Maybe I’m getting old, or maybe the flu season has finally arrived on my doorstep, but I find myself agreeing with much of what President ... continue reading]]> Tweet

Maybe I’m getting old, or maybe the flu season has finally arrived on my doorstep, but I find myself agreeing with much of what President Obama had to say earlier today about gun control – words not written much in this space.

Requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales? Seems reasonable enough. You apply for a job, there may be a background check (I have friends whose prospective fathers-in-law did the same — good thing for the bride they did). Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines and reinstate the assault weapons ban? Again, why not? When a troubled young man can walk into a classroom with more rifle firepower than a Marine infantryman had on Guadalcanal, we have a disconnect.

What I didn’t like about the President’s talk: federal research dollars to study, in Mr. Obama’s words, “the effects violent video games have on young minds.” Like forcing rhesus monkeys to smoke three packs a day, it doesn’t take an advanced degree to know the answer: it’s not good (at best, it’s time kids could better spend studying or exercising; at worse, it’s part of the desensitization of our youth). Besides, it smacks of Mr. Obama trying to avoid offending one of his constituencies: the entertainment industry.

Now that the President has spoken, what next?

First, there’s Congress – but not the chamber you’re thinking.

The media will dwell, in typical kneejerk fashion, on the Republican-controlled House and whether any of Mr. Obama’s ideas can receive majority approval. It’s a good question: red-state congressmen see over-reach; they’re also seeing red after the President’s choice of school childrenas a backdrop for his executive order signing. Already stung by Mr. Obama’s tough words earlier this week, it makes them less willing to come to the table.

Still, by dwelling on the politics of the House, the media conveniently forget that there are two chamber of Congress, the other half being a Democratic-controlled Senate that’s not necessarily gung-ho about gun control.

Here, the politics of 2014 complicate things. Five Democratic senators from red states – Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Dakota – face difficult re-elections in the next cycle of Senate elections. That’s assuming they all run. Another endangered red-state Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, just last week announced that he won’t run in 2014, ending his three decades in the Senate. Passing sweeping gun-reform legislation – taking a bullet for the President, if you will – may not be high on their wish list knowing their Republican opponents will use the vote against them.

Add to this scenario Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has a complicated relationship with the issue of gun control. Getting measures through both chambers, not just the House, isn’t at easy as it seems. Besides, if Democrats were in lockstep on this matter, such legislation would have been passed in the first two years of the Obama presidency when the party controlled both congressional chambers (assuming the President really wanted to sign legislation that would complicate his popularity in swing-state America.

Which leads us to another question: what the President does next.

In his presentation. Mr. Obama was adamant. He was tough. His vice president insisted: “[T]here’s no person who is more committed to acting on this moral obligation than we have in the president of the United States.”

Remember those words: committed to acting.

Democrats longing for a feistier, more passionate Obama will rush to judgment as Wednesday’s gun-control announcement being his “Andrew Shepard” moment. That’s a reference to the lead character in the 1995 movie, The American President, who’s long on personal charm but short on political cajones – the movie beginning with President Shepard wimping out and accepting a watered-down crime bill. That is, until the end of the film, when the “American President” discovers love (he’s a widower) and rekindles his love affair with progressive ideals by calling for a showdown with the right on the environment and, yes, doing away with assault weapons and hand-guns (here’s the big speech).

Should Mr. Obama be serious about being the real-life embodiment of Aaron Sorkin’s fiction, here are three suggestions.

First, the President needs to leave the comfort zone of friendly audiences in blue states and take the debate to towns across America that didn’t vote for him.

Second, consider changing the backdrop. Not to discount the importance of this to schools, but the presence of children is both inflammatory and distracting. Want to sell gun control to red-state America? Bring out law enforcement and talk about ending the insanity of cops being outgunned on the streets.

Third, the President should recognize the division in the Republicans ranks. Dug-in conservatives won’t ease up on their embrace of the 2^nd Amendment. However, other Republicans looking toward 2016 might see this as a chance to end at least one negative stereotype (the dynamic applies when the President and Congress wrestle with immigration reform). If I were the President, I’d begin with a trip to New Jersey and see if Gov. Chris Christie, long a supporter of gun-control laws, is willing to play along (speaking of 2016 hopefuls, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio wasted no time in trashing the Obama plan as an abuse of executive power).

At this time next week, Barack Obama will be well into the first week of his second term. It’s a pivotal time in any presidency – the realization that the hourglass has flipped and the sands of time are running out. And it marks a change in some presidents’ thinking: from what plays in swing states to what impresses presidential historians.

Perhaps that’s Barack Obama’s motivation in the final analysis: the need to get gun-control reform, to burnish his presidential legacy.

Otherwise, tough talk on guns followed by a lack of presidential resolve is simply another episode of firing blanks.

Follow Bill Whalen on Twitter: @hooverwhalen

For years, my favorite column was the late William Safire’s annual “office pool” – the columnist, former speechwriter and language sage predicting twists and turns in politics, ... continue reading]]> Tweet

For years, my favorite column was the late William Safire’s annual “office pool” – the columnist, former speechwriter and language sage predicting twists and turns in politics, economics, world affairs and pop culture.

What Safire produced each year was, as his surname suggested, a gem – often replicated, never quite duplicated.

In that spirit, here’s my effort to lure you into the crystal ball:

1. By the end of 2013, President Obama’s approval rating (over 50% since the election) will be:

a. About the same, the 2^nd-term honeymoon lasts

b. Better, Obama benefitting from GOP turmoil

c. Worse, the honeymoon soon over;

d. Worse – dramatically so, buyer’s remorse

2. The most significant Congressional achievement in 2013:

a. Assault weapons ban

b. Immigration reform

c. Entitlement reform.

d. Kicking the can into 2014

3. During 2013, the Republican voice of reason and direction will turn out to be:

a.  A congressional leader (John Boehner, Mitch McConnell)

b. A 2016 hopeful (Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker)

c. A pundit/media figure (Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol)

d. Ronald Reagan’s speeches, letters, advice and witticisms

4. The Republican frontrunner at the end of 2013 will be:

a. Ryan

b. Rubio

c. Bush

d. Chris Christie

e. Someone else

5. The dominant story line coming out of the 2013 gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey:

a. Bitter bloodbath in Virginia between Republican AG Ken Cuccinelli and former DNC chair/Clinton moneyman Terry McAuliffe

b. A more civil, civics-based race in NJ featuring Christie and Newark Mayor Corey Booker (assuming the latter runs)

c. What the two races say about the post-Obama Democratic brand

d. What the races say about the retooling of the GOP brand

6. The Democratic frontrunner for 2016 will be:

a. Hillary Clinton

b. Joe Biden

c. The combined plurality of Mario Cuomo, Martin O’Malley, Mark Warner, Deval Patrick, Brian Schweitzer, John Hickenlooper

