Printer Friendly Version
THE WEEK AHEAD: Congress is back for another Saturday night health care vote, Obama's first state dinner, Palin's tour continues, plus a special peek inside the First Read Man Cave with a special goateed guest. Happy Thanksgiving.
See how many sports teams/memorabilia items you can spot! Win fun prizes (not!)
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
President Obama has now dropped, for the first time, below 50% approval in the Gallup poll. It's the second poll this week to show that result.
This puts Obama on par with Ronald Reagan, who also fell below 50% 10 months into the job -- and better than Bill Clinton, who fell below in his fourth month. Reagan was dealing with similar economic numbers.
For context, here's what we wrote about this when the possibility was first floated that Obama could fall below 50% back on Sept. 2nd:
*** They’ve done studies, you know -- 50% of the time, it works every time: As of yesterday, President Obama’s approval rating in the Gallup daily tracking poll was 52%, which is close to the 51% in our NBC poll from last month. As Gallup has noted, if Obama falls below 50% in his eighth month on the job, it will be the third-fastest drop below that mark for a new president since World War II. Gerald Ford fell below 50% in his third month, Bill Clinton in his fourth month, Ronald Reagan in his 10th month, Jimmy Carter in his 13th month, Richard Nixon in his 25th month, LBJ in his 29th month, Bush 41 in his 36th month, Bush 43 in his 37th month, and Eisenhower in his 63rd month. Note: Kennedy never fell below 50% before he was assassinated, and George W. Bush was approaching that mark right before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A few things to remember about all the analysis folks will see on polls in the coming days: There are more BAD polls now than ever before; it confuses the issue and lets some folks cherry-pick what they want. The VERY erratic robo-polling firms have added to the confusion like never before.
*** Obama has him where he wants them? This data above tell us a few things. One, Obama has had a rapid drop and that doesn’t help his prospects for things like health-care reform. Two, the most recent presidents -- Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 (right before 9/11) -- have experienced similar drops, suggesting an increased political polarization over the past 20 or so years. Three, taking George W. Bush out of the equation due to 9/11, every president who has ended up winning re-election since 1980 saw his approval rating drop below 50% in his first year. Moral of the story: If your goal is to get re-elected, it’s better to have your political struggles early (Clinton, Reagan) rather than later (Bush 41). Kind of like a college football season, right? Better to lose early, than late. So be careful what you read into what Obama’s approval rating right now means for his presidency. There’s really no correlation between how quickly a president’s poll numbers drop and the overall success of his presidency.
From NBC's Ken Strickland
As was expected after Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-NE) statement yesterday explaining what a vote for cloture would mean, he has now released a statement saying that he will vote with Democrats.
His full written statement after the jump:
CONTINUED >>
From NBC's Ken Strickland
After reading reports that Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) has already told Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) how she'll vote tomorrow on issue of whether to bring the healthcare bill to the floor, Lincoln's office was quick respond.
"No other Senator speaks for Senator Lincoln," Lincoln's spokeswoman told NBC in an email. "She is still reviewing the bill."
Earlier in the day, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat Dick Durbin told several reporters that Lincoln had already made her voting intentions known to Reid.
"She's told Sen. Reid," Durbin said without revealing the substance of the conversation.
A few hours later, Durbin too joined in with clarifying remarks. In a written statement, he said, "In a conversation with reporters earlier today, some of my remarks regarding Sen. Lincoln were unclear and have been incorrectly interpreted.
"Let me be clear: Senator Lincoln has had a number of conversations with Sen. Reid about the health care reform legislation. She has asked important questions and there has been a positive and healthy give and take. But Sen. Lincoln has not yet signaled her intention as to how she will vote on tomorrow's cloture motion. I have worked with Sen. Lincoln for years and know that she will reach a decision that is best for her constituents, her state and the nation."
From NBC's Ken Strickland
At a news conference this morning, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) pre-emptively gave the his answer to the question everyone's been asking over the past few weeks: does Majority Leader Harry Reid have the 60 votes needed to bring the healthcare bill to the floor.
"We're not assuming a thing," Durbin said, "we're working hard to bring all Democrats together for the 60 votes necessary to proceed to this historic debate."
But it's possible Durbin and Reid are playing coy and already know they how the vote will go down Saturday night.
In a gaggle with reporters following the news conference (off-camera), Durbin was asked if he knew how Blanche Lincoln will vote on Saturday. Lincoln has been by far the most tight-lipped of the three Democratic holdouts about how she might vote.
