On Shirley Sherrod and Sarah Palin's Missed Opportunity

The Shirley Sherrod saga has crowded other stories out of the media over the past few days. The details of the saga are well known and easily available on other Web sites. The 7-10, however, wishes to focus on an unreported political angle to the story.

Many politicians, particularly those who do not hail from safe congressional districts, have understandably been a bit gun shy about responding to this story. Expressing condemnation at Andrew Breitbart, the conservative activist whose edited video served as the catalyst for this story, would presumably lead to criticism among other conservatives who feel that politician is "siding with the NAACP" or is somehow "against Whites." Expressing support for Sherrod may lead a politician to be seen as "playing the race card" or "being in lockstep with the NAACP."

These types of political calculations are understandable, but unfortunate. However, that's the state of today's political and media climate. But this story also affords a few gutsy politicians, particularly those with presidential ambitions, a unique opportunity to distinguish themselves for the right reasons. Sarah Palin in particular could easily increase her political capital by coming to Sherrod's defense. After all, Palin commonly ridicules the "lamestream media" and enjoys her freedom to criticize and avoid them:

"With the shackles off, I relish my freedom to call it like I see it, while starving the media beast that was devouring the false reports about me, my staff and my loved ones."

"The lamestream media is no longer a cornerstone of democracy in America. They need help. They need to regain their credibility and some respect. There are some pretty sick puppies in the industry today. They really need help."

Based on this quote, Palin and Sherrod have a lot in common. While some of the critical stories about Palin may have merit, such as her awkward interview with Katie Couric, Palin is right to be offended at the media frenzy that surrounded her daughter's pregnancy.

Being a public figure, Palin naturally commanded (and still commands) public attention. Sherrod, however, did not seek the media spotlight and has had her character and identity destroyed by an influential conservative activist whose personal vendetta against the NAACP renders her as nothing more than collateral damage. If Palin was a victim of the "lamestream media," then Sherrod certainly was too even though some conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, believe the media are at fault for going too easy on Sherrod, whom he believes is "playing the race card."

Should Palin courageously come to Sherrod's defense and criticize Breitbart and the media outlets that piled onto her, she would show her independence, a sense of leadership, and her willingness to "defend what is right," not just what is convenient. It would also earn her a lot of respect from Black voters, moderates, and uncommitted Republicans who may be skeptical about Palin's ideology and political loyalties. Given that Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, and other potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates have not exactly been making significant inroads with Black voters, this presents a fantastic opportunity for Palin to separate herself from her rivals and earn plaudits from voters who may not have been inclined to vote for her in the first place.

This story is on the verge of leaving the front pages and will likely be finished by the start of next week. There's still an opportunity though for politicians to take a political risk by defending Sherrod and criticizing those who sought her ouster. Palin likely stands to benefit the most from doing so on the GOP side, but as long as she remains silent on this matter, she will be unable to expand her base of support beyond people who are already fervently in her camp.

An Altnernative View of Obama's Poll Numbers

Quinnipiac released a new poll showing that President Obama's approval rating has fallen to 44%, which is a record low for the second-year president. This has led to increased chatter among the media about how Obama is politically threatened, losing support among independents, and even trailing potential Republican challengers in hypothetical 2012 matchups.

This news is surely encouraging for Republican presidential hopefuls, Republicans seeking to recapture control of Congress, and conservative allies seeking to boost their fundraising. However, a threat to these gleeful Republicans is not that this polling is inaccurate, but rather that this polling lacks sufficient context about why Obama is politically weak to begin with. Weakness on behalf of President Obama does not translate into strength on behalf of his political rivals. President Obama is not weak because of a lack of legislative accomplishments or because he is personally unpopular. He is weakened because those who are attacking him have nothing of their own to defend.

Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee and other 2012 presidential contenders are getting a free pass right now, and that is what limits the value of these polls. None of these candidates, save for Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, currently holds public office. As a result, these potential candidates have little for which to be held accountable. They can reflexively bash the president for anything he does without having to make any decisions of their own that they must defend. They can appear before friendly audiences, grant interviews to friendly media outlets, give speeches and not take any questions, or simply not take a definitive position at all on the major political issues of the day (e.g., bailouts, illegal immigration, health care reform, financial regulation, spending cuts) and get away with it.

Obama is taking heat from Republicans and conservatives who claim he is spending too much money, growing government too fast, and taking the nation too far to the left. While Obama can respond to these criticisms, he cannot respond to his critics, at least not directly, because increasing their visibility would not be politically prudent. One rule of politics is that you should never shoot down. In other words, it is common for a governor to attack the president. But it is much less common for a president to attack a governor because that would elevate the governor and diminish the president at the same time. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, for example, is faring a lot better politically after getting into a tussle with President Obama over her state's tough new illegal immigration bill.

Similarly, should Obama respond directly to Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, for example, it would show that his rivals are getting under his skin. This would generate more media coverage that could only be a net positive for his opponents' coffers. Further compounding this is the fact that Obama is politically isolated in that he has few people on whom he can rely to defend him and his accomplishments. Congress, currently controlled by Democrats, has an approval rating of about 20%.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cannot take a more active role in defending the president because he has his own re-election concerns in Nevada. He is effectively making his race against Tea Party conservative Sharron Angle a referendum on her and her ideology, so the last thing he wants to do is change the focus of the race to Obama and defending the Obama record.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a bogeyman whose name is commonly invoked by conservatives who don't like her "[liberal] San Francisco values." Her taking a more public role in defending the president might do more harm than good in that she may alienate moderates who reluctantly voted for Democrats because they disliked their Republican alternatives. She would also give conservative activists more fodder they can use to gin up their own base.

Other liberal-leaning organizations have branding problems that limit their effectiveness beyond their bases. The NAACP, for example, is viewed with suspicion by many Whites who fear the civil rights organization plays the "race card" too often and seeks to advance the agenda of Blacks at the expense of Whites. MoveOn.org released their infamous General BetrayUs advertisement in 2007 which harshly criticized General David Petraeus, who is possibly the most respected person in uniform today. Environmental groups may have a bit more credibility with the electorate in light of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, but public skepticism of climate change legislation and reminding voters of the public perception that Obama mishandled the BP disaster could blunt their messages' effectiveness.

Republicans have the mobilized Tea Party, the influential National Rifle Association, the well funded Chamber of Commerce, conservative talk radio, and a vocal minority in Congress with no legislative responsibility that all get to attack President Obama and his agenda with impunity. The Republican Party's approval ratings are actually worse than the Democrats' and Obama's approval ratings. But by relentlessly attacking the president and the majority party, the Republican Party and their allies are making Obama look increasingly unattractive and increasingly unelectable.

But despite this, Obama (and congressional Democrats by extension) should find solace in the fact that Obama will be running against exactly one Republican opponent in 2012. And that opponent will have to articulate his or her own policy proposals that go beyond the usual bromides of "smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending." Republicans criticized Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign for not offering specifics beyond "hope" and "change," so it would seem hard for them to get away with taking the same approach in 2012. Until a credible Republican begins to put forth specific policy proposals of his or her own, Obama will retain a political advantage regardless of how vulnerable his poll numbers may make him appear now--two years before the next presidential election.

In short, Obama's poll numbers seem more a reflection of his opponents' piling on him without having to worry about taking a hit themselves for not offering any solutions of their own. In addition, despite his legislative accomplishments, until the unemployment rate begins to fall and oily water stops spoiling the beaches and marshes along the Gulf Coast, Obama should expect to have great difficulty seizing control of his political narrative. This combination of external events and the lack of accountability that comes with not holding any elective office or being in the congressional minority should make Obama's poll numbers appear artificially low while his opponents' poll numbers appear artificially high.