7. The Clinton story that attracts the most attention in 2013:

a. Hillary’s job status

b. Bill’s health

c. Chelsea’s fertility

8. Trouble in the Middle East in 2013 comes most ominously from:

a. The rise of Al Qaeda in a post-Assad Syria

b. Fighting between pro-Morsi Islamists and the National Salvation Front

Gaza truce failing to last – a repeat of 2012’s military campaign and rocket salvos

c. Israel taking action against Iran – Iranian moves in Persian Gulf leading to global oil shock

9. “Lincoln” and the 85^th Academy Awards:

a. Tinseltown as the “Land of Lincoln” (at least two wins for Best Actor, Best Director, Best Picture)

b. A “rail-split” verdict: Oscar for Daniel Day-Lewis, no statue for Spielberg

c. The “Private Ryan” treatment: historical flick undermined by lightweight fare (“Shakespeare in Love” in 1999; “Les Miserables/”The Master” in 2013)

10. Most likely global economic scenario in 2013:

a. European situation stabilizes

b. Chinese economy slowly regains momentum

c. Market panic in Japan, debt-ridden government defaults

d. Sub-Sahara Africa growth outpaces Russia and Germany

11. Most likely U.S. economic scenario in 2013:

a. GDP growth averages better than 2.5%

b. Dow finishes 2013 over 14,000, NASDA over 3,500

c. Private sector exhales after fiscal-cliff drama – investment kicks in, job market improves

d. Kersplat: economy goes into recession

12. The emerging story line in Sacramento in 2013:

a. Democratic supermajorities result in land-rush of progressive legislation

b. Gov. Jerry Brown butting heads with aforementioned liberal social engineers

c. Business as usual: Brown gas-and-braking on left’s agenda

13. Biggest political surprise in California in 2013:

a. Brown announces he won’t seek a second term, setting off Newsom-Harris jostling

b. State Treasurer Bill Lockyer calls it a career, decides not to run for State Controller in 2014

c. New Republican state party chair Jim Brulte begins the rebuilding process w/ favorable media reviews

d. Gonzo media-man Fred Davis’ ad campaign fuels surprising strong showing by Kevin James in L.A. mayor’s race

14. The nation-state’s presence in the 2013 World Series:

a. At least one California team on the field

b. The 1^st Freeway Series (Dodgers-Angels)

c. The 2^nd Bay Bridge Series (Giants-A’s)

d. All five California teams strike out

15. Fifty years after the JFK assassination, the most significant yet under-reported anniversary of 2013 will be:

a. Richard Nixon’s birthday centennial (1/9/1913)

b. 75 years since Treaty of Munich signed by Hitler, Mussolini, Daladier and Chamberlain (9/28/1938)

c. 25 years since Rush Limbaugh’s first national broadcast (8/1/1988)

d. 10 years since invasion of Iraq (3/19/2003)

e. 5 years since Bill Gates relinquishes Microsoft chair to focus on foundation efforts (6/27/2008)

My selections: 1 (c); 2 (a); 3 (d); 4 (c); 5 (d); 6 (a); 7 (a); 8 (c); 9 (a); 10 (d); 11 (a); 12 (c); 13 (c); 14 (a); 15 (a) – I’ll fully explain why on the great man’s birthday.

Follow Bill Whalen on Twitter: @hooverwhalen

Soon, Susan Rice’s announced decision to take herself out of the running for U.S. Secretary of State will recede from the spotlight. More pressing matters – the ... continue reading]]> Tweet

Soon, Susan Rice’s announced decision to take herself out of the running for U.S. Secretary of State will recede from the spotlight. More pressing matters – the fiscal cliff, international drama, President Obama preparing for a new term and a new agenda – will see to that.

But before the story goes away, brace yourself for some ugliness. Some will say it’s the fault of obstructionist Senate Republicans that Rice wasn’t promoted from her current post as U.N. Ambassador. Others will play the race card (MSBNC’s Andrea Mitchell wasting no time), as Rice would have been America’s third consecutive African-American Secretary of State.

Here are three reasons why, in my estimation, President Obama chose not the go through with the Rice nomination – and it has less to do with Republican machinations (like John McCain joining the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and thus awaiting Rice as a nomination roadblock) – than it does political realities at the year’s-end:

1)  The Cliff Dwellers. At some (eventually, maybe not so soon), President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner will announce a tentative agreement to avoid the federal fiscal cliff. But turning that framework into legislation that can actually reach the President’s desk requires harmony in Congress. Nominating Susan Rice for Foggy Bottom would have put a serious dent in said harmony.

2)  2014. Democrats have 20 Senate seats to defend in 2014, to only 14 for Republicans. Some of those seats are in red states – Alaska, Arkansas, North Carolina, West Virginia – where the Democratic incumbent would rather not justify a yea vote for Rice’s confirmation – i.e., defending what she said about Benghazi. Perhaps a Rice confirmation could have been delivered via a Democratic majority (they do have 53 votes, plus two left-leaning independents, so maybe it could have been muscled through). The guess here is Democrats told the President it’s a bruising fight they’d rather avoid.  Certainly not to begin . . .

3)  Obama’s Second Term. Five weeks from today, President Obama will deliver his second inaugural address. It’ll be chock full of soaring rhetoric – and a promise of a more productive process in Washington (just as Obama promised in 2009). The choice of Rice – knowing it was picking a fight, knowing it would have a sent a bellicose if not defiantly arrogant tone given the warning signs from the Senate – would have flown in the face of that spirit of eased tensions in the nation’s capital.

- – - -

Unfortunately, there’s another story that won’t go away in 2013 – maybe 2014 or 2015, for that matter. And that’s what happens to Hillary Clinton now that her time at Foggy Bottom is nearing an end.

The media call it “Clinton Fatigue” – a term that first came into vogue when Bill Clinton’s shadow was causing problems for Al Gore’s presidential run way back in 2000. And it returned with a vengeance in 2008 when Hillary took a stab at her husband’s old job.

The media fascination with Secretary Clinton’s next career phase – the next chapter in her story, when does she get serious about 2016 – marks the third (and final?) installment of Clinton intrigue fatigue.

