In 1992, Queen Elizabeth had a yearlong run of personal woe that she famously likened to an annus horribilis. And horrible it was: two princes’ and ... continue reading]]> Tweet

In 1992, Queen Elizabeth had a yearlong run of personal woe that she famously likened to an annus horribilis. And horrible it was: two princes’ and one princess’s marriages going up in flames; even Windsor Castle catching fire.

We still have seven-plus months before 2013 plays out, but so far so bad for President Obama in this, the first of his last four years in the Oval Office. Which begs the question of who or what’s to blame for this presidency going from the high of a sweeping re-election to the valley of scandal and unshakable controversy – the Benghazi affair that won’t go away, IRS heavy-handing with tax-exempts, Justice Department record-seizing.

What should we chalk it up to?

1) The inevitable fate of second-term presidents (George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon all hitting rough patches after their re-elections)?

2) Mr. Obama’s lack of preparation – scant leadership experience – for the job?

3) Much ado but nothing, the assumption being a friendly media will build Obama back up once they’re done treating his administration as a chew toy?

4) Bad karma in the personage of Michelle Obama and her bangs – the new hairstyle she broke out just in time for her 49^th birthday a precursor to this spate of political misfortune.

Forget about the bangs (the First Lady already has, reverting to her side-swept look). And the last thing the White House should complain about is critical press coverage. As for a second-term curse, let’s see where this White House stands going into 2016 and its last year.

The concern here is culprit #2 – Obama’s lack of preparation – i.e., no history of running anything, other than running for office.

In early 2008, 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft posed it thus: ”I mean, one of the problems that you have, still, is the question of experience. And you’ve done a lot of remarkable things in your life. But when you sit down and you look at the résumé – there’s no executive experience. And, in fact, correct if I’m wrong, the only thing that you’ve actually run was the Harvard Law Review.”

Obama’s response: ”Well, I’ve run my Senate office. And I’ve run this campaign. One of the interesting things about this experience argument is that it’s often posed as just a function of longevity. You know, ‘I’ve been here longer.’ Well, you know there are a lot of companies that have been around longer than Google . . . but Google’s performing.”

Not that Obama’s stock is as strong as Google’s in this bull market. If anything, post-election Obama has been the political equivalent of Apple, which has fallen nearly 40% since its all-time high last September.

What, then, should Mr. Obama do?

Here’s a thought: forget sequester, think semester.

Starting this fall, President Obama should take a break from the job. Invoke the 25^th Amendment, declare yourself temporarily unavailable to do the job, and let Joe Biden run the country for a few months. Not that the Vice President can’t carry the load– or so he believes. Biden’s told interviewers he spends “four to five hours a day . . . every day” with Obama.

What then to do with the presidential time-out? Go back to Harvard, where Obama received his law degree. That’s not meant as an excuse for the President to hang out at the Institute of Politics or the Kennedy School of Government, thus surrounding himself with people who already see the world the way he does (being surrounded by too many White House enablers may be one of this presidency’s problems). The same goes for a return to the safe harbor of Harvard Law School – the legal education did its job in making Obama an effective orator.

The challenge for Obama isn’t honing his speechmaking skills. It’s learning managerial skills. And for that, the answer lies on the opposite side of the Charles River and the Harvard Business School, which ironically produced the man Obama replaced and the man who sought to replace him (actually, Mitt Romney holds a Harvard J.D./M.B.A.).

A quick look through HBS’ elective curriculum shows courses that could benefit a President struggling with the demands of a taxing executive post.

That would include:

1) Authentic Leadership Development. Among the course’s stated objectives: “To understand why leaders lose their way and the self-awareness needed to avoid derailment . . . To gain clarity about their leadership principles, values, and ethical boundaries, and how they will respond under pressure when severely challenged.”

2) The Role of Government in Market Economies. “The goal of this course is to deepen your insight into and influence on the debate over economic policy. Private-sector managers are better able to position their organizations, both defensively and offensively, if they understand why and how governments act.”

3) Deals. “Topics developed throughout the course include: how negotiators create and claim value through the setup, design, and tactical implementation of agreements; complexities that can arise through agency, asymmetric information, moral hazard, and adverse selection; structural, psychological, and interpersonal barriers that can hinder agreement; and the particular challenges inherent in the roles of advisors as negotiators.”

4) Negotiation. “This course will teach you how to analyze, prepare for, and execute negotiations at a sophisticated level-through actions both at and away from the bargaining table. It will give you the opportunity to enhance your strengths as a negotiator and to shore up your weaknesses.

Finally, since the President might entertain the thought of life in the private sector (an attractive lifestyle, when it’s in California venues like these), HBS offers:

Venture Capital and Private Equity. “The course focuses on the “private equity cycle,” and starts by considering how private equity funds are raised and structured, with attention paid to the differing perspectives and incentives of institutional investors, “gatekeepers,” fund-of-fund managers, and private equity investors.”

Incumbent presidents tend to avoid college campuses unless it’s to deliver a commencement address or rally the youth vote. As for post-presidential visits, those tend to be opening libraries or reflecting on past decisions.

The time-out from gridlocked Washington and time-in at an elite business school – sequester to semester – might be the refresher Mr. Obama needs.

Besides, what better way to get folks to start liking you again than these four scary words: acting President Joe Biden.

Follow Bill Whalen on Twitter: @hooverwhalen

Pardon the cynicism, but I wonder if President Obama is really all that upset with the Senate’s inability to pass gun-control legislation this past week.

In ... continue reading]]> Tweet

Pardon the cynicism, but I wonder if President Obama is really all that upset with the Senate’s inability to pass gun-control legislation this past week.

