[ Posted Wednesday, February 6th, 2013 – 16:23 UTC ]
Maintaining His Gains
President Obama ended up his first term by consolidating the job approval polling gains he made in his re-election. His numbers have settled into a new range, and were remarkably steady all month long. Obama's "second honeymoon" period with the public may not last more than a few months, but for now seems to be holding steady. With the election fading into the past, Obama's in a pretty good position right now in terms of "political capital," but this will likely change as legislative reality sets in.
Let's go to the chart, to see how Obama finished up his first term in office:

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]
January, 2013
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Tuesday, February 5th, 2013 – 18:05 UTC ]
It is fashionable nowadays for pundits to decry the partisan polarization in Washington, and to bemoan how "broken" Congress is. Nothing will get done with such divided government, such conventional wisdom dictates. We're in for a long and bitter two years of legislative gridlock. I try to be an eternal optimist (while still staying within the bounds of reasonableness), and I can't help but wonder if this thinking may turn out to be wrong. Perhaps -- just perhaps, mind you -- the 113th Congress will be able to actually get a few important things done.
The odds may be long for such an outcome, but I see the situation as a lot more hopeful than it was two years ago. After the "shellacking" the Democrats took in 2010, things ground almost completely to a halt on Capitol Hill. But maybe the glacial ice is actually now thawing, one drip at a time.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Monday, February 4th, 2013 – 17:42 UTC ]
It is the Monday after the Super Bowl, so to use an apt football metaphor, I am going to punt on today's column.
For most of the day, I was having computer problems, which will (I assure you) hasten the day when I make the big leap to a new machine. I guess this is also apt, since even the Super Bowl couldn't manage to keep the lights on for the whole game.
Today, had all gone well, would have been "Obama Poll Watch" day, where we examine President Obama's job approval ratings for the past month. This will have to be postponed until Tuesday or Wednesday. Quick overview: Obama held onto the gains he made, and his numbers held steady, not moving much in any direction. More later, of course.
How about those Ravens, eh? Happy times in Baltimore... while I must confess a certain bias on my part, I've always liked the Ravens for the sole reason that the Raven is (to the best of my knowledge) the only sports mascot in any professional league to be named after a literary character. Edgar Allan Poe was a Baltimore resident for much of his professional life, and was buried there. Other cities have literary luminaries, though, but none of them have named a football team after a character in a poem. You've got to love the Ravens a little bit, just on that fact alone.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Friday, February 1st, 2013 – 18:48 UTC ]
We seem to have a gang problem on Capitol Hill once again.
Seriously, there are 535 people up there who are paid to use language well (stripped of all else, this seems a basic part of their jobs), and all they can come up with over and over again to describe a bipartisan group -- any bipartisan group, mind you -- is the formulaic "gang of [insert number]" description? Nobody's got a more original idea that that? Really?
I speak, of course, of the current "Gang of Eight," a bipartisan group of senators who put forth a proposal on comprehensive immigration reform this week. More on this later. But can't we come up with a snappier name than that?
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Thursday, January 31st, 2013 – 18:04 UTC ]
Since I've written three full-length articles already this week, I'm going to slack off a bit and today just run with a few items which caught my eye. So, for once, a short column today. As always, these are presented in "three-dot" format, in homage to the late great Herb Caen...
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Wednesday, January 30th, 2013 – 19:07 UTC ]
We stand at the beginning of a grand debate on immigration. America goes through these grand debates every generation or so, and what remains constant is that both sides in the fight can be counted upon to accuse the other side of "playing politics" with the immigration issue. This has, indeed already begun.
Republicans are offering up a splendid display of doublethink on the issue, in order to be able to say: "Hah! We were right all along," no matter what happens. Republicans make two accusations, which are completely contradictory (which doesn't seem to bother them at all), that the whole thing is just a cynical political game: (1) Obama and the Democrats want to legalize 11 million people who will then immediately become reliable Democratic voters, and/or (2) Obama and the Democrats will somehow find a way to scuttle the deal because they really don't want to pass any law, they just want to use the issue to beat up Republicans, in election after election. As I mentioned, no matter what happens, they'll be able to fall back on one of these tropes. Democrats, however, are using the second of these (with slight modification) to explain their own wariness: Republicans just want to be able to say: "We tried something" during the next election, and they will find a way to scuttle the deal in the end while blaming Democrats for the legislative failure.