An example:  Barbara Walters’ interview this week with the soon-to-be-exiting Secretary (part of her mind-numbing “10 Most Fascinating People” special), which turned into a hairy discussion about Mrs. Clinton’s coif. Why it’s tiring: just perform a Google search on the interview. You’ll find links to stories claiming the interview was sexist, biased against Republicans (on the same show, Walters was much tougher with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie).  As usual, Clinton conspiracy theorists found the whole thing non-plausible (the idea of a Secretary of State not caring much about her personal appearance). Dig deeper and one descends into the Internet booby hatch of the Clintons and their complicated marriage, now that she’ll soon longer be a globetrotter and, in theory, free to spend more quality time with Bill.

In short, the question is whether American can withstand another two years of such Hillarymania until she makes a definitive statement about her 2016 aspirations. Remember, we’ve been through before – immediately after the 2004 election. While America awaited Clinton’s decision (she announced her run on Jan. 20, 2007 – exactly two years before what would have been her inauguration), the media didn’t stop talking about her.  And that created a vacuum for an alternative to the presumptive nominee – a vacuum neatly filled by one Barack Obama.

Perhaps it’s in Secretary Clinton’s personal and political best interests to lay low in 2013 – to the extent that a Clinton, like a Kardashian, can thrive without media attention.

Say no to the interview requests, Madame Secretary. Don’t write another book about yourself. Go somewhere secluded. Stay off the grid.

She can use the time off.

America can use the time-out.

Follow Bill Whalen on Twitter: @hooverwhalen

Every four years, for example, 7-Eleven ... continue reading]]> Tweet

Some would argue that there’s no mystery to the outcome of Tuesday’s election – not that it’s a scientific assumption.

Every four years, for example, 7-Eleven sponsors a 7-Election – an outcome driven by the sale of red Republican and blue Democratic coffee cups. In the past two elections, these spots of coffee have been spot-on. In 2008, the 7-Election had it as 52% for Barack Obama. Actually tally: 52.9% for Obama. In 2004, the 7-Election had George W. Bush winning with 51% of the vote. Actual result: Bush 50.7%.

So what’s the 7-Election calling for 2012? It’s Obama, in a caffeinated landslide (59%-41%).

Another predictor: professional football – specifically, the “Redskins Rule”. In 17 of the last 18 presidential elections, dating back to 1940, the following has held true: if the Washington Redskins win their last home before the election, the party that controls the White House stays in power; the Redskins lose, so too does the incumbent party (the lone exception being 2004 – the Redskins lost to the Steelers; Bush beat Kerry).

On Sunday, the Redskins hosted the Carolina Panthers, putting the “rule” to its 2012 test. Final score: Panthers 21, Redskins 13. Advantage: Romney.

If you think all of this is nuts, I’ll give you one more: Mr. Nuts, the San Francisco Bay Area tuxedo cat who makes his predictions by choosing from one of two litter boxes – the losing candidate literally getting the business. Bad news for Mitt Romney: nature called, and Mr. Nuts called on the Romney-labeled litter box (an apt metaphor for the media coverage of Romney, no?)

If you’re not convinced by what all of his means and actually want to watch the election returns, here’s a viewing guide.

1)  Early-to-Mid-Afternoon: Conspiracy Time. Begin your Election Day with a different news medium – surfing the Internet, to see what’s up with the National Election Pool, a media consortium that does exit polling across the country, You might recall the controversy from the 2004 election: exit polls overstated the actual difference between Bush and Kerry by 6.5 points – in Kerry’s favor. See if, by mid-afternoon, there’s Internet buzz over funny numbers. That, and turn on MSNBC and Fox News to see if either side’s unusually exuberant.

2)  6 PM EST/3 PM PST: Polls Close in Indiana. The significance? Obama was the surprise winner here in 2008, carrying the state by 23,000 votes out of 2.7 million cast. That was helped in part by Obama spending 34 times more money that McCain on local television ($17 million to $500,000). That won’t happen again. This marks the beginning of Karl Rove’s “3-2-1” vision – Romney winning the presidency by picking up three states that Obama carried in 2008 (Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia), followed by two more Obama ‘08 conversions (Florida and Ohio), plus just one (Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire) to reach 270 electoral votes.

3)  7 PM EST/4 PM PST: Polls Close in Florida/Virginia.The epicenter of the 2000 election and the subsequent recount fight, Florida might take a back seat in this contest to other swing states. Romney pulled ahead in the Sunshine State after the first debate and has stayed in front ever since. Virginia’s a different matter; both campaigns are competing in the Old Dominion to the last second. Also keep an eye on this state’s Senate race between Republican George Allen and Democrat Tim Kaine (they’re vying for the seat being vacated by Democrat Jim Webb).

4)  7:30 PM EST/4:30 PST: Polls Close in Ohio/North Carolina. Let’s start with the latter, which after Indiana is the blue state most likely to change colors on Election Night (Obama carried NC by less than 14,000 votes out 4.2 million cast in 2008). That takes us to Ohio, whose significance can’t be understated. The last presidential winner to lose Ohio was John F. Kennedy. No Republican has won the White House without an assist from the Buckeye State. Look to see who has the better ground game – Romney in the country; Obama in the Cincinnati and Cleveland areas. Two questions coming out of Ohio: can Romney get to 270 without Ohio’s 18 electoral votes; can Ohio count its vote on time, or send the election into chaos by making America wait for days as it tallies and verifies absentee and provisional ballots?

5)  8 PM EST/5 PM PDT: Polls Close in Maine/Massachusetts/Missouri/New Hampshire. Three of these states have something in common other than beginning with the letter “m”. Along with a fourth “m” state that votes deeper into the day – Montana – they’ll decide which party controls the U.S. Senate in 2013. Missouri should have been an easy pickup for Republicans. It didn’t turn out that way.  In Massachusetts, Democrat Elizabeth Warren could oust the Republican incumbent, Scott Brown, complicating the GOP’s plans for picking up four seats and majority control of the chamber. In Maine, a win by independent Angus King is a good as another GOP loss as he’d likely caucus with Democrats next year (oddly, that race has become a duel of dollars between Karl Rove and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg). As for New Hampshire, it went Republican in 2004, Democratic in 2004 and 2008, maybe it goes red again. Question: in a Romney presidency, is the family vacation home in Wolfeboro, N.H, or La Jolla, Calif., the new Summer White House?

