-
Obama's New Lobbying Proposals are a Mixed Bag
Tweet Share on Facebook January 30, 2010 Comment (15)By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
I shook my head the other night when President Obama called for further restrictions on how much lobbyists are allowed to contribute to political campaigns. First such a proposal is almost certainly unconstitutional: The Supreme Court has ruled that money in politics is protected as free speech, and while this (allegedly conservative) court has demonstrated a willingness to overturn precedent, that doesn't seem like one they'll go after. Beyond that, it further illustrates a problem I've had with the Obama administration's approach to lobbyists: It assumes that they are all evil.
-
Poll Shows Few Americans Understand Senate Filibuster Rules
Tweet Share on Facebook January 29, 2010 Comment (12)By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
I've argued here before that while the filibuster is today used in a radically different way than it was traditionally--far more legislation is subjected to these delaying tactics than used to be the case--part of the problem stems from public ignorance of how it works. I got some measure of confirmation from a recent Pew poll which showed that all of 26 percent of Americans know that 60 votes are required to break a Senate filibuster. Almost the same number (25 percent) think that a simple majority (51 votes, for those of you scoring at home) can break a filibuster. Seven percent of Americans think the number is 67 votes and five percent think it's 75 votes. And 37 percent had the good sense to throw up their hands and admit ignorance.
Figures like that make me glad that President Obama made a point in his State of the Union address of admonishing the GOP that if they "insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. " I might have liked him to spell things out a bit more explicitly, pointing out that such a blanket insistence on a supermajority is a recent development, and not in keeping with how the filibuster has been traditionally used. But I'll take it.
-
State of the Union Trivia and Statistics
Tweet Share on Facebook January 27, 2010 Comment (1)By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
My colleague Ken Walsh has a nice history of the of the State of the Union address, looking at not only what tonight's speech can mean for Obama, but how this event--filled with pomp, circumstance, sound, fury, but little significance--developed. And I blogged earlier about some of my favorite behind the scenes moments from various past administrations, from LBJ grousing that his speechwriters had given him "50 pages of vomit" to Richard Nixon bemoaning how boring the speech could be (an opinion shared by Bush 41 speechwriter and bloleague Mary Kate Cary).
But here are some straight facts and figures to sate your need for State of the Union data, trivia, and other minutia.
-
Scenes From Writing the State of the Union
Tweet Share on Facebook January 27, 2010 Comment (1)By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
As I argued this morning, the State of the Union address is usually an underwhelming affair: Yes, huge numbers of people tune in, but the speech itself is rarely memorable. That's not to say that it's not a huge deal, especially in the White House in the days and weeks leading up to the big event. As I recount in White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters, the big speech has produced some memorable and amusing anecdotes from inside 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
-
Obama's State of the Union Address: An Opportunity, Overhyped
Tweet Share on Facebook January 27, 2010 Comment (7)By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Gallup brings some bad news for Obama partisans: State of the Union addresses don't typically give presidents a polling bump. The polling organization looked at its pre- and post-State of the Union polling numbers for presidents going back to Jimmy Carter. The only one who came out ahead was Bill Clinton, who averaged a three point boost in his approval ratings. Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush averaged a point decline, while George H. W. Bush averaged a three point drop.
Those statistics help explain why tonight's speech presents an opportunity for President Obama, but perhaps not the one sought in instant analysis and overnight poll numbers.
-
James O’Keefe Arrested, Undercutting ACORN Allegations
Tweet Share on Facebook January 26, 2010 Comment (41)By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
James O'Keefe, who became a conservative media star last year for his videos skewering ACORN, was among four people arrested for trying to tap the phones in Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in New Orleans. The story is borderline comical. According to an affidavit from FBI Special Agent Steven Rayes, O'Keefe was loitering around Landrieu's office when his two alleged accomplices, "each dressed in blue denim pants, a blue work shirt, a light fluorescent green vest, a tool belt, and carrying white, construction-style hard hat," came in, claimed they were from the phone company, and asked for access to the phones. O'Keefe used his mobile phone to film them.
It sounds like something out of the tritest kind of television script. And, if the charges are true, that's actually not terribly surprising. Judging by the ACORN caper, O'Keefe's style isn't simply to prove corruption but stupidity. It's ironic, then, that the rank lack of sense in his latest alleged stunt calls into question his ACORN charges.
-
Why the Filibuster is a Problem
Tweet Share on Facebook January 25, 2010 Comment (8)By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
I devoted my column this week to tracing how the filibuster has changed over the last 50 years and why our perception of it doesn't quite synch up with reality. In brief, the filibuster is used in a radically different way now than it was as recently as the 1950s and 1960s. The filibuster has always been an important tool to help protect the rights of the minority in the U.S. Senate (and it remains one of the things that distinguishes the Senate from the House). But historically it was a big gun that was rarely used. A couple of things changed in the '60s and '70s, however, which made it easier to both manage a filibuster and also to break one. First Senate procedures were changed so that a filibuster would stall a single bill, but not bring the chamber to a halt; second the number of votes required to break a filibuster was lowered from 67 to 60. Starting around 20 years ago, the number of filibusters--which had been drifting up anyway--dramatically increased.
-
More Bad News for House, Senate Democrats
Tweet Share on Facebook January 25, 2010 Comment (4)By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
It's proving to be another tough day for congressional Democrats, with three more drips into a growing pool of bad political news for the party. Today brought two more announcements of Dems opting to not run this year; and a well-known political tip-sheet sees more signs of a playing field that is increasingly tipping in favor of the Republican Party.
-
10 Questions About the Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance
Tweet Share on Facebook January 22, 2010 Comment (16)By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Like many on the left side of the philosophical spectrum, I was taken aback at the Supreme Court's ruling this week in Citizens United v. FEC. Who knew that corporations were entitled to the same right to free speech that individual citizens are? I had heard phrases about corporate citizenship, of course, and being "good corporate citizens," but I had no idea that the five justices in the court's "precedent? We don't need no stinking precedent" bloc took it so literally.
But after further thought, I for one welcome our new corporate countrymen. I just have a few questions about which other rights and obligations of citizenship the court might want to grant corporations:
-
Even if Brown Beats Coakley, Health Reform Could Be Saved
Tweet Share on Facebook January 19, 2010 Comment (18)By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
If Republican Scott Brown wins the open Massachusetts senate seat today, he would give the GOP a 41st vote, preventing Senate Democrats from breaking any filibusters, virtually guaranteeing that a revised healthcare bill would not pass the Senate. But that doesn't mean that healthcare reform would be dead. Democrats could still get a health reform bill to President Obama's desk. And they should.
