How To Divide a Party, In Three Easy Steps!

So, you've decided to become the leader of a big political party. Only one problem: it's too big! What to do?

Well, you've come to the right place. Here at the Horse Race Blog, we've developed a three-step guide to making that broad party a little more...narrow. Just follow these simple instructions and your majority party will be smaller and a little easier to handle in no time!
***

Step 1: Participate in a bitterly divisive nomination battle against a prominent opponent, making sure that you only win certain factions within the party. Leave your opponent to win other factions, even down to the very last contest. If possible, make condescending remarks about how bitter, clingy, and xenophobic some of those other factions in your own party are. This will ensure that they remain perpetually skeptical of your administration.

Having won the nomination, make no serious effort to unite this divided and fractured party. Do not nominate for vice-president somebody who is a prominent member of the opposing faction. For instance, if you're a Northern/urban candidate looking to alienate Southern/rural members of your party - make sure that the well-regarded governor of Tennessee does not find his way onto the ticket. Also, no unity tickets. Make your primary opponent swallow hard and endorse you, then give the veep nomination to somebody else.

If you complete Step 1 perfectly, you should see early signs of success. Namely, lifelong members of your party will vote for the opposition, perhaps for the first time ever. If they do this in an election that you win decisively anyway, all the better. That's how you know you're off to a good start.

Step 2: Design your cabinet so that there are few (if any) prominent members of the opposing faction installed in any important posts. If you followed Step 1 perfectly, it means your primary opponent is still out in the cold. You might have to nominate her to a prominent spot. That's less than ideal, but it is understandable. However, make no additional gestures to those other factions in the party.
That popular governor from Tennessee? He should be nowhere to be found. That senior statesmen from Georgia? Again, nowhere. How about that bipartisan bridge-builder from Louisiana? I don't know where he is, but he better not be at your cabinet meetings. After all, what you don't want are those hard feelings being softened because of the composition of your government.

Also, think big. It's important to be as broadly dismissive as possible. For instance, your cabinet should not only sample almost exclusively from the North, it should also draw heavily from urban areas. Bottom line: don't think one-dimensionally about your cabinet. It can be used to disgruntle multiple factions in your party at once!
Finally, it's smart to staff your West Wing with as many "hacks" from your campaign as possible. After all, these are the people who helped you split your party into two pieces in your quest to win the nomination. It's a good idea to keep them around, for there is a lot more work on that front left to do!

Step 3: These opposing factions in your party will now be thoroughly frustrated. Good work! It's time to kick it up a notch - by aggressively, relentlessly pursuing a legislative agenda that they obviously can't support.
Ideally, you'll want the leadership in the Congress to be chock full of fellow Northern/urban members. You can't control that yourself, but if you're so lucky as to have leaders equally committed to shrinking the size of your party - you can let them do most of the work. Take a back seat and just exhort them to follow their instincts. They'll know what to do!

Again, think multi-dimensionally. For instance, if the focus is on health care, encourage them to push through a massive expansion of government. That's bound to aggravate the South, which has never been too thrilled about the idea of a big federal government. But also, do not try to stop your urban allies if they push for a "robust" public option, which would be a particularly tough pill for rural members of Congress to swallow.
Other things like a massive government bureaucracy for "cap-and-trade," subsidization of the auto industries, and retaining your predecessor's bailout of (mostly Northern!) banks are all excellent ways to tweak those pesky Jacksonian "friends" of yours! Also, encourage those congressional leaders to help you blow a huge hole in the deficit, so that those Southern deficit hawks know that there's a new sheriff in town.
Ultimately, what you want are not simply defections for the major bills, but also defections on small ball procedural matters. That's a sign that your rank-and-file "allies" have realized that your legislative program is so unpopular in their districts that they must oppose you on every vote. Voting against the rule is halfway to joining the opposition, which means you're halfway to your goal!
***
Following these steps to the letter will ensure a nicely divided party heading into the midterm elections. Of course, the mainstream media will not notice this, as they will be obsessing over the comparatively insignificant divisions in the opposition. But take heart! You have now finished the hard work necessary for long term success: a smaller political party that is less able to build a majority coalition in years to come. Congratulations!
That's what you wanted, right?

Robert Gibbs is Upset About the Tea Parties

Obama By the Numbers

Polls and election results show that rising unemployment and partisan politics have chipped away at the president's popularity.

By Doyle McManus

November 8, 2009

President Obama didn't get much time last week to savor the gauzy one-year-after retrospectives of his 2008 election victory, with its 53% of the popular vote and 365 electoral votes. He had other numbers to think about.

On Friday, the Labor Department announced that unemployment hit a 26-year high of 10.2% last month. Earlier last week, in Virginia and New Jersey -- states that were Obama's last year -- Republicans won gubernatorial seats by margins of about 17% and 5%, respectively. And the president's own approval rating, a dizzying 78% when he was inaugurated, has fallen to a prosaic 50%.