6)  9 PM EST/6 PM PST. Polls Close in Colorado/Iowa. Nine electoral votes are up for grabs in Colorado, where the state’s Hispanic population is now 14% of the electorate and eighth largest in America). The wild cards here: pro-pot Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and the pro-legalization Amendment 64, which could take away vote from Obama; plus, a crowded ballot featuring 16 presidential candidates on ballot. As for Iowa, Obama carried it by 9% in 2008. A sign that the Democrats are struggling in the heartland: Iowa and Ohio were campaign stops for a couple of Democratic rock stars: Bill Clinton and Bruce Springsteen.

7)  10 PM EST/7 PM PST: Polls Close in Nevada/Montana. By the time the votes are counted in the nail-biter race between Democratic Sen. Jon Tester and Rep. Denny Rehberg, the Senate could be a dead heat (the current balance is 51 D’s, 47 R’s, 2 independents). In battleground Nevada (6 electoral votes), political junkies have both a presidential contest and yet another crucial Senate race to watch. This is all about the ground game: Republicans are targeting 100,000-or-so “soft” Democrats and non-partisans who lean Romney. Another x-factor: Mormonism. LDS members make up about 7% of the state’s population; Romney needs a heavy turnout in a state seen leaning Obama.

8)  11 PM EST/8 PM PST. Polls Close in California. The first hour during which the networks can declare a presidential winner (it’s also a good hour to be a Democratic, as Obama will run the table on reliably-blue California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii). What can we say about California, which doesn’t lack for drama of a non-presidential variety? Up is down and down is up, with the action down the ballot: the state’s 11 initiatives. By night’s end, you’ll have a better sense of where California voters stand on taxes (Propositions 30, 38 & 39), unions’ political influence (Prop 32) and crime laws (Props 34 & 36).

9)  1 AM EST/10 PM PST. Polls Close in Alaska Aleutians. Congratulations if you made it this far. The question: will we have a presidential winner by this hour? In 2004, it wasn’t until 11:34 a.m. (EST) the following morning that Bush crossed the 270 threshold. In 2000, Florida was called for Bush and the Texas governor was declared the national winner at 2:17 a.m. EST – only to have Florida retracted 101 minutes later, beginning the machinations that would take the election to the Supreme Court and its Dec. 9 Bush v. Gore decision.

Obama could lose the popular vote but win the electoral count. The same could happen for Romney. And, yes, an electoral tie remains a possibility. Or we might end up waiting a few hours, days, or weeks for an official verdict.

If only it were a simple as going to the litter box.

Follow Bill Whalen on Twitter: @hooverwhalen

Few, in fact, were. While the ... continue reading]]> Tweet

By my count, Mitt Romney slogged through a good dozen Republican primary debates that the media deemed “crucial”, “critical”, “pivotal” or “defining”.

Few, in fact, were. While the debates did help sort out an over-crowded GOP field (Texas Gov. Rick Perry, for example, never recovering from an “oops” moment), Romney earned his party’s nomination through a combination of sound financial planning, solid infrastructure and steely perseverance. Yes, it helped that he shined on the debate stage when necessary, but Romney’s eventual (some would say inevitable) triumph was more dependent upon game-planning than debate knockouts.

The same standard doesn’t apply to the general election, where one debate turned out to be a game-changer.

Figure it thus: Romney entered the first presidential debate in Denver trailing President Obama, 50%-45%, in Gallup’s pre-debate survey of registered voters. Six days after that Oct. 3 debate, Gallup’s initial likely-voter survey had Romney ahead, 49%-47% (the latest RCP Average: Romney 47.4%, Obama 47.3%).

Other evidence of that first debate’s impact on the election: Florida has swung back into Romney’s column; Colorado suddenly is more competitive for the GOP challenger; crowds turning out to see Romney are showing an enthusiasm that wasn’t evident pre-Denver.

Then there’s the Electoral College. According to the Examiner’s tally, what had been a 294-244 Obama lead (270 needed to win) now stands at 271-261. Switch Ohio’s 18 electoral votes to Romney’s column and the Oval Office gets a makeover in 2013.

So the second presidential debate does indeed seem “make or break” . . . not for an ascendant Romney but instead for a surprisingly fragile Barack Obama.

How worried is the President? He cleared his schedule for six days of debate preparation – double the time he spent studying for his first encounter with Romney. That included three days at a 54-hole golf resort in Virginia where, surprise of surprises, he didn’t go duffing – a temptation he’s rarely resisted during his first term.

So will we see a feistier, more aggressive Obama in the second debate? Count on feisty, as in assertive. But don’t count on aggressiveness. Remember, Republicans floated the idea of getting in the presidential grill in Romney-Obama I. That turned out to be a head fake – and it succeeding in faking out the President.

Besides, townhall-style debates aren’t suited to aggressive manners. The goal is to connect with the average citizen (well, as “average” as voters are in American college towns). That doesn’t bode well for candidates more interested in deriding their opponent than scoring empathetic points, though it has made for some outré moments during the 20 years that presidential candidates have met this way.

So what else to look for, beyond the President’s demeanor?

• Romney’s Connectivity. The Republican contender has participated in dozens of town-hall events over the course of the 2012 campaign, while Obama’s been in just one in the past nine months.  As in Denver, there’s a presidential rust factor. That said, I’d be shocked if at least one questioner doesn’t try to trip him up along the lines of what got the better of President Bush in 1992: “how has the national debt personally affected [you]?” Watch for Obama to remind the audience that he and the First Lady wife came from humble roots – a not-so-subtle dig at Romney’s family’s wealth that he’s frequently invoked on the campaign trail. Romney showed in Denver that he can look and act presidential. At Hofstra, he gets to prove if he can be personable as well.
• Candy’s Not So Sweet. It wouldn’t be a presidential debate without a complaint about the evening’s moderate – this time, CNN’s Candy Crowley. The gripe: her promise to play an active role in the debate, something neither campaign wants.  Back in 2008, this ended up being a criticism of that year’s town-moderator, Tom Brokaw: he redirected the audiences questions and asked too many of his own – in effect, hijacking the debate. The 2008 presidential town hall was held in Nashville – live from the Town of Brokaw. Here’s a suggestion for a Commission on Presidential Debates that’s long on Washington insiders: start looking for less grabby moderators who live (and think) outside the Beltway.
• The Bounce Effect. Ok, this is more germane to the hours and days after the debate: will the second debate produce another large ripple effect? Keep in mind that the first head-to-head in Denver: (a) reversed Romney’s fortunes; (b) forced Obama himself to admit he had “a bad night”; (c) freaked out the left; (d) reinvigorated the right; (e) changed the election’s Obama’s-hope/Romney’s-hopeless media narrative. That’s a lot of damage for just 90 minutes of television, but entirely possible if either candidate is exceptionally strong – or astonishingly weak.
• Unsound on Long Island. Here are three things guaranteed to be off the table – and off the stage – on Tuesday night. There won’t be a presidential repeat of Joe Biden’s theatrics. Nor will Romney be as passive and deferential as his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, was in the face of said clowning. Finally, watch and see if either gentleman . . . is sporting a wristwatch. In the first presidential town-hall debate, back in 1992, it was a glance in his watch’s direction that signaled an end to George H.W. Bush’s presidency (happens here at the 1:15 mark, as Ross Perot goes on about government, school-busing and chickens in a bathtub).