Lessons on Governance from the MA Senate Race

Polls in the Massachusetts Senate race are showing Republican Scott Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley. The fact that a Republican has a legitimate chance of winning Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts has Democrats running scared because this could mean the end of health care reform.

A Coakley victory would maintain the Democrats' 60-seat supermajority that would allow them to continue to stop Republican filibusters in the Senate. A Brown victory, however, would put the health care bill in serious jeopardy by forcing Democrats to pursue one of the following options:

1. Force the Democrats to finish their negotiations before Brown is sworn in. This means Democrats only have a few days left in order to hammer out their differences. That's not enough time.

2. Find a Republican to provide the 60th vote. The most obvious candidate would be Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, the most moderate Republican in the upper chamber. However, Snowe would be less inclined to throw her support behind a bill that even Democrats in nearby Massachusetts rejected by proxy. Another candidate would be Sennator George Voinovich in Ohio because he's retiring and has nothing to lose.

3. Have the House of Representatives pass the Senate bill as is. This means there would be no need for a conference committee or another Senate vote, thus meaning 59 votes are as good as 60 as far as this bill is concerned.

4. Use the budget reconciliation process to pass health care. This would only require a bare majority of 51 votes, but it would also blow up the Senate in that it would set a new precedent that Republicans would be certain to use the next time they regain control of the upper chamber.

5. Kill the bill. This would destroy Democrats because it Republicans won't give them any credit for stopping the bill and Democratic voters will have what little enthusiasm they have be knocked right out of them for the 2010 elections. Republicans would argue that even with their large majorities, they are incapable of governing. The Democrats won't be able to counter this. Even worse, losing health care would be a major defeat for Barack Obama because this is his last best chance of getting this bill passed. Passing health care will only be much more difficult with 53 or 55 Senate seats as opposed to 60.

But regardless of how the Massachusetts race turns out and which of the five aforementioned scenarios pans out, there are three major lessons that congressmen from both parties should learn. Democrats in particular should heed these warnings because, as the party in power, they have the most to lose in the next election.

1. Legislators should take their legislation seriously. Should Brown defeat Coakley in the Massachusetts race, one of the options available to Democrats regarding health care reform is to have the House pass the Senate bill as is. However, the Senate bill has several controversial provisions in it, such as the provision allowing Nebraska to have its Medicaid costs be covered by the other 49 states. This could introduce many legal challenges. The lesson for senators (and representatives) is to draft good and defensible legislation because you never know when you will have to rely on the bill you wrote. Relying on conference committees to make legislation more palatable may not be an option, as the current situation has proved.

2. Senate Republicans have set a dangerous precedent in that major legislation from either party will be impossible to pass in the future. Senate Democrats have had to almost exclusively rely on the votes of their own caucus in order to advance legislation because of unified Republican opposition. But if a 60-seat supermajority is required in order to stop a filibuster and advance any legislation in the Senate, then that ensures legislative paralysis. It is rare for any political party to have a 60-seat Senate majority. Should Republicans ever regain control of the upper chamber with 50-something seats, they will almost certainly regret the precedent they set with health care.

3. The public might not understand how Washington works, but they are still paying attention. The public might not understand the purpose of Committee X, but they do know what secret, closed-door negotiations are. The public might not know why Conference Y is needed, but they do know what constitutes basic fairness. Congress, particularly congressional Democrats, may have had to do all the heavy lifting because of a lack of Republican cooperation, but they did themselves no favors by not openly communicating with the public about legislation that will significantly affect their lives. The American public is inherently suspicious of Washington, but Democrats did nothing to reduce this suspicion.

A lot of people are genuinely scared about what is happening in America concerning war, terrorism, the economy, the environment, immigration and the budget. They don't have the tools to tackle most of these issues on their own, so they need the government to help. But special deals and a lack of transparency have combined to present the government as not acting in good faith to help the public.

Republicans certainly stand to gain from the Democrats' political tone-deafness in 2010. However, the real threat lies in the potential rise of an independent or third party because Washington cannot continue to function this way.