Monthly Archives: January 2010

Bill Clinton ’93: Too Involved in Health Reform; Barack Obama ’09: Not Involved Enough

1 Reply

In thinking about how health care reform went so far off the tracks both in 1993 under Bill Clinton and in 2009, under President Obama, one can reason the Clinton’s went too far in their micro involvement in the details of reform.

Now, in retrospect, Obama has done the exact opposite — he has simply not become involved enough throughout the process, leaving it all to Harry Reid and other weaker players on Capitol Hill.

There’s a middle ground of hands-on involvement and leadership that neither Clinton nor Obama achieved.

A Case Study in How To Avoid Becoming a Campaign Issue

Leave a reply

Any high level press operative who has ever been sent into a high pressure end-game campaign environment knows one of the first things NOT to do is become a campaign issue yourself.

Mike Meehan, dispatched by the DSCC to “help” Martha Coakley in Massachusetts against Republican Scott Brown, seems to have body-checked a Weekly Standard reporter and then menaced him, for lack of a better word.

Bad move — this will become a much bigger story throughout the day.

Recent media polls showing Coakley up by 8-12 points do not reflect the reality on the ground. As Charlie Cook noted on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning, this is basically a toss-up contingent solely upon who shows up to vote in a special election.

The good thing for Coakley is that there’s still time to dump a boatload of negative TV on Brown’s momentum, and they’re making the right message move simply reminding voters he’s a Republican.

Coakley should still win by 1-3 points, but anything goes in a special with a volatile turnout environment.

Harry Reid’s Racial Gaffe and the Dangers of Speaking on “Deep Background”

5 Replies

Putting aside the appalling double standard from Democrats regarding Trent Lott’s comments about Strom Thurmond and Harry Reid’s comments about President Obama, one key question surrounding this explosive news nugget served up by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in their new book, Game Change, is the fact the titillating revelation comes by way of a “deep background” conversation.

When a source speaks on “deep background”, the stipulation is that the reporter may assert the information at their own authority, with absolutely no attribution nor any quotes around any comments made by the source.

Putting aside the fact there is absolutely no question Reid’s comment reflects what can fairly be characterized as a 1950′s and 60′s country club “worldview” or “mindset” — and a Republican would be run out of town on rail for saying what Reid said — it’s not unreasonable to say at this point that Reid was burned big time by Halperin and Heilemann.

Explaining the ground rules with Senator Reid on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning, Halperin and Heilemann did not adequately explain why Reid’s terms were not violated.

With so many sidebar stories developing from the explosive release of Game Change, one that merits further exploration is the entire discussion surrounding “off the record, “deep background”, and “background” — and what it means.

So far, it appears Reid and all the others who spoke on “deep background” have been badly burned by Halperin and Heilemann. It would be helpful to hear more from them about this ground rules discussion, and why they believe it is appropriate to quote Reid and others directly under terms of “deep background”. Source/reporter relationships are the currency of Washington, and more needs to be discussed about how these Game Change comments from sources are now firmly on the record.

Michael Steele: The Antithesis of Haley Barbour as RNC Chairman

2 Replies

Among other tone deaf offenses rooted in self-aggrandizement, RNC Chairman Michael Steele recently decided to collect speaking fees when out on the hustings on the rubber-chicken circuit.

This is highly unusual, unseemly, and unprecedented for a chairman of either party.

Now, in his new book offering a blueprint for the GOP’s resurgence, Steele offers a simple explanation for why the GOP all too often lost touch with typical Americans since the Ronald Reagan era” — “we screwed up.”

Unfortunately, that’s true.

Steele’s book also directly or indirectly criticizes George H.W. Bush “for raising taxes two years after” Reagan left office; George W. Bush “for not vetoing any spending bills during his first five years in office;” and Sen. John McCain for “backing censorship of political speech through the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.”

That, too, is true. But speaking one’s mind candidly and assigning blame for various political and policy faux pas is not the role of RNC Chairman.

But Steele’s entire modus operandi is all about him; his opinion, his thoughts; the extra marginal dough he can raise for himself by leveraging his position as RNC Chairman.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour was the best RNC Chair in memory because he always remembered the job was about building the local state parties from the ground up — not about him; and not running your mouth in Washington, unless it has something to do with positively building the GOP brand or positioning.

The Hotline reports today that “GOP House members and top GOP aides are livid with Steele’s latest comments” and are weighing retribution, but fearful since “Steele controls the RNC’s purse strings.”

Michael Steele is well past the point of being a liability as opposed to an asset, and continues to provide his critics with ammo to dump him in the New Year.

Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer was just forced out legitimately by his critics; so, too, should Michael Steele.