Unless he turns in a better performance in this, the second of three presidential debates, then time may be running out on this presidency as well.

Follow Bill Whalen on Twitter @hooverwhalen.

If Mitt Romney wins, he’s a Republican elected from a true-blue Democratic state. That just doesn’t happen.

Nor does a candidate ... continue reading]]> Tweet

Contradictions surround the 2012 presidential race.

If Mitt Romney wins, he’s a Republican elected from a true-blue Democratic state. That just doesn’t happen.

Nor does a candidate normally win a national contest having given away his birth and residential states. But that’s a distinct possibility for Romney, with Massachusetts and Michigan likely beyond his reach (the only presidential candidate to pull this off: James K. Polk, who lost both his native North Carolina and his adopted Tennessee in 1844).

As for Barack Obama, he’s looking at two oddities should he prevail: a fall-off in electoral votes (first time it would have happened to a repeat winner since Franklin Roosevelt in 1944), plus a drop-off in popular votes (again, FDR, seeking a fourth term). The last first-term elected incumbent to have gone where Obama’s going: Woodrow Wilson in 1916 (nearly three million more votes than in 1912, but 177 fewer electoral votes). Otherwise, no elected incumbent has won a second term while seeing a decline in the popular vote.

(Here’s more trivia: Adding up the successful first-term elected incumbents of 1936, 1956, 1956, 1984, 1996 and 2004 – but not including the results from 1972, which was a spike of 15.4 million votes and 221 electoral votes – and a winning incumbent can expect an average gain of roughly 5.4 million votes and 25 electoral votes. Obama’s numbers in 2008: a record 69.5 million votes, 365 EV’s.)

There’s one other oddity, and it’ll be on display in Thursday night’s presidential debate in Danville, Kentucky.

Generational outlook.

In 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain had the largest age-gap in presidential history – a difference of 25 years. Had it been a closer contest, perhaps we’d have had a discussion of the generational aspects of the two candidates – “Silent Generation” (McCain born in 1936) vs. “Baby Boomers” (Obama born in 1961). But thanks to the economic crisis, anti-war sentiment and Bush fatigue, the race never came close to that conversation.

But 2012 is a different contest, starring two nominees from opposite ends of the Boomer generation. Yet, there is a generational contrast – this time, provided by the two vice presidential candidates.

If re-elected, the 69-year-old Joe Biden (he turns 70 two weeks after the election, putting him at the tail end of the Silent Generation) would become the nation’s second-oldest veep, trailing only Alben Barkley. As for the 42-year-old Paul Ryan, if elected he’d be America’s third-youngest vice president in modern times, senior only to Dan Quayle (two weeks shy of 42 when he took office in 1989) and Richard Nixon (barely 40 when he took the vice-presidential oath in 1953).

With two notable differences.

While Nixon and Quayle earned a spot on their respective tickets in part for their generational appeal, neither stood out, in policy contrast, to their running mates. That’s not the case with Ryan, who’s exceptional for his unflinching embrace of federal and entitlement reform (as seen in this Hoover Uncommon Knowledge interview) – an embrace far more passionate than anything Romney offered in the primaries.

Second, Ryan is the first member of Generation X (born between 1965 and 1984) to appear on a national ticket

And that’s something to keep an eye on during Thursday night’s debate.

Yes, Biden should offer a more passionate performance than Obama last week in Denver (who couldn’t?). Though, like Obama there’s a question of rust: Biden hasn’t had a difficult sit-down interview in at least five months). The expectation is a debate loaded with fireworks.

And, yes, there’s a question of whether Biden will have one of his political Tourette moments – likening Republicans to plantation owners, bragging about tax increases (here’s a longer list of Biden no-no’s). We already have Tebowing, RG3’ing and Eastwooding. Add to the list “Bidening”: if you’re a Democrat, placing your hands on either side of your face and mimicking Munch’s “The Scream”.

But getting back to Ryan and the Gen X factor. We know how it works stylistically: the small-town Wisconsinite likes to listen to ‘90’s grunge music and drink micro-brews.

But on the national debate stage, it’s Ryan’s chance to connect with 30- and 40-somethings who fear that government entitlements won’t be around by the time they retire.

The first Romney-Obama debate didn’t offer such a distinction. While Romney was the more effective debater, both candidates got bogged down in mind-numbing concepts like $700 billion Medicare cuts. We’ll see if Ryan can debate this point more clearly, or Biden’s more effective at putting the congressman off-balance and off-message.

One theory why the national spotlight could be fertile ground for a big-idea reformer like Ryan: Gen-Xers grew up witnessing societal institutions falling apart – parents divorcing; latchkey afternoons alone; schools deteriorating. Politically, that’s made them cynical, distrusting of government, and wary of social activism to cure the world’s woes. Researchers say Gen-Xers are more Republican and conservative-friendly than the generations before and after (Baby Boomers and Generation Y). Watch and see Thursday night if Ryan can cut through the distracting persiflage of Big Bird and who’s-doing-what to the safety net and explain to his generation that government spending – Medicare, defense, you name it – isn’t defensible, much less sustainable, at its current pace.

A word about vice presidential debates. In the scheme of presidential elections, they rarely matter much. Dan Quayle took a beating in 1988 and the elder George Bush still won 40 of 50 states on Election Day.

But as last week’s presidential debate showed, it might be a more volatile electorate than has been widely assumed. Romney went into that first debate in Denver trailing Obama, 51-43, according to the Pew Research Center. Pew’s post-debate survey had Romney leading, 49-45 (most astonishingly, Obama’s 18-point lead among women vanished).

