Ari Shapiro reports at npr.org on “Obama’s Next Big Campaign: Selling Health Care To The Public,” leading up to October 1, when 7 million uninsured Americans will be able to purchase health insurance on the public exchanges implemented by the AffordableCare Act.
At The Plum Line, Jonathan Bernstein explains why it makes sense to ignore the latest CNN poll finding that 54 percent oppose Obamacare: “Yes, 54 percent oppose the ACA, but almost half of those think it’s not liberal enough…it won’t really matter what people thought they were going to get in the many long months before the law was fully implemented. So if you want to know what people will think of Obamacare next year, follow the news on implementation — not the current polls.”
Also at The Plum Line, Jamelle Bouie has some sobering advice for Republicans regarding the ACA: “…At this point, repeal is unlikely. With President Obama’s reelection, we crossed a point of no return. States have already begun to implement major provisions of the Affordable Care Act, and governors of all stripes — including conservatives like Arizona’s Jan Brewer — are pressuring their legislatures to sign on to the program. Within a year, large numbers of Americans will begin to see concrete benefits from the law, giving them reason to support the system as a whole…Even if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, the Affordable Care Act is likely to survive, for the simple reason that people don’t like to lose benefits. Republicans will have to accept Obamacare as part of the political landscape and move on.”
Joshua Holland’s Alternet post “How America’s Retirement Crisis Is Crushing the Hopes of a Generation of Young People” merits a thoughtful read, especially by Democratic policy-makers and strategists.
Former Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole has cited the GOP’s gridlock strategy in congress in saying his party should be “closed for repairs.” In some states, however, Republicans are actually reversing social and economic reforms. As Michael A. Fletcher reports at The Washington Post, North Carolina has become the new laboratory for right-wing “reforms.” He quotes Rev. William J. Barber II, head of the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP: “Most of the laws that take us backwards do not come out of Congress but out of state legislatures.” Barber is leading a growing protest movement against the GOP assault on social programs and voting rights in the state capitol.
For more on the NC protests, check out Sue Sturgis’s by-the-numbers post at Facing South.
TNR’s Alec Macgillis writes on the arrival of a much tougher gun-control movement.
In his WaPo column on “The Obama Riddle,” D. J. Dionne, Jr. shares a perceptive take on the President’s leadership style: “He’s an anti-ideological leader in an ideological age, a middle-of-the-road liberal skeptical of the demands placed on a movement leader, a politician often disdainful of the tasks that politics asks him to perform. He wants to invite the nation to reason together with him when nearly half the country thinks his premises and theirs are utterly at odds.”
Do share Paul Krugman’s review article “How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled” at the New York Review of Books with your swing voter friends and acquaintances.
Media Matters’ Tyler Hansen’s “Collapsing Bridges, Collapsing Spending, And Neil Cavuto’s Infrastructure Denialism” shows just how distorted MSM reporting can be on an issue of public safety. Or, as one of the post’s commenters puts it: “this is why we can’t have nice things.”

In a more rational Republican Party, here’s a headline that would encourage the leadership to stop and rethink a few of their assumptions: “Fewer Americans Identify as Economic Conservatives in 2013: Thirty percent say they are liberal on social issues, a new high.” The headline comes from Andrew Dugan’s report on Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 2-7.
The percentage of Americans who identify themselves as “economic conservative” has declined 5 percent, to 41 percent from 46 percent in the 2012 edition of the Values and Beliefs poll. Those who identify themselves as economic moderates picked up the gain, increasing their percentage from 32 to 37 percent. Those who call themselves economic liberals declined a point, from 20 to 19 percent, a figure that “has not fluctuated much since 2001”.
But there is some good news for liberals in the poll, as Dugan reports:

While economic liberalism remains stagnant, the percentage of Americans describing their social views as “liberal” or “very liberal” has achieved a new peak of 30% — in line with Gallup’s recent finding that Americans are more accepting on a number of moral issues. Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are conservative or very conservative on social issues and 32% self-identify as socially moderate.
Most Americans are ideologically consistent in their views of economic and social issues. For individuals who gave an answer to both questions, 75% of social conservatives also considered themselves economic conservatives, while 60% of social moderates were also economic moderates. Social liberals were less “consistent,” with a slim plurality, 44%, saying they were also economically liberal.
“Pure” conservatives — individuals who say they are conservative in both policy spheres — make up a substantial portion of self-identified or leaning Republicans, 63%. Pure liberals, by far less common than their ideological polar opposites, are a less sizable contingent of the Democratic Party, constituting 28% of its overall base.