State and local elections often turn on local circumstances, and there were plenty of those to muddy the message from Tuesday's election. But there's nothing complicated about the mood in the rest of the nation. Voters in 50 states are unhappy about the economy, angry about partisanship in Washington and disappointed in Obama's failure to live up to their inflated expectations.

For Democrats, the unemployment number was the week's most alarming. It now becomes the Republicans' chief argument that Obama's policies have failed -- never mind that their own alternative, a smaller economic stimulus, would have done no better.

"Tell me what the unemployment rate is in 2010 and I'll tell you how that election turns out," Republican strategist David Winston said. "When unemployment hits a certain level, it's the only domestic issue that matters."

In the first months of his presidency, Winston noted, Obama focused like a laser on the economy, and his approval ratings were high. But during the last six months, his agenda has been more fragmented as he's tackled healthcare, climate change and Afghanistan.

Some White House aides say that there's nothing here that a couple of million new jobs won't fix. But Obama didn't run for president only to fix the economy. Candidate Obama's promise was to move American politics beyond its normal limits.

On that count, two more numbers should give the president pause. When the Gallup Poll asked voters last month if Obama had kept "the promises he made during his presidential campaign," only 48% said yes. And when the pollsters asked whether voters considered Obama a liberal or a moderate, 54% called him a liberal -- a big jump from the 43% who gave that answer on election day in 2008.

Many of those disillusioned voters are moderates and independents, people who voted for Obama not because they supported liberal programs but because they responded to his call for a post-partisan politics. To be sure, Republicans in Congress haven't given Obama many chances to pass bipartisan legislation; they have opted instead for drawing sharp contrasts. At least in the short run, that strategy appears to be working.

Instead of a new centrist consensus, Obama's first year has produced a backlash -- and not only among zealots of the Republican right. Polls show conservative views up across the entire electorate.

On election day last week, those trends were reflected in an "intensity gap" that brought Republican voters to the polls -- the inverse of the 2008 intensity gap that brought young voters and African Americans out for Obama. In Virginia, most of last week's voters said they voted for John McCain in 2008; Obama voters stayed home.

What's all this mean for the next 12 months? In the debate over healthcare, it means moderate Democrats from swing districts -- "Blue Dogs" who give Obama his majority -- will be even more skittish. They are demanding a bill without a hint of federal funding for abortions, and they are likely to get it -- just as Obama's lone GOP partner on healthcare, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, may get her wish for a bill without a "public option."

Obama also needs to reassure voters in the coming weeks that he hasn't forgotten about jobs. Expect to hear the president talk up not only the original stimulus plan -- whose effects have been real but disappointing -- but also new measures that add up to a stealth "second stimulus" package: last week's extension of unemployment benefits, the expansion of home buyers' tax credits and a $250 bonus for Social Security recipients.

In recent weeks, Obama and his aides have abandoned any pretense of post-partisanship; they have responded to every attack and even waged a brief jihad against Fox News. Their explanation was that conservative attacks on healthcare proposals required an energetic response. But their fury has damaged Obama's image as a post-partisan centrist.

Not every number is as bad as it looks, though. Obama's approval rating of 50% is almost exactly where Ronald Reagan's was at this point in his presidency in 1981; it's higher than Bill Clinton's was in 1993.

"When things aren't going well in the economy, you can't expect people to say they approve," said Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. "But he's managed to maintain the public's confidence. ... People like him."

Last week's numbers just mean that American politics have returned to normal. That doesn't mean Obama's presidency has failed; far from it. But it does mean his ambitions, which once seemed limitless, will now be trimmed.

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

One year on, Obama cites struggle with Bush legacy

[-] Text [+]

By Ross Colvin
MADISON, Wis. (Reuters) - A year after his historic election, President Barack Obama sought to remind Americans on Wednesday the biggest problems he is grappling with -- from the economy to the war in Afghanistan -- are the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
With his approval ratings down from once-lofty levels and Tuesday's Democratic election losses raising questions about his political clout, Obama held no special ceremony to mark the anniversary of his election as America's first black president.
He instead traveled to Wisconsin to appear before a friendly audience in a school gymnasium and promote education as a pillar of his economic recovery efforts.
Obama was elected on a promise of sweeping change after eight years under Bush, but many Americans are increasingly expressing impatience that his pledge has yet to bear fruit.
He used the preamble of his speech to insist his administration had indeed had important successes and also to remind Americans of the litany of daunting challenges he inherited when he took office in January.
"One year ago, Americans all across this country went to the polls and cast ballots for the future they wanted to see," Obama said.
But he said his administration was also confronted with a "financial crisis that threatened to plunge our economy into a Great Depression, the worst that we've seen in generations."
He said his administration had acted swiftly to save the economy from "imminent collapse."
"While we still have a long way to go, we have made meaningful progress toward achieving that goal," he said.
Nine months into his term, Obama's Republican critics have accused him of overplaying the "blame card" against Bush, a Republican who left office with one of the lowest poll ratings of any modern president.
Obama has seen his own approval numbers fall to the 50 percent range from above 70 percent as he struggles to push through a healthcare overhaul, reverse massive job losses and decide whether to send more troops to an increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan.
He took another hit to his political standing on Tuesday when voters elected Republicans in state governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey despite his personal campaigning for the Democratic candidates. The White House denied the election losses were in any way a referendum on the president.
(Writing by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Peter Cooney)

