Leadership-Pre-Post-Obama.aspx.

As Virginia and New Jersey go ...?

You've heard the conventional wisdom echoed over and over by pundits ... that in the year following a presidential election, the off-year gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey offer a key bellwether for the political state of the two major parties nationwide, and that they foreshadow the results of the following year's Congressional midterm elections. In recent weeks the Republican New Jersey candidate for Governor, Chris Christie, and the Republican candidate for Governor in Virginia, Bob McConnell, have both enjoyed leads in the polls.

Unfortunately, this conventional wisdom hasn't exactly held up in recent years. Certainly it's true that in 2005 the Democrats enjoyed easy victories in both states just a year before the Democrats took back both house of Congress. But 2001 did not fit the pattern, as Democrats won both races at a time when President Bush's approval ratings were at record highs, and a year before the President's party gained seats in the 2002 midterm elections. Nor was 1997 really a gauge of anything significant: Republicans won both governor's races that year, but the subsequent 1998 midterm elections proved to be the first in 64 years where the president's party failed to gain congressional seats in a midterm election.

Thus if Christie and McConnell hold on to their respective leads, it might signal a revival of Republican party hopes and foreshadow a positive Republican showing in the 2010 midterm elections.

Or it might not.

Support for Abortion Rights Drops

A Pew Research Center report shows that public support for abortion is on the decline (http://people-press.org/report/549/support-for-abortion-slips).

The new Pew poll finds that 47% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 45% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. A year ago, 54% said abortion should be legal in all/most cases and 41% said it should be illegal. Pew reports that support for legal abortion is at a 15-year low.

While 2 years ago 35% of Americans favored the idea of making abortions more difficult, 41% now favor that idea. Four years ago, 59% said that it was good to reduce the number of abortions, and today 65% say that.

The poll also finds that the shift in opinion is broad-based, appearing across most demographic groups, except President Obama's strongest supporters (African Americans, young people, and those unaffiliated with a religion).

What might account for this shift? Has the election of a Democratic president who supports abortion rights caused some people to re-think their position on the issue? Have pro-life groups been successful in moving public opinion on the issue?

Moreover, with the trend toward anti-abortion sentiment increasing, will Republicans and social conservatives be able to effectively use the issue of abortion to make gains in the 2010 midterm and 2012 presidential elections?

What type of economic curve?

Economists groping for a way to explain the shape of the current recession are suggesting that we may be on the verge of a less frequent pattern -- that instead of the normal "V-curve" or "U-curve" pattern for a recession (a simple rebound pattern) that we may be heading into a "W-curve" recession (referring to the possibility that after an initial recovery, our economy will head back down again in a "double dip" scenario). The United States arguably endured that type of "W-curve" in 1949, and then again between 1980 and 1982. The Great Depression of the 1930's featured several mini recessions along the way, including a W-curve mini-recession in 1932-1933. (See image above).

Then there's the more discouraging possibility of an "L-curve" recession similar to the one suffered by Japan in the 1990's after its real estate and equity bubbles burst.

What I haven't seen is persuasive analysis of how these various letter-shaped recessions could affect American politics differently. If the Obama Administration is anticipating a "W-curve" recession, will that influence its choice of economic policies, and if so how?

Unemployment and the Scope of Its Impact

The unemployment rate in the US is now 9.8%, as the Labor Department reported on Friday. That's the highest level since 1982 when the rate was 10.8%.

What the current unemployment rate does not reflect is the large number of Americans who lost a job and are no longer looking for work, which when added to the 9.8% reflects fully 17% of Americans.

Moreover, among those with a job, the average number of hours worked per week last month was 33 -- the lowest average since the 1960s.

A recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll (http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=4154543197421640958) found that 41% of American households have experienced a pay cut, and 27% say a layoff or job loss has hit their household. The total number of houseolds with a pay cut and/or job loss is 47%. The unemployment rate is an individual level measure and does not reflect the broader effect of job loss on those who rely on individual incomes.

The impact of the recession's toll on employment is much deeper than the current 9.8% unemployemnt rate suggests. Far more than one-in-ten Americans are directly impacted financially; rather it appears that about half of the US population has suffered an economic setback due to job loss. In addition, among those who have not yet been affected by a job loss, there certainly are many who are worried about it.

While many Americans feel the pinch of other fiscal problems caused by this recession (drops in the value of stocks, home values, retirement funds, loss of health care benefits, etc.), no economic problem is more widespread than unemployment -- and no other factor will weigh more heavily on Americans' minds as they assess the job government is doing and think about how they will vote in upcoming elections.

Pursuing His Place in History

No matter what happens during the remainder of Barack Obama's presidency, his historical legacy and place in history rest to a large extent with the outcome of the current health care debate. If the legislation that passes proves to be so watered down that it accomplishes little -- or if no legislation passes at all -- President Obama may still carve out a legacy of some sort. President Clinton, for example, rose from the ashes of his own failed health care initiative to win a second term and secure his place in the middle ranks of presidents (See C-SPAN's rankings at http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx). Yet to join the ranks of great presidents like Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President Obama cannot fail on such a defining issue as health care.

Consider asking your students to compare C-Span's recent ranking of presidents (determined by a survey of historians) with the results of the Wall Street Journal's rankings of presidents from 2005. (see http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007243). What types of achievements mark those who are considered "great" by both surveys?