SUNDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2010
KLMNO Sunday OPINION DANA MILBANK
Van Hollen: Confidence at the abyss
C
hris Van Hollen is a confidence man. “We’re confident we’re going to re- tain the majority, and I’m confident
that Nancy Pelosi will be speaker of the House,” says the Maryland congressman in charge of keeping the House Demo- cratic.
“I am confident,” he told reporters at a breakfast gathering on Thursday, that “the day after the election . . . we will have the majority.” How about Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-
Tex.), said to be trailing in his reelection bid? “We’re very confident that he is going to prevail.”
And Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), facing
an unexpected threat? “I’m confident he’s going to win.” Why so confident this won’t be another 1994 wipeout? “On specific issues, voters have greater confidence in the Democratic candidates,” he said. But doesn’t all the evidence point to a Republican triumph? “I’m confident we’re going to retain the majority,” the confi- dence man repeated. One thing we can have reasonable con-
fidence in is that if Van Hollen were speak- ing confidentially, and not to a roomful of reporters, he would express rather less confidence. But he has the unsavory task of keeping up appearances, preventing a Democratic panic by being brave on the eve of what promises to be a drubbing of historic proportions. That the U.S.S. Democrat is foundering
even with Van Hollen at the helm tells you just how grim this year is for the majority party. Sixteen years ago, fat-and-happy Democrats were caught by surprise, losing 53 seats and their majority. This time, they saw the Republican assault coming, and, during Van Hollen’s tenure, did every- thing possible to strengthen their fortifi- cations. Yet handicappers now expect a loss similar to ’94, and Van Hollen’s Re- publican counterpart, Pete Sessions, sees “easily 95 to 100” seats up for grabs. It’s only logical, then, that Van Hollen would be second-guessing his decision to re-up as Democratic Congressional Cam- paign Committee chairman, rather than taking a cushy role in House leadership af- ter he guided the party’s 21-seat gain in 2008. I asked whether he regrets serving again as DCCC chief, which he did at Pelo- si’s request. “The short answer to your question as
to whether or not I’m pleased I took the job is, um, uh, I’m glad I’m where I am in this position, but I will, you know, ah, ob- viously it’s a tough cycle,” he explained. “But when the speaker asked me to do this again, she said she didn’t want somebody to start out with training wheels on.” My colleague Paul Kane asked if Van
Hollen would do a third term at the DCCC. “That I can tell you will not happen,” he said, emphatically. “I can be absolutely clear that that will not happen again.” In a cheeky introduction, the Christian Science Monitor’s Dave Cook, host of the breakfast, quoted a recent article describ- ing Van Hollen’s role as “one of the grim- mest jobs in politics.” Added Cook: “And probably coming here is right at the top of the list.” “Yeah, pain,” Van Hollen allowed. Cook made reference to “storm clouds on the horizon” for Van Hollen, and his “less fun-filled term” at the DCCC. Indeed, Van Hollen’s handwritten notes yielded a profusion of happy talking points (“We passed Wall Street reform!” “The presi- dent held BP accountable!”). But he ap- peared to be in a state of acute discomfort. He waved off breakfast, balled one hand into a fist and grew red-faced as he pro- gressed through the hour. Then it was time for questions, and they
weren’t friendly ones. “Wouldn’t it be more effective rather than complaining about the rules to marshal your own forces? . . . Why do you think the White House has had so much trouble sticking to a coherent message? . . . How do you save these Southern Blue Dog seats?” Van Hollen returned to his talking points, citing favorable polls in a grand to- tal of three districts and success in a trio of special elections — held five months ago, 12 months ago and 20 months ago. He also offered more excuses, such as the “5 to 1” disadvantage in “secret money that is being dumped into campaigns across the country” and “has obviously shuffled the deck.” And he bemoaned the laziness of “a few members we ap- proached many, many, many months ago to get their act together who did not take that advice.” Even a pro like Van Hollen can only
keep the confidence game going for so long.
danamilbank@washpost.com
SCOTT KEETER Director of survey research at the Pew Research Center
Despite the public’s unhappiness with the tone of politics in Washington, there is little indication that public opinion will exert much pressure on members of the new Congress to cooperate across party lines. It’s true that large majorities of the public (78 percent in a Pew Research poll from March) say that elected officials’ unwillingness to work together and compromise is a major problem. And a record-high percentage of Americans (77 percent in a recent Pew Research poll) say that Democrats and Republicans in Washington have been “bickering and opposing one another more than usual.” But nearly half (49 percent) also said they admire political leaders who stick to their positions rather than compromising, and this view is especially prevalent among Republicans (62 percent) and people who say they agree with the Tea Party (71 percent). Reinforcing the pressure against compromise for the GOP is the fact that most Republican voters (59 percent in June) say that their party’s leaders should move in a more conservative, rather than moderate, direction. This sentiment is shared by fully 74 percent of Republicans who agree with the Tea Party. Among Democratic voters, a majority overall (53 percent) want their leaders to move in a more moderate, rather than liberal, direction. But centrifugal forces affect the Democrats as well. Among self-described liberal Democrats, 58 percent favor moving the party to the left.
