washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Month: October 2009

About Those Sagging Approval Ratings

On Saturday, Tom Jensen — a pollster for Public Policy Polling — offered up an important data point from the company’s last national survey:

Barack Obama’s approval rating with people who didn’t vote for him is 14%.
Barack Obama’s disapproval rating with people who voted for him is 6%.
So he’s won over twice as many people as he’s lost since he got elected. Who in the national media is going to write that story?

We aren’t the national media, but it’s a point well taken.


Wake up, MSM commentators. “Obama vs. Fox” is not about you. The issue is whether a TV network that actively organizes anti-Obama street demonstrations deserves to be treated the same way as networks that uphold traditional journalistic standards.

Eric Burns, the president of Media Matters for America wrote an important commentary on Huffpo several days ago that analyzed the argument between the administration and the Fox quasi-News Network.

Fox News Channel is twisting American politics in an unprecedented way, and too many members of the press still aren’t getting it…The White House has exposed Fox News for what it is: not a news organization, but a partisan political entity…
… [however] many mainstream reporters and commentators, and even some progressive ones, have spent their time effectively circling the wagons around Fox by focusing their attention not on the network, but on the Administration’s comments about it. The entire matter has largely been treated as a political game — should the White House have so bluntly criticized the press, or will the tactic backfire? …
…All of this completely misses the point…By legitimizing Fox News as a news organization, reporters and commentators are enabling the network to continue conducting a massive conservative political campaign under the guise of journalism…

Burns then continues:

…the story goes well beyond the conservative bias Fox News has historically reflected. Like all major political entities, Fox News is now coordinating grassroots (or, more accurately, astroturf) political activities, lobbying for or against legislation, and fundraising for conservative causes. The network called April’s protests “Fox News Tea Parties.” It encouraged people to attend town halls last summer …[at the 9/12 protests] a video soon emerged of one of the station’s producers coaching marchers before a live “report” from the scene.

Let’s be clear, the issue is not Fox’s right to broadcast conservative, anti-administration opinion. There is no question that they can. The issue is whether a TV network that organizes street demonstrations against a President deserves to be viewed with the same respect and treated in exactly the same way as TV networks that uphold traditional standards of journalism.
Since virtually all the mainstream media commentators have – to their shame — studiously avoided directly confronting this basic question, perhaps the distinction between a news organization and a partisan political organization escapes them. For their benefit, let’s clarify the distinction.

1. Any TV program that displays the telephone numbers or website addresses of organizations organizing street demonstrations (whether for or against a presidential administration) or which displays or announces the gathering points for such demonstrations is not operating as a news or even as an opinion program. It is operating as a partisan political organization.
2. Any TV show that includes what communications specialists term a direct “call to action” i.e. “Join the demonstration”, “attend the rally”, “contribute money” is not operating as a news or even an opinion program. It is operating as a partisan political organization.
3. Any program that encourages and allows guests to state phone numbers, website addresses or meeting points for either pro or anti-administration street demonstrations is not operating as a news or even an opinion program. It is operating as a partisan political organization.

It is important to note that this has absolutely nothing to do with the distinction Fox has tried to make between its “news” and “opinion” shows — nor does it have anything at all to do with any spurious comparisons between Fox and MSNBC. The partisan political activities described above were frequently repeated during regular Fox News programs as well as during its opinion programs like Glen Beck and Bill O’Reilly. In contrast, not one other television network – not ABC, NCB, CBS, CNN – not even MSNBC – has ever engaged in on-screen promotion and organizing of street demonstrations against a presidential administration.
Is this obvious distinction between the behavior of a normal TV network and a partisan political organization really too complicated for virtually every mainstream political commentator to understand? Don’t forget, these are commentators who pride themselves on their vast political sophistication and expertise. Is this distinction really so complex that not a single one was capable of recognizing the issue and discussing it in their commentaries on the subject?
The answer, sadly, is both more prosaic and more depressing. Mainstream media professionals – regardless of their personal political or ideological views – have a very strong parochial occupational identity as “professional” journalists or commentators. They all see themselves, metaphorically speaking, as seated together in a White House press conference locked in a semi-adversarial relationship with the administration they are covering. As a result, when they are confronted with a presidential challenge to the ethics and professionalism of a media organization – no matter how justified that challenge might be – they instinctively react with a defensive antagonism toward any criticism of their profession.
But for the American people, on the other hand, the issue is quite different. Major TV networks that act like partisan political parties are something new in American history and when unelected television network executives exploit their massive power to organize street demonstrations against an elected president, the codes of civic behavior that underlie America’s unique political stability are deeply undermined.
As a result, Democrats need to directly challenge the mainstream commentators as follows:

Wake up. This is not about you. It’s not about “the administration versus the press”. The issue the administration has raised is whether a TV network that is actively organizing street demonstrations against a President deserves to be viewed and treated in the same way as networks that uphold traditional journalistic standards.
To us, the answer is clear – they shouldn’t be. Do you really think they should?

Let’s see if there is even one mainstream political commentator in America who has the guts to honestly answer this simple question.


Lux: ‘Huge Victory’ on Health Reform This Year

The following commentary by Mike Lux is cross-posted from the Huffington Post.
The intensity is ratcheting ever higher as we move toward the final stages of the health care fight. It’s been a good week for reformers overall. Pelosi and Reid are both whipping for strong bills, including a very strong public option (in the House) or a respectable public option (in the Senate). Progress is being made on other key components of the package including the affordability issue. Even traditional media sources like the Washington Post and the New York Times are waking up to the fact that even though they have been declaring health care reform on life support and the public option dead for six months, something decent might actually pass.
The only down moment of the week has been the confusion caused by the White House on the Senate strategy. This whole muddled are-they-or-aren’t-they backing Harry Reid or backing Snowe’s trigger-designed-not-to-trigger mess was just a poorly handled distraction. I mean, look, anyone who has been in DC longer than a week knows that if you have a meeting at the White House with more than five people in it, that certain folks with their own agenda will start leaking stuff to the media, so whatever the intent of all that was, it was bound to undermine Reid and our overall momentum. The White House is now on the record denying that was their intent, and folks there have sworn to me they are backing Reid to the hilt, so I believe them and that’s all good, but it was still a mess.
I think we’re still moving forward, though. The next few days will tell us what kind of deals can be cut, but no matter what, I think the strategy for progressives remains the same as it has been from the beginning of this fight:
1. House progressives have to stay strong and united in pushing for a strong public option and more affordability for the middle class. Health care reform will not pass without the votes of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and they need to continue to say a big “Hell no” to triggers that are written to never trigger and co-ops that are designed to never compete with the insurers. If House progressives absolutely refuse to fold, the final bill will have a solid public option and decent affordability for the middle class.
2. The 30 core progressives on health care in the Senate need to stay strong and stay together as well. They need to keep pushing Reid and the White House to reject the Snowe trigger that will never trigger, and they need to twist the arms of their last couple of colleagues who are holding out. The idea that one or two Senators are going to stop the entire rest of the Democratic party from delivering on the biggest issue in front of Congress in 50 years is an outrage, and those Senators should be told in no uncertain terms that nothing they want will ever again see the light of day if they support the Republican filibuster on this issue.
3. Everyone in the broader progressive community needs to be 100% clear that the Snowe trigger written to never trigger is deader than a doorknob. To call this a compromise is actually pretty funny. Fundamental to health care reform is real competition and a check on the market power of the insurance industry. Without that, private insurers will continue to raise their rates and otherwise screw people over at will. The trigger as written by Snowe has a Catch-22 in it that makes sure it would never be triggered in real life, so it would provide no competition or check on insurance power whatsoever. Come on now: if you are going to ask progressives to compromise, don’t give us something that is no compromise. Most progressives understand we need to compromise some, and in fact we already have compromised an enormous amount, but we aren’t going to let you give us nothing.
I think we are still on track to win this fight and get a very decent health care bill, and in fact the momentum is building. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid deserve an enormous amount of credit for continuing to push forward on a strong bill in spite of all the obstacles being thrown in their way. Progressives need to stick together and not allow themselves to get rolled on phony compromises. If they do, we are going to be able to celebrate a huge victory before the year is out.