While the poll may not reflect a political earthquake in the making, there is no good news here for the GOP. As Dugan concludes, “… The trend suggests that ideological attitudes in the country may be shifting. Social liberalism has grown by six points since 2001 and now attracts half of rank-and-file Democrats and Democratic leaners. It is possible that Americans are returning to a certain sense of normalcy on economic ideology, while social ideology continues to charter new ground.”
Perhaps the more interesting possibility is that Republican Party obstructionism has reached the point of diminishing returns — that the “conservative” brand has been tainted by association with the GOP, and growing numbers are more comfortable calling themselves something else.

Alex Altman posts on “For Republicans, Oklahoma Tornado Revives Questions About Disaster Relief” at Time Swampland, noting that Republican Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, who opposed emergency aid for new England in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, are catching heat for their position on emergency aid for their state. Coburn is insisting of offsetting cuts in the federal budget elsewhere, while Imhofe is trying to sell a double standard, arguing that there will be no pork in aid for Oklahoma, so it’s OK.
NY Republican Rep. Peter King ain’t having Imhofe’s equivocating: “We know the type of suffering that people go through during these types of crises and we’re not going to hold – I’m certainly not going to hold the good people of Oklahoma hostage because they may have some hypocrites in their delegation,” King told WCBS 880′s Steve Scott on Wednesday…We had to wait over 100 days before we even got the aid approved to New York and New Jersey. Now, we find the senator from Oklahoma who voted against aid to New York and New Jersey saying that aid should be sent to Oklahoma because there’s a difference between tornado assistance and hurricane assistance,” King told Scott. “This is absolute hypocrisy.”
But Joan Walsh’s Salon.com post “Inhofe and Coburn: Red state hypocrites” hits the core issue most squarely: “Especially in the wake of the sequester cuts, the notion that the federal budget is larded with easily eliminated spending is ludicrous. Would Coburn like to see more kids thrown out of Head Start? More seniors losing Meals on Wheels? The federal deficit is shrinking faster than at any time since just after World War II, but Coburn is going to insist that someone, somewhere, must lose their federal help so Oklahoma can get it instead…We now apparently have deserving and undeserving disasters. When tragedy strikes, most Americans tend to want to pull together, but many Republicans look to pull us apart, placing their own constituents’ needs above everyone else’s.”
At PolitcusUSA Sarah Jones adds a little clarity to the I.R.S. ‘scandal,’ noting that “Conservative Nonprofits That Received Tax Exempt Status Outspent Liberals by 34-to-1.”
So, “Is the Economy Saving Obama’s Approval Ratings?” at FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver says “…It may be that the talk surrounding Benghazi, the I.R.S. and the Justice Department has negatively affected Mr. Obama’s approval rating by two or three percentage points, but that the economy has lifted his numbers by about the same amount.” In a word, yes.
Michael Tomasky makes a convincing argument that Dems should resist all calls for a special prosecutor. “Just say no, and say it firmly,” says Tomasky.
At The Daily Beast Eleanor Clift explains how “Obama’s Minimum-Wage Gambit Puts Republicans on Defensive” and explains: “Democrats and Republicans disagree about the economic consequences of a higher minimum wage, but they do agree on the politics, that it’s a loser for Republicans and mostly a winner for Democrats. “It should resonate,” says Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. “No one will win an election on this, but it rounds out with some base voters that he’s focused on their needs, too.” Democratic pollster Stefan Hankin agrees that it speaks to the Democratic base, but warns that it also risks deepening the divide between the business community and Democrats at a time when the GOP is in such disarray that an olive branch to business might be better politics. Either way, Democrats have set a proposal in motion that if it doesn’t pass in this Congress, it likely will in the next.”
The common wisdom has it that Huntsman can’t get nominated in his party, since right-wingers now have veto power. But Dems should keep an eye on him, just in case the wingnut base of the GOP’s House of Cards is ready to implode. His new PAC appears to be a well-planned base-building vehicle.
Greg Sargent reports at The Plum Line that “Harry Reid escalates `nuclear’ threat” as the only reasonable response left to GOP obstruction of nominations that ought to be routine.
Diogenes can finally stop looking. We found an honest man right here.