"She's told Senator Reid," Durbin said, but wouldn't answer the obvious follow-up question. "You'll have to ask Senator Reid."
It begs the questions if fellow centrist Democrats Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu have also informed Reid.
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** More Saturday Night Fever: The Senate is expected to take its vote to proceed on Senate Majority Leader Reid’s bill on Saturday. Democrats will need 60 votes -- i.e., their entire caucus -- to clear this initial procedural hurdle. Per NBC’s Ken Strickland, the vote is expected to take place around 8:00 pm ET. At this point, Strick adds, it doesn’t look like there will be any Senate work on Sunday, nor will there be any effort to make the Senate clerk read every page of the bill out loud, at least this week. If it plays out this way, the Senate would be off all of the next week for Thanksgiving recess and return on Nov. 30. Realistically, is more being made out of this drama than should be? Does it make political sense for any Democrat to prevent even debate on this bill even for Democrats who may eventually vote against it? To not allow debate would be a slap in the face of the Dem base and no Dem officeholder would do that, would they? We know that everything in DC and health care has to have the feel of some drama, but this feels like much ado about nothing. If Reid and the Obama White House can't even get the bill on to the floor, then there are much BIGGER problems in the Dem party than unity on health care. But if they do pass it, it is historic.
*** Land of Lincoln: That said, for the vote tomorrow, we’ve noted the moderates to watch: Ben Nelson (NE), Mary Landrieu (LA), and Blanche Lincoln (AR). But Lincoln is perhaps the most intriguing. Nelson and Landrieu have seemed to indicate their support at least for a cloture vote since their meeting with Reid two days ago. Remember, neither of them is up for re-election next year. But Lincoln is, and it’s been radio silence from her on her cloture vote. She’s really in a pressure cooker. Liberals are pushing for a primary challenge if she doesn’t support health care (something Republicans have to be salivating over) and the looks of a potentially competitive GENERAL election next year. Still, it would be a shock to see Lincoln kill this since she actually does have to worry about a primary challenge -- and she would have single-handedly have killed the prospects NOW for the health bill. By the way, Lincoln knows a little something about Dem primary challenges, she first got into Congress by challenging an incumbent member of her OWN party.
*** Welcome back, Mr. President: If President Obama turned on the nightly news at the White House after returning from his eight-day trip through Asia, he saw plenty of unwelcome news yesterday. Members of Congress were asking for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to resign from his job; students in California were protesting huge hikes in their tuition costs; in the morning, the nation’s aviation system nearly grinded to a halt after a router glitch; and women were confused about new mammogram guidelines -- the news of which Republicans seized on to throw a wrench into health-care reform. In short, it wasn’t a good day -- and hasn’t been really that good of a week -- for the White House. As for Geithner, it looks like he's becoming the whipping boy for frustrated members of Congress on the economy. Is this fair? Remember, this happened to John Snow, and then we got Hank Paulson.
*** Iran is key to watch: Regarding Obama’s trip to Asia, it looks like the C.W. is that he didn't get big things done. And he didn't. But the reality is that we won't know how successful this trip is for a little while. Near-term, it's about the push for sanctions against Iran. In fact, if the Obama administration gets Russia on board for tougher sanctions, and if China -- at a minimum -- decides to simply abstain and allow the U.S. to go forward with a tougher stance against Iran, then the C.W. on this trip and on the president's approach to foreign policy will shift back in his favor. While some want to pile on the president over Iran and say, "I told you so" regarding Iran walking away from the negotiating table, it's actually an opportunity for the president to show a stiff spine on a major national security issue. And if Russia does come aboard for truly tough sanctions, it would be an example of Obama's foreign policy doctrine of engagement and respect with quasi allies/rivals working. That's not bad domestic politics either.
*** What we learned at the RGA…: What did we learn at the Republican Governors Association meeting here that concluded last night? That Republicans feel VERY good about the overall political environment and their prospects for next year's midterm elections. That no one here really wanted to talk about Sarah Palin, her new book, or her political prospects. That RGA Chair Haley Barbour is personally backing Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the gubernatorial primary and wants Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to stay in the Senate. And that embattled Mark Sanford could attend the meeting and (almost!) not be spotted by the political press corps.
*** … And what we didn’t: What did we NOT learn? If the current political winds will continue to stay at the GOP's back. If Palinism will end up trumping McDonnellism, or vice versa. If anyone in attendance -- Pawlenty, Jindal, Barbour, someone else? -- will end up being the GOP's 2012 presidential nominee. And if anyone else picked up on the irony of the RGA airing this "Saturday Night Live" skit to kick off its panel looking at the 2010 midterms.