DAN SCHNUR Director of the University of Southern California’s Unruh Institute of Politics; communications director for John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign; spokesman for George Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign
The most likely outcome is both — first a great deal of noisy confrontation and then at least some limited mutually congratulatory cooperation. With- out Rahm Emanuel’s voice urging a more centrist approach, Team Obama’s natural inclination will be to dig in its heels with Congress and retreat to a strategy based more on regulatory activity than leg- islative accomplishment. If Republicans do achieve a majority in the House, John Boehner is going to have to spend his first months as speaker reassuring his Young Gun lieutenants and their followers that he’s not going to give away the store. All of which suggests a lot of posturing, finger-pointing and threat-making for a good part of next year. But as time passes, both the White House and Congress will see the need to demonstrate at least some policy achievement to sell to voters in 2012. Brinkmanship is an excellent strategy for keeping your party’s base motivated, but swing voters tend to look for signs of progress and accomplishment when casting their ballots. Issues such as education, trade and investments in alternative energy offer the po- tential for common ground, but expect strong resis- tance from MoveOn Democrats and Tea Party Re-
TOPIC A Will the midterm results bring cooperation or confrontation?
publicans. So the opportunity does exist for coopera- tion — but only if the parties’ most ardent supporters allow it.
MIKE LUX
Democratic political strategist; special assistant to the president for public liaison, 1993-95; author of “The Progressive Revolution: How America Came to Be”
Whatever happens Nov. 2, we are in for more po- litical confrontation rather than less over the next two years. The Republicans decided from the very start of the Obama presidency to say no to every- thing they possibly could, and their political center of gravity has shifted farther to the right over the past two years. That hardly seemed possible, but they have gone over the edge: They have become the party of climate-science-denying, Social Security- and Medicare-ending, minimum-wage- and Educa- tion Department-abolishing extremists — and if things don’t go their way, who knows, they might want to secede. Moderates in the GOP can no longer afford to cooperate with Democrats for fear of a pri- mary challenge. Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist, Bob Bennett, Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle have been driven from their ranks or lost primaries. Olympia Snowe and Charles Grassley got pretty much every- thing they wanted in the health-care bill and still op- posed it, while Lindsey Graham walked away from immigration and climate-change bills he had co- authored.
Win, lose or draw, the Republican Party of today will bitterly oppose almost everything President Obama is for simply because, well, he is for it. If vot- ers want Congress to get anything done to solve our nation’s problems the next two years, they had better support Democrats.
DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN Democratic pollster and author
The midterm elections, whatever the final result, will bring a period of confrontation rather than con- ciliation to the nation’s capital. Right now, neither party is articulating a vision for the country, and neither seems inclined or willing to compromise. The Obama administration made a conscious decision to avoid talking about the issues. The administration is attacking foreign and corpo- rate money in the campaign, deliberately diverting attention from the nation’s significant and sub- stantial economic problems. Republicans have simi- larly failed to discuss the broad-based challenges facing the country and have effectively become the party of “no.” President Obama has shown no inclination to compromise like President Bill Clinton did in 1995 and ’96, when he worked with Republicans to ad- dress issues such as a balanced budget and welfare reform. Meanwhile, a resurgent Tea Party movement has also become the intellectual and political energy behind the Republican Party. In the absence of lead- ership from the White House or a resurgent Repub- lican congressional leadership, it’s a safe bet that the battles of 2009 and 2010 will get worse, not better, in
the next Congress — and the American people will be the losers.
MATTHEW DOWD Political analyst for ABC News; columnist for National Journal; chief strategist for George W. Bush’s 2004 presidential campaign
At least when it comes to consensus, the congres- sional leadership on both sides of the aisle and the White House bring to mind a quote. Saint Augustine, who ended up a pillar of the Catholic Church but lived a very wild life in his youth, is reported to have said: “God, make me chaste and celibate, but not yet.” Political leaders say they want cooperation, but neither side behaves as though it wants it just yet. And after Nov. 2, cooperation is going to be hard to come by for a while, even though it would benefit the president in 2012, Republicans if they take over the House or Senate, and the country as a whole. After Republicans took control of the House in 1994, during President Bill Clinton’s first term, it took more than a year and a government shutdown before each side realized it was in its best interest to cooperate. In 1996, the parties did just that on some major issues, including welfare reform, but only af- ter each was humbled a bit and came to realize its success was dependent on the other party. I suspect that with the next Congress, too, it will take a bit of time and struggle before people on each side realize that for the sake of their party, and governing gener- ally, they need to cooperate. Issues on which they might come together include transportation, gov- ernment waste and reorganization, education and possibly energy. Then again, as happened with Saint Augustine, it could take a few years.