A word of caution about that survey: it’s sampling was weighted in favor of Republicans (+5%), which might not be the case come Election Day (here’s a Daily Caller piece analyzing Pew’s methodology). But, combined with Obama’s lousy performance in Denver, it adds to a narrative that momentum is on Romney’s side – and the pressure is mounting on Biden to, in effect, put President Humpty back together again.

No doubt that was a big topic of conversation during Biden’s six days of debate preparation – double the President’s prep-time (by ABC News’ count, Biden’s participated in 23 debates during his four decades as a senatorial, presidential and vice-presidential candidate vs. eight congressional debates for Ryan).

But does Biden, in trying to compensate for Obama’s debate skid, overcompensate by pulling too hard in the opposite direction. It’s what they teach you not to do in driver’s-ed: turning into the skid, not against it.

Bombast, not nuance, is Joe Biden’s strong suit. Depth and details is Paul Ryan’s. We’ll see which is present and stage-center on Thursday night.

Follow Bill Whalen on Twitter @hooverwhalen

First, do yourself a favor and ignore the pre-debate spin.

President Obama’s camp would have you ... continue reading]]> Tweet

As a viewer, how best to prepare for Wednesday night’s presidential debate?

First, do yourself a favor and ignore the pre-debate spin.

President Obama’s camp would have you believe that Mitt Romney is some kind of Q&A genius. Romney’s camp contends there’s no equal for Obama’s rhetorical skills.

Both belie the obvious: Romney’s had the luxury having gone through Republican debates ad nauseum this year; Obama has the luxury of having gone one-on-one with John McCain. Neither candidate is a debate stranger; neither goes into Wednesday’s event in Denver as a prohibitive favorite.

Second, ask what each candidate has to achieve.

This one’s simple. A good night for Romney could go a long way toward: (a) closing the polls; (b) getting the media off his back; (c) replenishing his campaign war chest. As for Obama: if you believe that show the President leading, then the goal is to play error-free ball on Wednesday night.

Third, gaffes.

Once the debate begins, listen for a misstep with the potency to cloud the election for days afterward – the kind of I’ve-gotta-rewind-my-DVR-and-hear-that-again flub that’s sure to last an e-ternity on YouTube. Examples: Dan Quayle getting verbally slapped in 1988; Michael Dukakis, that same year but in a different debate, speaking with all the passion of a sloth on downers.

All of this said, I’m not watching Romney on Wednesday night as much as I am President Obama. The reason why: recent history suggests the first debate can be trouble for the officeholder.

Here’s a quick scorecard of debate winners of the past three decades, featuring incumbents and challengers.

1980 – The only presidential debate during the general election, and it came on the Tuesday before Election Day. Here’s a transcript and a video of the entire 90-minute debate, including Ronald Reagan’s now-famous “are you better off?” closing argument.  Reagan showed America he wasn’t the scary proposition Jimmy Carter claimed he was; the walk-up broke heavily the GOP’s way. Debate winner: Reagan, the challenger.

1984 – The first Reagan-Mondale debate (Oct. 7 of that year, in Louisville; they’d debate a second time two weeks later) was a surprise: Mondale was the aggressor; Reagan didn’t have a strong night (here’s the entire video). The immediate fallout was Mondale improving, media perception-wise, from candidate without a chance to a more plausible candidate who could hold his own with Reagan. Debate winner: Mondale, the challenger.

1992: The first of the three encounters between the two major-party candidates and Ross Perot occurred on Oct. 11, in St. Louis. All of that year’s debates were compressed in a nine-day window, making the process less forensics and more telanovela). The other oddity: George H.W. Bush, trailing in the polls, had the burden of needing a good night to reverse the election’s course. He didn’t – Bill Clinton playing it safe and low-risk that night (here’s the entire video). Debate winner: Clinton, the challenger.

1996 – The first of two debates between Clinton and Bob Dole occurred on Oct. 6, in Hartford, Ct. (their second encounter would be an Oct. 16 town-hall debate in San Diego). Dole attacked Clinton in a ways that will sound familiar Wednesday night (“I trust people. The President trusts government”). But the perception was a debate that ended in a draw, which meant no change in Clinton’s comfortable lead (here’s the entire video).  Debate winner: Clinton, the incumbent.

2004 – The first of three debates between George W. Bush and John Kerry occurred on Sept. 30, in Miami (topics: foreign policy and homeland security – they’d debate twice more in the next two weeks).  An estimated 62.5 million Americans tuned in to the debate – a 35% increase from 2000. Arguably the loudest buzz coming out of that first debate was a conspiracy theory suggesting that a bulge in the President’s coat pocket meant he was wired to receive helps with his answers. Polls gave Kerry the edge performance-wise; curiously, talking heads downgraded the debate’s importance for Kerry from “a decisive moment” to “we shouldn’t jump to any conclusions”. Translation: they weren’t blown away. Kerry won that night on points; he didn’t change the race’s dynamics. Debate winner: call it a draw.

So there’s my unofficial scorecard of the first incumbent-challenger presidential debates dating back to 1980: Three wins for the challenger; one win for the incumbent; one draw.

But why would this be?

Some attribute it to rust. Romney’s spent 43 hours in 23 separate debates this year, to 0 and 0 for Obama. Toss in the President’s propensity for softball interviews and there’s a chance Obama could walk into the first debate a little out of shape (which is how he looked in that recent 60 Minutes interview).

But it might also be a case of perception giving way to reality. Voters imagine a challenger lacking a President’s stature (one reason why voters expect Obama to outperform Romney in the debates). Then, come the first debate, they see two candidates on the same stage, literally on the same footing. Suddenly, the stature gap has shrunk (The Atlantic’s James Fallows takes a sharp look at these factors and the debate’s role in presidential election in this insightful article).

Finally, don’t rule out ego: it’s tempting for an incumbent to look down on a challenger as less qualified, less deserving. Such contempt can lead to reluctance to train. And in case you haven’t notice, the President waited until this weekend to begin intensive debate preparation – the opposite of Romney’s approach, which was to go into training immediately after his party’s national convention.

In other words, the grind gets his chance against the 10 o’clock scholar. A chance Romney needs more than Obama.

Follow Bill Whalen (@hooverwhalen) on Twitter

The complaints go something like this: ... continue reading]]> Tweet

That angry buzz in conservative circles these days: the idea of media bias affecting, if not downright rigging, the presidential election.