The media gladly goes along for this ride, because (as we all know) conflict sells. What's amusing to me, however, is that very little historical context will be presented in the entire debate. Which is a shame, because anyone who knows the slightest bit about the issue's history knows that America always plays politics with immigration, in one fashion or another. It's an inherently political issue, in fact, so it would indeed be impossible to completely divorce it from "political games."
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Tuesday, January 29th, 2013 – 17:40 UTC ]
Does comprehensive immigration reform have a chance of becoming law in 2013?
This is the question all pundits are asking themselves this particular week, so I thought I'd give my thoughts, here at the beginning of what will likely be a long and drawn-out debate. I start out optimistic, personally, and put the chance that sweeping, inclusive immigration reform will happen at a healthy 80-85 percent.
As I said, that's pretty optimistic. It will be subject to change, as the glaciated wheels of the legislative process clank and clunk forward, ever-so-slowly, over the upcoming months. With the twists and turns of Congress which await, I'm sure there'll be times when I offer up much more pessimistic predictions of actual passage, but for now I'm comfortable with 80-85 percent.
There's a reason for my rosy-colored outlook, and that reason was alluded to when the "Gang of Eight" brought forth their plans, yesterday. The Democrats have always wanted to pass comprehensive immigration reform, but right now the Republicans need to pass an immigration reform bill. Their party's future pretty much depends on it, at this point. Which is why I think a fairly good bill will emerge with a very healthy majority in the Senate, and that eventually John Boehner will chuck aside the "Hastert Rule" and allow a vote in which a few dozen Republicans help the overwhelming majority of Democrats to pass the bill.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Monday, January 28th, 2013 – 16:58 UTC ]
So long, Sarah Palin.
That can really be read two ways: "Goodbye, Sarah," and "It has been so long, Sarah... so very, very long...." How you read it will depend on how you view Sarah Palin.
Last Friday, Sarah Palin left Fox News. Her exit from the national stage is now complete. But her passing from view bears comment, for the unique nature of her influence on the country's politics for the past four or five years. Because one thing everyone can agree upon -- love her or hate her -- Sarah Palin was unique.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Friday, January 25th, 2013 – 18:20 UTC ]
President Barack Hussein Obama's second inauguration pretty much dominated the political news this week.
Oh, wait, I meant to say "a lip-synching scandal" was what dominated the airwaves in what passes for "journalism" in America these days. Sigh.
I usually resist the urge to get sucked into these non-stories with all the rest of the mediaverse, but I've just got to weigh in on this one. I don't care whether a singer lip-synchs or actually sings as much as I care that they get the song right. Yo-Yo Ma "string-synched" his number at Obama's first inauguration, and nobody seemed to mind too much (it is tough to keep a stringed instrument in tune when it is 20 degrees out). As far as I could tell this Monday, though, nobody could manage to resist the urge to "interpret" the songs they sang. There was a lot of song-icide taking place up there on the stage, folks, and the only properly-performed pieces of music seemed to be the instrumentals from the military band.
Here's a brilliant idea: how about we not have divas, prima donnas, and egomaniacs sing at official occasions? How about we get people who will swear not to "interpret" or "rearrange" or otherwise give "their versions" of our nation's patriotic songs?
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Thursday, January 24th, 2013 – 17:00 UTC ]
The Republican House just scored a political victory. While meaningless in financial fact, they successfully co-opted a dandy slogan -- which may have real political consequences for Senate Democrats -- and they also managed to pull the wool over the eyes of a large portion of the mainstream media while doing so. Which, as I said, has to be chalked up as a big political victory for the House Republicans.
I'm speaking of the "No Budget, No Pay" provision in the short-term debt ceiling hike the House just passed. First and foremost, it will not actually "cut" the pay of anyone. Period. It just won't. It should rightly be called the "No Budgetary Political Posturing... Um, Then We'll Hold Your Pay For Awhile" provision -- this is where the "co-opting" of the slogan comes in. The political victory is that the House will likely shame Harry Reid's Democratic Senate into actually producing a budget bill this year. More on this in a moment.
Continue Reading »