As one of the most important swing states, Florida’s election law reforms are of more than local interest. So, when Florida’s right-wing governor Rick Scott reverses his earlier opposition to early voting and suddenly signs into law reforms that actually improve voting rights, it may indicate that growing public discontent about voter suppression is making swing voters tilt Democratic. As Aaron Deslatte Tallahassee Bureau Chief of the SunSentinel, explains:

Gov. Rick Scott has signed an elections bill that allows more early voting, in an attempt to reverse some of the restrictions the Republican-controlled Legislature put in place in 2011…is a response to the ridicule Florida received in the days after President Barack Obama’s re-election, when votes were still being counted in a few counties…some urban counties like Miami-Dade, Broward and Orange saw lines that stretched for hours.
Miami-Dade, in particular, has been blasted for not re-aligning its voting precincts with updated population data, resulting in some polling sites that were slammed and others largely empty. Other counties like Palm Beach complained that vendors botched up ballots and software…The bill, HB 7013, lets the State Department fine vendors $25,000 for voting-machine problems that don’t get fixed.
…It also increases the allowable early voting hours, and goes from eight days to 14 days. The Legislature had reduced that early-voting window to one week in 2011, which some evidence has found decreased early-voting turnout last year — particularly among minorities.
And it expands the locations for early voting from just election offices and city halls to include courthouses, civic centers, stadiums, convention centers, fairgrounds and government-owned senior and community centers.
“…With this election reform package, Florida has achieved what many of us thought at one time might be impossible: a huge improvement to our democratic process and a giant step forward for Florida voters,” said Deirdre Macnab, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida.
…But Democrats and some voting-rights groups have been less-than-thrilled with the bill because it gives county election supervisors discretion in the number of hours of early voting they offer — as much as 168 hours — and whether or not to hold early voting on the Sunday before a general election. Some rural counties have said that Sunday is rarely used by voters, while it’s a main get-out-the-vote day among minorities in more urban counties…

The Republicans’ heavy-handed voter suppression may be backfiring with swing voters. Certainly the outrage about FL’s long lines at the polls in 2012 — 8 plus hours in some Miami precincts — aren’t helping the state GOP. Gov. Rick Scott seemed to be campaigning for poster boy for voter suppression before the election. Now he is all about expanding voter access, no doubt to save his political skin. He is running scared.
Looking toward 2014, polls taken in March by Public Policy Polling and Quinnipiac University showing Gov. Scott running 8 and 6 points, respectively, behind likely Democratic candidate for FL Gov. Charlie Crist.
Whether Dems can beat Gov. Scott or not in 2014, leveraging voting reforms in key states is a critical concern for Democratic GOTV. Florida is not only a key swing state with the 3rd largest electoral vote bloc (29 e.v.’s, tied w/ NY) ; it’s also a bellwether, having picked the winner in 12 out of the last 13 presidential elections (12 of the last 14, for those who believe the 2000 election was stolen). The DNC, major party contributors and progressives in general should gladly provide whatever help the Florida Democratic Party needs to take full advantage of the reforms.