*** White House pushes back against stimulus criticism: Following up on our note yesterday about the Obama White House losing the P.R. war over the stimulus, an administration official said he’s standing by the estimated number of "jobs created or saved" by the stimulus act, NBC’s Mike Viqueira reports. "The data debate has been frustrating, but it's a side show," said Ed Deserve, adviser to the president for Recovery Act Implementation, who took questions from reporters on a conference call. Deserve was following up on a hearing held yesterday on the House side, where the GAO reported on errors that were made in the administration's calculation that led to the claim that 640,000 jobs created as of Oct. 30 because of the stimulus. Deserve said the estimate is in line with those of outside economists, and repeated the claim that when both "direct, indirect, and induced" jobs were included, the number was 1 to 1.5 million jobs. Deserve’s comments came after Earl Devaney, the government watchdog overseeing the stimulus, said he couldn’t vouch for the administration’s 640,000 figure.
*** A 'profile' in irony? Sarah Palin showed she's not afraid of wading into racial politics. In a two-day stretch this week, she 1) criticized John McCain for not going after Obama harder on Jeremiah Wright and 2) advocated for profiling. "I say, profile away," Palin told the Weekly Standard, adding, "Such political correctness could be our downfall." Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, hardly liberals, see it differently. Gates yesterday: “[I]n a nation as diverse as the United States the last thing we need to do is start pointing fingers at each other, particularly when there's no basis in fact for it." This is usually tricky terrain for politicians. But Palin has decided to bull through the issue. Yet advocacy for profiling -- which calls for drawing on broad stereotypes of whole groups of people -- is somewhat ironic coming from Palin. Consider her annoyance with her perception that Katie Couric was stereotyping her for asking her about which newspapers she reads. She told Oprah: "Are you kidding me? Are you really asking me?' To me, it was in the context of, ‘Do you read? How do you stay informed, you're way up there?' It seemed like she was discovering this nomadic tribe, a member of a tribe from some Neanderthal cave in Alaska, asking me, ‘How do you stay in touch with the real world?'" And then there's her criticism over the Newsweek cover, which plenty, including Democrats have criticized. But it seems she wants to be against political correctness unless it involves herself.
*** Also today: Vice President Joe Biden turns 67 years old. And an exhibit of the late Tim Russert's office opens at the Newseum in DC.
Countdown to MA Special Primary: 18 days
Countdown to MA Special Election: 60 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 347 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.
“Growing discontent over the economy and frustration with efforts to speed its recovery boiled over Thursday on Capitol Hill in a wave of criticism and outright anger directed at the Obama administration,” the Washington Post writes. “President Obama's allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, exasperated by the administration's handling of the economy, unexpectedly blocked one his top priorities, using a legislative maneuver to postpone the approval of financial reform legislation by a key House committee.”
“Two buildings away, at a session of the Joint Economic Committee, Republicans escalated their attacks on Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, including a call for his resignation.”
In addition, per the Wall Street Journal: “The House Financial Services Committee voted, 43-26, to approve a measure sponsored by Texas Republican Ron Paul, vociferously opposed by the Fed, that would direct the congressional Government Accountability Office to expand its audits of the Fed to include decisions about interest rates and lending to individual banks. The Fed says the provision threatens its ability to make monetary policy without political interference.”
"Geithner is coming under new pressure from conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats to resign," The Hill writes. "Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Kevin Brady (R-Texas) this week joined a small group of lawmakers publicly calling for Geithner to step down. Former Republican Rep. Rob Simmons, who is challenging Sen. Chris Dodd (D) for Senate in Connecticut, has made Geithner’s resignation a campaign issue. Geithner was forced to defend himself Thursday at a public hearing on Capitol Hill during which he was pointedly asked by Brady to resign."
CONTINUED >>
Per the Washington Post, the Congressional Budget Office said the public option “opt out” in Reid’s bill “would have relatively little impact on the current system, would charge ‘somewhat higher’ premiums than its private competitors and would draw only about 4 million subscribers. The decision to permit states to opt out of the public plan is partly to blame for the Reid proposal's lack of reach, as it would leave about a third of the people in the country without access to the program, according to the CBO's calculation. But even the national plan approved by the House this month would attract only about 6 million people, the nonpartisan group has said, primarily because it would lack the tools to keep costs and premiums down.”