CATHERINE A. “KIKI” MCLEAN Democratic strategist; partner at the public relations firm Porter Novelli
The American people won’t accept anything less than cooperation moving forward — regardless of the outcomes on Nov. 2. The burden voters carry is too heavy to make it another two years. And while hyperpartisan politicians may not fear voter retribu- tion, they should fear the significant and real dam- age to our country and America’s standing in the world if they choose to engage in permanent con- frontation. We can all cite a rare example of a party-line vote
that brought about real change — such as the 1993 Clinton budget vote in the House — but let’s be real- istic. More often, the great moments of change in our country came when politicians put solutions before their own political standing. Perhaps the greatest demonstration of this is the joint effort of then- Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Presi- dent Lyndon Johnson in delivering the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Their collective success came at a signifi- cant individual political price, but they were willing to pay it. The cost of confrontation in the next Congress will be far more expensive, and long-standing, than a re- election campaign budget.
OMBUDSMAN ANDREW ALEXANDER A marketing angle in that book review? W
hen you’re reading a Post review online, click on a highlighted book title and you’ll likely be directed to
Amazon.com, where you can
purchase it instantly. It’s convenient for readers. But is it costly to credibility? That question is being debated in the newsroom
after a recent push to expand links to products sold by Amazon, the giant online retailer. As part of a rev- enue-sharing arrangement, these “inline” e-com- merce links are being inserted into reviews, columns and stories mentioning products sold on Amazon, from books to DVDs to electronic gadgets. The one- click link makes it easy for readers to buy products, and The Post gets a cut of the action on each sale (it won’t reveal how much). But two things are worrying Post journalists. The links are being placed directly into news content in- stead of appearing elsewhere on the same Web page, in the way that advertising is separate. And news- room editors are being asked to insert them. For many, that threatens the traditional barrier be-
tween the business and news sides of The Post. They fear they are being asked to step beyond journalism to create commercial transactional opportunities. They wonder whether the sacred wall is crumbling. After months examining possible ethical concerns,
Post leaders produced safeguarding policies. Prod- ucts should be mentioned in news content “only when there is a meaningful editorial reason to do so,” the guidelines say. Links to those products on Ama- zon must be inserted “in a content-neutral manner,” regardless of whether The Post writes favorably or unfavorably about a book or electronic product. There are to be no product links in obituaries or crime stories, which would appear crass. And editors
should link to the least expensive option on Amazon when multiple versions of a product are offered. That’s to avoid accusations The Post is pushing the highest-priced items to boost its cut on each pur- chase. The Post has been open about the Amazon ar-
rangement, publicly announcing it on a trial basis a year ago. A Post news release said that a “non- editorial team” would provide links after reviews had been posted online. “The Post’s news and editorial departments are not involved in placing the links,” it stressed. What changed? Executive Editor Marcus W. Brauchli said it was concluded that the safeguard policies could protect editorial standards while “simplifying the user ex- perience.” He said putting links in reviews or stories made it
more “simple and direct” for readers to click to the product. And, he said, the newsroom last month as- sumed the task of inserting links in stories because it is more efficient for editors to do it at the same time they are preparing content to be posted on The Post’s Web site. Brauchli said generating revenue from Amazon sales was not the driving motivation for the changes. “The primary benefit,” he said, “is that we’ve simpli- fied a process that readers are involved in anyway.” Journalism ethics experts see problems. “I’m not in favor of putting the links directly in the
story itself,” said Stephen J.A. Ward, director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. And he said using editors to insert links “certainly gives the public an appearance that journalists are participating in commercial enterprises” as they try to maintain their editorial
autonomy. Kelly McBride, of the Poynter Institute on media studies in Florida, agreed. “The problem here is one of independence,” she said. The Internet is changing media consumption hab- its, along with accepted ethical norms. Digital read- ers are increasingly accustomed to receiving adver- tising based on their online viewing patterns. To many, links to Amazon are unobjectionable (no read- er has complained to me). And having journalists in- serting them may seem benign. “But just because the rest of society doesn’t value journalistic credibility doesn’t mean we shouldn’t value it,” said McBride. I agree. The Post should be applauded for the safeguarding policies. And a case can be made that product links in stories are a reader convenience. But I’m troubled by the newsroom’s involvement and worry that it opens the door to a slippery-slope erosion of autonomy. That time-honored independ- ence speaks to credibility, The Post’s most cherished asset. Indeed, indisputable autonomy can distin- guish The Post in an increasingly cluttered and con- fusing media landscape. To survive and thrive, newspapers need new sources of revenue. But several Post officials said pri- vately that projections from the Amazon arrange- ment are modest. If so, is it worth the risk? What might be gained in revenue seems less that what could be lost in standing.
Andrew Alexander can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at
ombudsman@washpost.com. For daily updates, read the omblog at
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ ombudsman-blog/.
JOE RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES
R
A19
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164