Steve Chapman of Real Clear Politics has the best line yet said about the Republicans likening the current I.R.S. dust-up to the Nixon’s Administration’s abuse of the agency to harass political adversaries: “…Equating the two is like concluding that babies are like poisonous snakes because some of them have rattles.”
For a president who “has just weathered one of the worst weeks of his time in office,” in the words of The Fix’s Chris Cillizza, Obama’s approval ratings are looking pretty decent in this latest CNN poll.
Derek Thompson has it at The Atlantic: “A Simple Graph That Should Silence Austerians and Gold Bugs Forever.”
Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight post “New Audit Allegations Show Flawed Statistical Thinking” crunches I.R.S. auditing by income data and shows why Peggy Noonan is wrong to imply that conservatives are more likely to experience I.R.S. abuse.
Sarah Jones’s “ABC’s Jonathan Karl is an Alumnus of a Conservative Media Training Program” at PoliticusUSA raises questions about the cred of ABC’s sr. political correspondent’s “now infamous Benghazi email lie.”
Sarah Kliff has a must-read Wonkblog post, “When Medicare launched, nobody had any clue whether it would work,” which puts all of the current criticism of Obamacare into much-needed perspective. Kliff’s post includes images of newspaper articles showing how attitudes toward Medicare evolved.
Michael Lind has an informative primer on “How right-wingers use semantic tricks to kill government” at Salon.com.
“The increase in African American turnout, rather than simple byproducts of the changing demographics of the electorate or Obama’s popularity among Black voters, should be attributed to election reform legislation and enforcement over the last twenty years and aggressive targeted outreach by organizations in communities of color. Federal election reforms like the National Voter Registration Act of 1993(NVRA) or so-called “Motor Voter” law and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) as well as similar efforts at the state level reforms like same day registration and early voting, expanded and eased voter registration.” So says Michael Jackson in his post, “Increased Voter Turnout in Communities of Color & the Myth of ‘The Obama Effect‘” at Demos Policy Shop.
Robert Kuttner’s HuffPo post, “Needed: A Mass Movement for College Debt Relief,” illuminates a strategy that could give Dems added support from young voters.
It appears that we have a new frontrunner in the “most useless opinion survey ever conducted” competition.

The labor movement could use a little good news — and they get it from Alana Semuel’s L.A. Times article “White-collar workers are turning to labor unions.”
Greg Sargent argues persuasively that the I.R.S. does not quite “make the broader case against liberal governance that Republicans are trying to weave out of it.”
This NYT editorial says GOP’s scandal-mongering is all about distracting the public from their obstruction of needed economic reforms.
You’re probably sick of the Republican’s Benghazi nothing-burger. But if you can read just one mare article about on the topic, make it Chris Gentilviso’s HuffPo post, “Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims.”
Sen Ayotte doubles down against background checks, bets on “Blame Bloomberg” strategy to raise dough. ‘American Future Fund,’ reportedly a Koch Bros. political conduit, ponies up $550K to support her.
At Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Geoffrey Skelley probes “How migration does — or doesn’t — change how a state votes.”
Here’s an interesting approach to fighting suppression of young voters —lower the voting age to 17, like they are getting ready to do in Illinois.
Jonathan Bernstein explains “Why Obama’s Popularity Still Matters,” even though he is a lame duck.
Nate Silver debunks the “second-term curse,” noting that “some recent presidents have overcome the supposed curse and actually become more popular on average during their second terms.”
For those who long for a tell-it-like-it-really-is president, Ezra Klein’s “If Obama went Bulworth, here’s what he’d say” is just the tonic.