The complaints go something like this: President Obama, while visiting New York City, doesn’t meet with foreign leaders gathered at the U.N. but squeezes in a power summit with the ladies of The View – and hardly a gripe beyond Fox News. Ann Romney dons a $1,000 shirt and is branded as tone-deaf, while criticism of First Lady Michele Obama for sporting a $6,000 jacket around London and the Summer Olympics is deemed “sexist”. Michael Lewis andVanity Fair agree to quote approval before publishing a puff piece on the Obama presidency; good luck finding a reporter who’d submit to the same rules – much less wax poetically – regarding Mitt Romney’s candidacy.

Then there’s the day-in/day-out coverage of the horse race. Do a quick Google search and you’ll find the following labels attached to Romney’s campaign: “disarray”. . . “internal dissent” . . . “turmoil”.

And the Obama campaign?

About the toughest description of late is “audacity-free” – i.e., the President’s purposely cautious because he knows he’s playing with a lead.

So is Romney a victim of media bias? I’ll argue against it. Sure, most reporters covering the election (and showing up for White House press briefings) philosophically are left of center. They travel in herds; at times they’re guilty of a herd mentality. To the extent the media have pet Republicans, it’s Reeps who have no qualms with taking their fellow Republicans to task – that’s politicians like John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger, plus consultants like Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon (though McKinnon does believe the pundits’ recent stampede to bury Romney may be rash).

Romney’s media problem doesn’t have to do with bias as much as it does judgment. Pick an election – any election – and you’ll find reporters obsessing over who’s ahead and who’s behind in the polls; who’s on their game and who’s off it. They judge winners and they judge winners. And they’re fast making their judgment on Romney’s chances.

That and, unfortunately for Romney, he’s provided grist for the mill – too many opportunities for the Fourth Estate to second-guess his choices.

That would include:

1)  Strategy. You can’t argue with Romney’s primary approach. He bet on economics and mild conservatism (the most notable exception being his detour on immigration) and he soldiered through to the nomination. But two decisions post-clinching provoked a media backlash, the first being Clint Eastwood’s surprise appearance on the final night of the Republican National Convention. Most reporters thought it was perplexing; once it became apparent that Romney didn’t receive a “bounce” from his acceptance speech, the door opened for the media to suggest that Eastwood, by overshadowing the candidate, was more harm than help.  The second eyebrow-raiser: the Romney campaign’s decision to release his 2011 tax returns and a summary of prior year payments – the criticism being that it put the issue back in the news after it had fallen off voters’ radar screen.

2)  Brain Trust. Reporters looking for signs of trouble usually start with the candidate’s inner circle. In this election, they’ve landed on Stuart Stevens, Romney’s top strategist. On Sept. 16, Politico ran a devastating articledescribing how Stevens stepped all over the writing of Romney’s acceptance speech, in the process turning the Tampa convention into a mess. Since then, the press has written of a campaign that’s “horrible” . . . “in shambles” (note: the same occurred to John Kerry in 2004, when reporters used accounts of infighting among his top strategists). Romneyites can’t claim bias here – reporters are simply addicted to campaign intra-squabbling and, like sharks sensing blood, will go into a full feeding frenzy once the water’s been chummed.

3)  The Arc. Speaking of John Kerry’s travails, that leads us to Romney’s third media problem: the story arc. Four years ago, the presidential election was Mister Toad’s Wild Ride: Wall Street crashing the race; McCain suspending his campaign and briefly throwing the debates into turmoil; a voter surge of historic proportion. And 2012? It looks a lot like 2004 – national polls just a few points apart; a handful of swing states controlling the outcome; a vulnerable incumbent who got the jump on his challenger by going after his character. In this scenario and barring the unexpected between now and Nov. 6, Romney plays the role of John Kerry as the candidate a half-a-step behind. Again, not bias, but a judgment call.

How does Romney overcome this? Obviously the upcoming debates are crucial. And perhaps, like 1980, the late undecided will break his way. And the speculators (present company included) will look very foolish.

But, with a little over 40 days and 40 nights until the election, it’s a negative media arc that’s anything but a safe haven for Romney these stormy days.

Depending on the opinionator’s politics and perspective, the ... continue reading]]> Tweet

I won’t bore you with yet another discussion about the pundit-imposed expectations surrounding Mitt Romney’s convention acceptance speech.

Depending on the opinionator’s politics and perspective, the no-longer-presumptive Republican nominee has to: (a) make up for missing empathy; (b) offer a vision as to where he’ll take America; (c) play to the crowd and reinforce conservative, libertarian and Tea Party sensibilities; (d) play to the national viewing audience and de-fang conservative, libertarian and Tea Party sensibilities; (e) make an undecided electorate regret having voted for Barack Obama; (f) bring peace to Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Apple and Samsung, and Red Sox Nation.

All in less than an hour’s time.

As Jerry Seinfeld liked to say: “good luck with all that”.

This much I can assure you: Romney will give a terrific speech. The circumstances dictate as much. His speech will be polished and well rehearsed, and there’s the adrenaline rush provided by a wildly enthusiastic crowd – a rhetorical tailwind, if you would.

Years go, I asked George McGovern about his acceptance speech in Miami in July 1972, at the end of a tumultuous convention. Said he: “I gave the speech on my life. Too bad it happened at 3 a.m.” Romney’s speech won’t get lost in the dead of night, nor will he stumble in the dark on the stage.

Think, for a moment, of any party nominee in recent years who gave a bad acceptance speech. That includes Bob Dole, hardly a gifted orator (Dole, a creature of Congress, would drift off into “legi-speak”, tossing around Capitol Hill nouns like “mark-up” and “cloture”). But at the 1996 Republican convention in San Diego, Dole rose to the occasion (the other Dole speech that stands out – when he broke down at Richard Nixon’s funeral).

Look for Romney to do the same on Thursday, as should President Obama a week later at his party’s get-together in Charlotte.

Meanwhile, if you want to look inside the speech, see if the following applies to Romney’s acceptance speech:

1) Finger on the Pulse. A candidate wins a party’s nomination by understanding his field of rivals (for Romney, correctly assuming economics would outlast social issues). But to win in November, the candidate has to demonstrate a finger on the electorate’s pulse. Such was the key Ronald Reagan unseating Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Bill Clinton doing the same to George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Here’s Clinton, in his acceptance speech: “We meet at a special moment in history, you and I. The Cold War is over. Soviet communism has collapsed and our values – freedom, democracy, individual rights, free enterprise- they have triumphed all around the world. And yet, just as we have won the Cold War abroad, we are losing the battles for economic opportunity and social justice here at home. Now that we have changed the world, it’s time to change America.”