More Health Headaches for the States

As Ed Kilgore has noted on several occasions, the Senate is towing with a variety of opt-in or opt-out schemes for a health reform public option that would effectively shift major decisions (and perhaps hard-to-calculate costs) to the states. Said states have already been worrying about their share of the costs involved in expanding Medicaid coverage, which is a piece of the health reform puzzle in every version of the legislation.
Now, as Suzy Khimm of The New Republic reports, one draft version of the House bill (the one with a “negotiated rate” approach to the public option) boosts Medicaid eligibility significantly more than past versions (to 150% of the poverty rate). Although House leaders say states will be “held harmless” in the short run for the elibility increase, it´s not clear how that will be achieved, and where the state funds will come from for a much larger Medicaid population in the long run. So state leaders really do have a complicated task in ensuring they are prepared, fiscally and politically, to potential changes in the federal-state health care “partnership,” which could be just over the horizon.


Hiatus

Just wanted to let readers know that I will only be posting sporadically for the next month, when I will be travelling. But other TDS regulars–J.P. Green, James Vega and Matt Compton–along with guests, will be filling in. And I”ll be back on a regular schedule before you know it.


Democrats: forget CSI, here are two real mysteries to solve this weekend

1. Can anyone find a single serious military analyst who believes that the Taliban can actually take over Afghanistan as long as the current 66,000 US troops remain in the county?
If not, why do almost all the commentaries that advocate a major troop increase over and above the current 66,000 end up describing the negative consequences if the Taliban completely takes over the county as a major argument in favor of such an increase?
2. Can anyone find a single serious definition of the term “news organization” that includes the phrase “organizing and promoting anti-administration street demonstrations” as a normal aspect of such an organization’s operation?
If not, why do so many commentators describe the administration’s criticism of FOX as attacks on a “news organization”?


Job Tax Credit As Second Stimulus

This item by Ed Kilgore was first published on October 21, 2009.
As the economy continues to struggle, it´s increasingly obvious that some sort of federal job tax credit may be the only ´´second stimulus package´´ that could gain traction in Congress.
The idea has long attracted conservative support, but lately progressives, including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and the Economic Policy Institute, have been out in front. It´s popular among some Democrats and economists in part because its costs are dependent on its success (unlike across-the-board tax cuts), and in part because it´s viewed as a way to counteract offshoring of jobs.
EPI has a new job tax credit proposal out, and it´s very focused on designing a credit that is large enough to have an immediate impact, temporary enough to keep its cost relatively low, and efficient enough to avoid corporate freeloading.
If there´s another idea that can serve as the centerpiece of a follow-up to the stimulus legislation, I don´t know what it would be. Waiting for a cyclical economic recovery seems irresponsible, and certainly dangerous to the party controlling the White House and Congress.


Father of the Public Option Pulls Trigger

In all the swirl of developments and speculation surrounding the treatment of the public option in the House and Senate (Jon Cohn has a good current summary here), one bit of commentary today stands out. The originator of the public option, Yale professor Jacob Hacker, has a New Republic piece on the ¨trigger¨approach that pretty much condemns the whole idea.
Hacker offers a fairly long and complex critique of trigger proposals that merits a full reading, but he basically makes three key points: (1) “affordability” provisions in all the trigger proposals vastly undershoot the actual affordability of total health care costs, and fail to take future medical inflation into account; (2) any “triggered” public option that doesn´t rely on the Medicare infrastructure probably won´t work, particularly if it´s phased in slowly; and (3) “triggers” are, in the Senate at least, typically linked to regulatory structures that give states too much leeway in letting private insurers off the hook for offering affordable universal coverage.
His conclusion is pretty categorical:

Added to the Senate bills, a trigger would represent a backdoor way of killing the public health insurance option that a majority of Americans (and U.S. Senators) support. It is way past time to trigger real competition for private plans that have failed to ensure affordability or cost restraint for decades.