Although “Republicans hope public anger over the Benghazi attacks and their aftermath will besmirch congressional Democrats in next year’s midterm elections,” reports AP’s Charles Babbington, “a major independent inquiry largely absolved [former Secretary of State]Clinton of wrongdoing.” Further, ”The unsubstantiated Republican allegations about Benghazi disintegrated one by one,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the House committee’s top Democrat. ”There’s no evidence of a conspiracy to withhold military assets for political reasons, no evidence of a cover-up.”
Ezra Klein and Evan Soltas argue in “The good reasons for the IRS’s dumb mistake” at Wonkblog that it the IRS should target political groups like the tea party to insure that they are not abusing their 501(c)4 status with political activity. “The IRS is supposed to reject groups that are primarily political from registering as 501(c)4s. If they’re going to do that, then they need some kind of test that helps them flag problematic applicants. And that test will have to be a bit impressionistic.” What would be wrong, say Klein and Soltas, is if progressive groups were not also scrutinized.
The Newark Star-Ledger editorial, “Christie’s early voting veto will hurt turnout” pretty much shreds NJ Governor Chris Christie’s bogus image as a leader committed to bipartisanship.
At The Fix Chris Cillizza asks “Can Democrats rebuild Obama’s winning coalition?” and answers, “Black voters, the census study makes clear, were the story of the 2012 election. For the first time since the bureau started measuring voter participation in 1996, the African American turnout rate (66 percent of eligible voters) surpassed that of whites (64 percent)… The bigger problem for the party in attempting to rebuild the Obama coalition is the youth vote. The census study of the 2012 electorate found that just 41 percent of eligible voters ages 18 to 24 actually voted, well below the overall turnout rate of 62 percent of eligible voters. The youth voting rate was a significant dip from the 49 percent of voters ages 18 to 24 who turned out in 2008….Voters ages 18 to 29 made up just 15 percent of the 2012 electorate — lower than exit poll data have shown for the past few elections. That decline should be of significant concern to Democratic strategists, particularly without Obama on the ballot in future elections.”
That the Obama Administration is leveraging private and nonprofit sector support for publicizing and implementing the Affordable care Act is commendable; That it should have to as a result of GOP obstruction of funding is a sad commentary on the Republican party’s willingness to endanger the health of millions of Americans for political advantage.
At Daily Kos, Joan McCarter reports that “Maine became the 13th state in the nation to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission..Maine joins West Virginia, Colorado, Montana, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Rhode Island, Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico and Hawaii in calling for that Constitutional amendment…Outside of the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court, Republicans hate corporate spending in campaigns [pdf] almost as much as Democrats (71 percent versus 73 percent, respectively) and want to see reform. A Constitutional amendment is not an easy thing to achieve, but the time is right for this one.”
Michael Wear’s post at The Atlantic “How the GOP Can Win Back the Values Debate–and How Dems Could Lose It” should probably be put in the “not likely, but worth a quick read” category. His point that Dems should tone down the “strident moralizing” and embrace a little more civility in dialogue is not a bad one, although the Republicans are worse offenders by far.
In the Washington Post editorial “The GOP’s Politics of Dysfunction,” the editorial board calls out the Republicans for their “absurdly flimsy pretexts” in blocking cabinet appointments needed to enable proper functioning of government: “Americans elected Barack Obama president, and reelected him. He’s entitled to his Cabinet. It’s possible that Republicans will muster the 41 votes needed in the Senate to block both nominations — despite their strong qualifications and high ethical standards. If they do, Americans will be under no illusions that the GOP has led Washington to new lows of dysfunction.”
Joseph E. Stiglitz’s “Student Debt and the Crushing of the American Dream” at the New York Times Opinionator spotlights an issue of increasing concern to middle class voters, and one which Dems would be wise to address with more assertive leadership.
‘Bout time.

No, not Michelle Obama. Michelle Nunn, head of the Points of Light Foundation and daughter former Senator Sam Nunn. She should run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss.
Many Georgians believe Nunn would be a strong Democratic candidate. As Greg Bluestein and Daniel Malloy report in the Atlanta Constitution, commenting on the recent decision of Rep. John Barrow not to run for the Democratic senatorial nomination:

Barrow’s decision opens the door for Michelle Nunn, the daughter of former senator Sam Nunn and head of the volunteer service organization Points of Light. She didn’t return a call seeking comment, but supporters had urged her to run regardless of Barrow’s decision. Her refusal to step aside – setting up a potentially contentious primary — was a factor in Barrow deciding not to run.