Now, here’s Reagan in his acceptance speech: “The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of Democratic Party leadership – in the White House and in Congress – for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view.”

Litmus Test #1 for Romney: defining the times in which we live.

2) Defining Himself.  In the same acceptance speech, Clinton credited three people with shaping his life – his mother, who struggled to raise him and later battled breast cancer; his grandfather, who ran an inclusive country store; and his wife, for championing children’s issues.

Reagan, on the other hand, didn’t tug at heartstring – the only individuals mentioned in his acceptance remarks are historical figures – Lincoln, FDR, Thomas Paine, the Plymouth colonists. There was no autographical detour – his journey to California, finding happiness with Nancy, or the childhood trauma of dragging an alcoholic father out of the snow and into the family home. Different man, different speech, different practice of candidates willing to go psyche-spelunking.

How far Romney should dip into the well of pathos has been much discussed (ad nauseum) in recent days. Does he invoke the car crash in France that almost killed him, his wife’s health struggles, or the tragedy of the Romney’s stillborn son?

Litmus Test #2: Let’s call it the People standard: sharing one’s up’s and downs (what Ann Romney tried to do on Tuesday night).

3) Toughness.  Someone who’s been absent in body and spirit at this year’s GOP convention – the elder George Bush. In 1998, Bush approached his acceptance speech with a challenge similar to Romney’s: dispelling a media-bred (and unjustified) “wimp” label (you’ll notice the similarity between Newsweek’s 2012 and 1987 covers).

How did Bush dispel the slur? In his acceptance speech, the then-Vice President famously drew the line on new taxes, embraced the concept of “kinder, gentler” and distanced himself from the administration he intended to succeed. Overall, it worked.

Litmus Test #3: Romney demonstrating he’s his own man.

One final thought: once Thursday night and the GOP convention dismantles the big tent, we’ll enter a 72-hour phase in the campaign, until the Democratic show in Charlotte: talk of a bounce.

There may not be much of one, for either candidate, in this election. Reasons why: the pool of undecided voters is shallower than normal (perhaps as little as 3%-5%); both national conventions are carefully choreographed affairs offering little in the way of a dramatic departure.

Which means the presidential debates may take on added weight – and, yes, more raising and lowering of the expectations bar.

Two, you probably know. Dukakis took an infamous ride in a tank – ... continue reading]]> Tweet

Michael Dukakis experienced three indignities when he ran as the Democratic presidential nominee in 1988.

Two, you probably know. Dukakis took an infamous ride in a tank – a ride that took him from wannabe hawk to laughingstock; in a nationally televised debate, he dispassionately responded to a hypothetical question about his wife being raped and murdered with all the brio of a sleepy-eyed law professor.

And the third indignity?

It occurred during that year’s Democratic National Convention, courtesy of the whims of Boston’s viewing public. On the night that Dukakis, then the governor of Massachusetts, gave his acceptance speech, a local independent station back in Beantown nearly matched the convention’s ratings by airing . . . Benny Hill re-reruns (video-rental stores also reported booming business during both conventions that year).

Fast-forward now to 2012 and the uncomfortable relationship between the national parties, their national conventions, and American’s national television news networks.

There won’t be Monday night broadcast from Tampa. Mother Nature saw to that – the 2012 Republican National Convention shutting down for a day, until the bad weather eases.

But Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday?

ABC, NBC and CBS are freeing up all of a single hour each night – less time, on a given night, than such weighty fare as Bachelor Pad or America’s Got Talent.

If it’s extended coverage you seek, make sure your cable bill is paid up, then start surfing among C-SPAN (offering gave-to-gavel coverage since 1984), PBS (three hours’ worth, each of the three nights), or any of the alphabet-soup cable news networks (CNN, FNC, MSNBC).

So who’s at fault here?

This is one those circumstances when neither side – the parties and the networks – can claim the moral high ground. That the big three nets would give the man who could be the nation’s next leader only one hour of air time to discuss his life story and presidential vision is disgraceful.

Then again, it’s not like there’s much in the way of suspense: we know the identity of the ticket; the odds of a floor flight or prolonged protest by any state delegation are slim.

And the American voter takes a hit here too.

Viewers could put pressure on the networks to provide more coverage. Then again, they’re easily distracted: unlike most of the 20th-century presidential elections, voters nowadays can turn to premium channel channels, Netflix and iTunes movie downloads as alternatives – assuming they’ll bother to DVR the big speech. An angel gets its wings every time a bell rings; political conventions lose viewers every time technology moves forward (as you can see in this chart, household audiences for GOP conventions declined in the ‘80s, spiked in 1992, then receded again before another spike in 2008).

What we have, to borrow a work from the late James Stockdale, is gridlock. The two parties do their part to stage a nominating convention long on cosmetics and short on dramatics. The networks do their best to “cover” the event without really offering the event in any great depth.

Earlier this month, comedian/talk-radio host Dennis Miller suggested that the entire 2012 Republican National Convention could be downsized to one night, two hours (“here’s what we think, here’s what he thinks, let’s get it on on November 6 . . . then I’d have Chris Christie come out, slap around a photog, and I’d move on”).

Miller’s right in two regards:

• To the extent that a national convention goes on for several days, it’s more about tending to internal business than something as external as earning votes – rewarding delegates with a good show; letting politicians and special interests do their dirty dance;
• The convention really is a one-night show – the final night when the nominees get to directly address to a massive, unfiltered national audience (up to 40 million viewers tuning in four years ago).

Are the stakes high for Mitt Romney? Absolutely (here’s one reporter’s take on the candidates’ to-do list).

Meanwhile, here’s a name to remember, assuming the festivities do indeed get underway Tuesday: Mia Love.

Currently the mayor of Sarasota Springs (Utah, not Florida – making her that state’s first Haitian-American elected official), she’s challenging six-term Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson. If elected, she’d be the first black Republican woman in the House of Representatives.

You can expect Love to talk about inclusiveness and opportunity (full name Ludmya Bourdeau Love, she’s the daughter of immigrants), family (she’s a marathon-running mother of three) and bringing a new approach to Washington (lessons she’s applied to government).

And, perhaps, her faith.

Love also just happens to be a converted Mormon and has appeared in an LDS P.R. campaign. In a convention likely to feature a very vast Romney family tree, Love’s a subtle reminder that her church and her party aren’t necessarily monochromatic or one-dimensional.

And that’s a precept the Romney campaign would love to dispel during its four three nights in Tampa.