The New York Times looks at the abortion issue in the Senate bill. "Under the House bill, federal money could not be used 'to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion,' except in case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman was in danger. Thus, a plan that received federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income people could not offer abortion coverage. Under the Senate bill, insurers would not be required or forbidden to cover abortion. But, the measure says, in every part of the country, the government would have to ensure that there is at least one plan that covers abortion and at least one that does not."
More: "The secretary of health and human services would decide whether a proposed new government insurance plan would cover abortion. In general, if insurers cover abortion, they could not use federal money to pay for the procedure. They could use only subscriber premiums and would have to keep the money separate from subsidies received from the federal government."
The New York Times covers yesterday’s congressional hearing looking at the Fort Hood shootings. “A Senate committee on Thursday opened the first public hearings into the Fort Hood shootings, with several legislators asserting that the incident in which 13 people were killed was a terrorist attack by a homegrown extremist who may have slipped past law enforcement and military authorities. Hours later at a Pentagon news conference, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced that former Army Secretary Togo West and a former chief of naval operations, Vernon Clark, would lead a broad Pentagon review of the circumstances surrounding the shootings in which 13 people were killed and 43 were injured.”
Covering the RGA meeting, Salon’s Mike Madden wonders if the GOP talk about a comeback is just, well, talk. “So what if the only thing voters like less than the Democrats in Congress might be the Republicans in Congress? Who cares if the GOP has been reduced to a rump minority in the House and Senate, left on the sidelines with not much more to do than root for Democrats to fight among themselves? In politics, what matters is momentum, and right now, Republicans -- and quite a few Democrats, especially in private -- think they have it.”
Sarah Palin reiterated her support for candidates like the Conservative Party's Doug Hoffman, who ran for a special election in New York's 23rd congressional district. She added, however, that she believes advocates of a breakaway third party are "naive."
"Ideally, sure, a third party or an independent party would be able to soar and thrive and put candidates forth and have them elected, but I don't think America is ready for that," Palin said earlier this week on conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh's show. Palin's media blitz has taken her to, among other outlets, Limbaugh's show and Christian Broadcasting Network White House Correspondent David Brody's webcast.
The Alaskan ex-governor praised the efforts of Hoffman, saying his campaign "proved that an American without that resume, that machine backing, can truly make a difference in an election like this." She also gave her advice for Republican successes in 2010 and beyond: "It's all about jobs, it's all about Americans who are hurting right now and what those solutions are that are so obvious," she said. She blamed the Obama administration for not discussing such "common sense solutions," but also had criticism for her own party: "On the Republican side, Republicans need to be bolder about it. Independents need to be bolder about it."
CONTINUED >>
COLORADO: Denver Post columnist Mike Rosen outlined a GOP policy platform drafted by several Republican gubernatorial candidates yesterday, calling it the “Contract for Colorado:” “The agenda [is] modeled on the winning reform recipes of Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell in their New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races… and reassure[s] the Republican base, while specific, practical, and inclusive enough to attract swing-voting independents in the state.” Rosen also writes that the plan intended to give presumptive GOP nominee Scott McInnis “something concrete to run on rather than merely running against [incumbent governor Bill] Ritter.”
“McInnis said he hopes the agenda -- perhaps the first time the GOP has crafted such a unified message in Colorado -- will unify the party and appease Republican factions that have been hesitant to embrace him. ‘The reality of it is: A party can split and take second place or a party can unify and take the governor's seat," McInnis said. "I've never seen the message of unification so strong among Republicans. They're tired of losing.’"
CONNECTICUT: Colleen Flanagan, state Democratic party spokeswoman, lashed out at Rob Simmons for injecting politics into questions about where terrorism suspects should be tried. Yesterday, Simmons, a Republican running against U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, put out a press release attacking Dodd for voting to allow civilian trials for 9/11 attackers in the U.S. "Rob Simmons and his mentors, George Bush and Karl Rove, have played politics with terrorism and this country's national security since the moment 9/11 occurred," Flanagan said via email. "It's disgusting and it doesn't merit further response."
IOWA: Former Gov. Terry Branstad said Iowa voters’ early preference of him over Gov. Chet Culver is helping his fundraising as the longtime Republican governor begins cranking up his campaign operation. “In 10 contested elections, two primaries and eight general elections, I’ve never been 24 points ahead before,” Branstad said. The Register’s Iowa Poll, taken last week, showed Branstad with the support of 57 percent of likely voters, compared to 33 percent for Gov. Chet Culver, a first-term Democrat.
CONTINUED >>