Malloy and Bluestein quote former Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin on the possibility of Nunn’s candidacy, noting that she has “an excellent reputation among women — and not just among liberals.” Nunn is also well-liked by African Americans, partly as a result of her stewardship of Hands on Atlanta, which served thousands of disadvantaged citizens in the Atlanta area.
Having recently heard Michelle Nunn address the Coretta Scott King birthday commemoration, I can report that she is an excellent speaker. Whip-smart (Phi Beta Kappa, Harvard M.A), Nunn is also savvy about mobilizing youth, which she did exceptionally well at Hands on Atlanta.
She would likely do well with political centrists and perhaps even some conservatives by having the Nunn name, especially if her highly popular father accompanies/introduces her to key forums.
With the current Republican field seeking the GOP nomination to replace Chambliss, Nunn could face a divided opposition. The Republican field is not very impressive, to put it generously. Indeed there is a possibility they could nominate Rep. Paul Broun, arguably one of the most irrational right-wingers in congress.
There are a few other Democrats considering a run for the Senate seat being vacated by Chambliss. Yet, none can match Michelle Nunn’s potential to energize women, youth, African Americans and progressives, while also getting a healthy percentage of political moderates. If she runs, the Republicans could lose this seat and the U.S. Senate could gain a member who actually knows how to inspire citizens to serve their country.

Scott Horsley’s npr.org post “Democrats Hope For A Bright Future In The Lone Star State” sheds light on Latino voter turnout: “According to the census figures, turnout among Latinos who were eligible to vote last year was just 48 percent, 14 points lower than the turnout for non-Hispanic whites. Latino turnout was considerably higher in swing states, though. These numbers aren’t as precise, because of smaller sample sizes, but the trend is clear: 52 percent of Latinos turned out to vote in Colorado, 62 percent in Florida and 67 percent in Virginia — all states where the Obama campaign invested heavily in Latino mobilization and won by narrow margins.” Horsley quotes TDS founding editor Ruy Teixeira: “I think it tells you you get what you pay for…We know there’s this sleeping giant of the Hispanic electorate. So if you don’t do anything, or you just do the average amount, you’ll get your average turnout…But there’s a potential there to put more effort, more mobilization, more money, more time, into getting the Hispanic voters to the polls, and it should produce an increment in their vote.”
Of course, demographic trends would never deter Republicans from exercising their singular genius for seizing every opportunity to alienate Latino voters, as demonstrated by this latest example.
A statistic from a new Pew Research Center poll that should give Dems real hope for a 2014 upset: “…Just 22 percent approve of the job performance of GOP leaders in Congress.”
Dan Balz and Todd Mellnick report at the Washington Post that “In terms of participation rates, the Census survey said that 66 percent of eligible black voters turned out last November, compared to 64 percent of eligible white voters. In the course of three presidential elections, from 2004 to 2012, black participation has gone from seven points lower than white participation to two points higher.” However Balz and Mellnick also add that “The Census report notes that 2012 was marked by “large decreases in youth voting rates for all race groups and Hispanics.” Voting rates dropped by about 7 percentage points among both whites and blacks ages 18 to 24, and by almost 5 points among young Hispanics.”
NBC Senior Political Editor Mark Murray reports at NBC First Read that, according to a “new NBC News/Marist poll, 55 percent of Virginia residents say they want stricter laws governing the sale of firearms, versus 36 percent who want them left the same.”
Underdog Democrat Terry McAuliffe gains on VA A.G. Ken Cuccinelli in race for Governor, which is now a stat tie in new NBC/Marist poll.
Sarah Kliff has an interesting Wonkblog post, “Democrats say there’s a reason they’re not selling Obamacare yet,” noting, “I’ve put this question to top administration officials and advocates, and the answer tends to be this: If we start selling Obamacare now, we’re going to be raving about a product that doesn’t yet exist. That would, in turn, undermine the sales pitch they want to make in October, when enrollment in the new health plans opens…Both Enroll America and the Obama administration have discussed early summer, around June or so, as the point at which they’ll start ramping up their outreach campaigns. That’s when they believe they can start talking about health benefits that will become accessible a few months down the road…So, as Republican take more shots at the health care law, the Obama administration’s relative silence is part of a larger plan.”
Yet more evidence that progressives have a powerful weapon in consumer boycotts against wingnut media advertisers.
There may be more detail than you want to know about in Thomas B. Edsall’s NYT Opinionator post,”In Data We Trust” about Karl Rove’s ploy to be the GOP’s information technology czar. But this is required reading for Dem oppo researchers and data managers.
The Nation’s John Nichols explains why Mark Sanford’s win in SC-1 was pretty much a lock once he got the GOP nomination: “In 2012, the Democratic nominee took just 29 percent of the vote. Colbert Busch took 46 percent. So, in what was probably a best-of-all-worlds scenario for the Democrats, their candidate raised the party’s percentage of the vote by almost sixteen points. But she needed a swing of more than twenty-one points…What happened in South Carolina will keep happening there and in the vast majority of American congressional districts for so long as those districts are drawn to advantage one party or the others.”