The practical effect of Hacker´s likely-to-be-influential critique is two-fold: it could stiffen the resolve of public option advocates in the House to insist on a “robust” public option with no trigger and national rules, and could also make the “state opt-out” approach the only acceptable compromise for these advocates, on the theory that creation of a strong national public option is the key objective, even if fighting to keep it in place in the states over time proves to be a struggle (as I personally think it would be).


The Case For a Public Option — On a Fast Track

This item by J.P. Green was first published on October 19, 2009.
The moral case for the public option in health care reform has been well-made by numerous Democratic leaders, activists and writers, and some have also made a persuasive case that it’s good political strategy. Robert Parry’s Consortium News post, via Alternet, takes the argument a step further; that the public option is not only politically-wise; it should be implemented on a faster track — or the Democrats could be risking “electoral disaster.” As Parry explains:

Indeed, if the Democrats abandon the public option for the sake of passing a bill like the one that came out of the Senate Finance Committee, they may be courting electoral disaster once voters grasp that they will have to wait years for the law to be implemented and then that it could lead to higher costs for much the same unpopular private insurance plans.
…As the legislation stands now, many of the key features that hold some promise of helping consumers – such as the “exchange” where individuals and small business would shop for the best product – won’t even take effect until 2013. That means that Americans now facing the crisis of no health insurance won’t get much help for another four years, if then.
…By contrast to the four-year phase-in for these relatively modest reforms, the Medicare single-payer program for senior citizens was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 30, 1965, and was up and running less than a year later.
..The implementing delays mean that in both 2010 and 2012, Republicans will be free to make the truthful case that the Democrats – despite their promises – had accomplished little to help the American people on health care. Already, Republican senators are using the talking point that the four-year delay is part of a budgetary trick to make the bill appear cheaper over 10 years than it would be if its key features took effect quickly.

Parry believes the implementation delays of both the insurance exchanges and public option ‘trigger’ could work against each other to an even more deleterious effect:

…But the insurance exchanges won’t open until 2013, so it may take years before any trigger would be pulled. At minimum, the industry would have earned a lengthy reprieve.
And by the time, the exchanges have a chance to be tested, Congress and the White House could be in Republican hands. If that’s the case, the Republicans might well undo even the triggered public option. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans would surely not worry about ramming their preferred policy through the Congress.

Conversely, Parry sees a huge upside to a bolder implementation strategy:

On the other hand, if Congress enacts a public option now, it presumably could be implemented at least as fast as Medicare, especially if it were piggybacked onto the existing Medicare bureaucracy. That would enable Democrats to show they had accomplished something beneficial for the public before voters go to the polls in November 2010.
By 2012, if the CBO predictions of substantial savings prove true, Obama could campaign for reelection on the basis that he had improved the welfare of the American people — and the budget outlooks for government and business.

It would be bitterly ironic if Democrats enacted a strong health care reform bill, with a solid public option, but then suffered political damage because it was implemented too late to do us some good. Parry makes a compelling case that putting implementation of both a public option and health exchanges on a faster track is wise strategy.


Dems Should Front-Load Regulatory Provisions of Health Reform

NYT‘s ‘Bloggingheads’ has a short, but interesting discussion between Proffs Mark Kleiman of UCLA and Steven Teles of Johns Hopkins about how Democrats should “frame the 2010 election.” Teles takes up most of the time, but Kleiman makes a salient point in arguing the Democrats had better ‘front-load’ the regulatory benefits (“no pre-existing conditions, no recisions” etc) as opposed to expenditures of the health reform package to get any creds from voters next year. Teles urges Dems to not run “defensively” and he emphasizes the importance of creating a sense of “delivery” to constituents and the problematic “traceability” (to Dems) aspect of the stimulus.