"We had record deficits, two wars, frayed alliances around the world," Obama added.  

Gibbs: Obama 'not watching returns'

Hours after urging reporters not to draw sweeping conclusions from Tuesday's gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told POLITICO President Barack Obama wasn't even keeping an eye on the results.

"He's not watching returns," Gibbs said.

The Obama administration and other top Democrats have consistently tried to play down the import of this week's contests, which Republicans have sought to portray as a referendum on the Democratic-led government in Washington.

In Tuesday's White House press briefing, Gibbs dismissed suggestions that the two governor's races and a special election in upstate New York could be a preview of the 2010 congressional midterms.

"I don't think, looking at the two gubernatorial races, you can draw with any great insight what's going to happen a year from now," he said.

But while Obama may not have been following Tuesday's returns, he and Vice President Joe Biden campaigned repeatedly for candidates in all three of the night's key races.

As recently as Sunday, Obama stumped in New Jersey for incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, who has struggled in an uphill battle for reelection against former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, a Republican.

On Monday, Biden visited New York's 23rd congressional district to appear at an event for Democratic congressional candidate Bill Owens, who was running against Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.

Both Obama and Biden made stops in Virginia for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds, but the White House had expressed frustration in recent weeks at the state senator's performance on the campaign trail. Deeds conceded defeat to Republican Bob McDonnell, a former Virginia attorney general, early in the evening.

BARACK 'N BONES

Mon Nov 02 2009 07:05:52 ET

Eyebrows raised over the weekend as President Obama walked out of the gym at Fort McNair -- appearing thin as a rail!

Rigorous workouts and high-stress basketball games are said to be behind the dramatic weight loss.

"No, he's not chain smoking," claims an insider. "He's working non-stop for the country... yes, he does occasionally skip meals."

The president explained in Miami last week: "Just because I'm skinny doesn't mean I'm not tough."

Soros, Gore, Ayers and Rev. Wright among W.H. visitors

Visitor logs released by the White House late Friday show that a host of prominent people have been spending time at the executive mansion, including liberal powerhouses George Soros and former vice president Al Gore.

Soros, the global financier and philanthropist, for example, visited the White House on Feb. 25 for a visit with Obama’s top economist, Larry Summers. The records show Soros also had meetings in the Old Executive Office Building on March 24 and March 25. Soros is one of the wealthiest investors in the world, and has become a controversial figure for his currency trading and for investing part of his vast fortune in liberal causes.

Gore, it appears from the logs, visited the Obama White House on April 8.

The White House warned prominently of false hits among the names. Names like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres are on the list, but are not the same people who caused problems for Obama in the campaign. The “John Edwards” listed in the records is not the same as the disgraced former Democratic presidential candidate, a White House spokesman said.

The list includes some of the nation’s most famous celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Denzel Washington, who visited the White House residence in May.

The list is replete with the biggest names in finance, including Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein , Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and Vikram Pandit of Citigroup. Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan also visited.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates arrived at the White House on March 25. Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer appears also to have put in time at the White House on separate occasions.

Also on the list are an eclectic mix of civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton, media notables like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Republicans like former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

Forty-two people were listed as meeting with “POTUS,” a White House acronym for President of the United States. And an even more select group of eight got meetings listed in the records as with “POTUS/FLOTUS,” or the President and the First Lady.

Among those meeting Barack and Michelle Obama together were Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and several high-powered senators and members of Congress.

And the list documents the types of events that brought many of the visitors, including the St. Patrick’s Day reception, a “Wounded Warriors Bike Ride,” and “Supreme Court Outreach,” along with the more typical bill signings and White House tours.

The list was released in response to freedom of information requests from a variety of groups. The White House says it will only release records that are 90 days old or older, so this first batch includes the period between January 20, 2009 to July 31, 2009. Future batches, the White House said, will be posted on an ongoing basis.

Norm Eisen, a special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, noted in a blog post that there were many names that appeared to be famous figures but were in fact other people with the same names.

“A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else,” Eisen wrote.
“In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly ("R. Kelly"), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”