WaPo columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr. understands as well as any pundit that there is only so much President Obama can do in terms of needed reforms with the Republican majority hell-bent on sabotaging his presidency at every opportunity. But Dionne believes the president still has some unused leverage in his ability to change the “nation’s political conversation,” and it’s time to use it. As Dionne writes,

…The talk in Washington has been dominated by the same stuff we obsessed over in 2010, 2011 and 2012: a monotonous, uninspiring, insider clash over budgets. Even in that context, we barely discuss what government can do that would be helpful (except to air travelers).
Obama’s defenders say that D.C. dysfunction should be laid at the feet of Republicans in Congress who are so invested in his failure that they even vote against things they are for. That’s what Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) says happened on background checks.
Rather than criticize the president, says former chief White House speechwriter Jon Favreau, those who want him to succeed need to hold Republicans in the House and Senate accountable. The president can’t do it by himself, Favreau said in the Daily Beast. He needs help from his supporters.
Well, sure. To pretend that the president can magically get an increasingly right-wing Republican House and Senate contingent to do his bidding is either naive or willfully misleading. The GOP really does hope that blocking whatever Obama wants will steadily weaken him.
But the president also needs to ask himself why even his supporters are growing impatient. His whole budget strategy, after all, is directed almost entirely toward gently coaxing Republicans his way, without any concern as to whether what he is doing is demobilizing the very people he needs on his side now.

Dionne argues that President Obama needs to use more stick with the carrots he offers the Republicans. With respect to Social Security indexing, for example :

…Such a major step toward the Republicans should be taken only in return for concrete concessions from them on the need for more revenue…If Obama wants to underscore that his problem is Republican obstruction, he should tell those GOP senators he likes to dine with that they need to come up with revenue very soon or else he’ll withdraw that “chained CPI” offer he claims not to like much anyway. Put up or shut up is a cliche, but a useful one.

The president should also make stronger use of the bully pulpit, says Dionne, to put reforms like the much-needed minimum wage hike, funding for infrastructure upgrades and pre-K education in the national conversation. Yes Obama has spoken out eloquently on these issues, but Dionne argues that he needs to amp it up, “a consistent, driving theme: that the stakes in this debate are larger than the day-to-day drone of partisan invective suggests.”
It’s a fair point. If President Bush can create a widely-accepted meme about WMD’s out of pure fantasy and make it stick, President Obama ought to be able to do a lot more than has been done so far with the undeniable reality of our urgent need for infrastructure upgrades.
The Republicans can continue their knee-jerk obstruction of all of the president’s proposed reforms, and will do so as long as they have enough wiggle room. But if Obama fully leverages his power to create a more heated national dialogue about these and other highly-popular reforms, he just might be able to shake loose enough votes among his adversaries to enact the needed legislation — or send them packing in 2014.