In case you missed it, the Democratic-controlled half of Congress failed to pass seven measures having to do with guns, gun-trafficking and gun-ownership, the most notable being an amendment to expand background checks that fell six votes shy of the mark.

The President wasted no time in showing his disgust, calling the 54-46 outcome “a pretty sad day in Washington” (more, in a moment, on why the majority advantage constituted a legislative defeat). A series of gun-control advocates joined the chorus. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg labeled the background check vote a“disgrace”. Former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in this New York Times op-ed, said she was “furious”.

So why the cynicism?

Three reasons:

1)  The Votes Were Designed to Fail. Keep in mind that this Senate amendment didn’t merely fail – it failed under the rules of the debate. Let me amend that: rules determined by the Democratic majority leadership, with the entire chamber’s approval. Rather than setting the rules so that each gun-related amendment would need only 51 votes to pass, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid instead set the bar at 60 votes. Why? Because, as this analysis explains, it enabled Reid to get votes on the measures without opening the door to further tinkering by gun-rights advocates (for example, allowing concealed-weapon permits to cross state lines). Did Reid think he had 60 votes going into the debate? As a Nevadan surely he can count cards heads. If not, and he knew 60 was out of reach, why not lower the threshold to 51 votes (50, actually, since Vice President was presiding) and dare Republicans to filibuster?

2)  Did the White House Play to Win? If you want to understand how Washington used to work, read Robert Caro’s great biography of Lyndon Johnson. As a Senate Majority Leader, he ruled the chamber with a Texas-sized iron fist – a bully in a Stetson. The style didn’t change when LBJ relocated to the Oval Office (here’s audio of Johnson putting the screws to a couple of reluctant senators on an excise-tax bill).  In all, 55 senators voted for the background check amendment (Reid changed his “no” votepost facto so that he could revisit the matter at a latter date). In order to reach 60, Democrats needed to flip four of their own, plus pick off one reluctant Republican (here’s the entire roll call). Reportedly, three of those Democratic senators, all facing a difficult re-elect, in 2014, in states that preferred Mitt Romney to Obama last fall, were “never in play”.  But did Obama and Reid really try to flip them? Presidents specialize in patronage and punishment – they can promise soft landings (ambassadorships, administration posts) if a member walks the gangplank on a controversial vote; they can make life miserable for party dissidents by cutting off fundraising. As for the Majority Leader, he can exile troublemakers to legislative Siberia. Maybe the red-state Democrats never gave ground. Then again, North Carolina’s Kay Hagan, likewise a Democrat in a difficult 2014 race, was willing to vote yes.

3)  2013 Is Really About 2014. Back in early March, the President had this to say to reporters with regard to the sequester fight: “What I can’t do is force Congress to do the right thing. The American people may have the capacity to do that.” Translation: come 2014, voters will punish Republicans for blocking my agenda. As with gun control, the President has all sorts of progressive ideas – climate change, higher taxes, universal preschool – that are dead on arrival in a Republican House. So how then to pick up the 17 necessary to put Democrats back in control of that chamber? The President can either boost his own numbers(at present, he’s about 15 points lower than where Bill Clinton stood in his second-term midterm), or he can try to further deflate the House GOP’s already dismal standing by portraying Republicans as the party of no. When all but three Republican senators voting against the background check amendment, watch for the White House to play up that stereotype.

Perhaps the President had a heated reaction to the gun vote because he’s had a rough April. Then again, the past week has been rough on a lot of Americans – the tragedies in Boston and Texas, helped in no way by some bad behavior from both political extremes (some on the left shamefully wishing the Boston perpetrators were angry, ant-government white males; some on the right spending too much time obsessing, as they did after the Benghazi attack, over Obama’s use and non-use of the word “terrorism”).

In times such as this, Americans grapple with the twin concepts of loss of life and loss of innocence – just as they did after Newtown, Virginia Tech and other moments that remind us of the good and evil in this modern age.

How sad it would be if events in Washington such as the gun-control vote, cloaked in the shadow of a great tragedy, were instead a cover for something even more shadowy: partisan gain.

Follow Bill Whalen on Twitter: @hooverwhalen

Once upon a time, the nation’s capital was synonymous with a special form of incompetence having nothing to do with politics – a cellar-dwelling baseball ... continue reading]]> Tweet

Once upon a time, the nation’s capital was synonymous with a special form of incompetence having nothing to do with politics – a cellar-dwelling baseball existence best captured by sportswriter Charles Dryden: “Washington – first in war, first in peace, last in the American League”.

That’s no longer the case. The current Washington franchise – that would be the Nationals, nee the Montreal Expos (Washington’s two previous franchises, both named the Senators, fled D.C. for the greener pastures of Minnesota and Texas) – resides in the National League. Moreover, the “Nats” are a consensus choice to make this fall’s World Series.

That said, the Washington Nationals aren’t the only prohibitive favorite found inside the beltway. Residing about 20 minutes from the ballpark is Hillary Clinton, the trendy choice these days to be the Democratic nominee in 2016 and America’s 45th president.

At least, that’s what the polls tell us. One survey shows Mrs. Clinton dominating both Republicans and her fellow Democrats in hypothetical 2016 matchups. Another poll has Florida voters preferring her to native sons Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.

Add to those numbers: the chattering class’s clamoring for a Hillary run.

Paul Begala, the Democratic consultant who helped engineer Bill Clinton’s win in 1992, “hopes and prays” for a Clinton candidacy. Kathleen Parker, a Washington Postcolumnist, believes it’s nothing less than Hillary’s duty to run: “The calculus comes down to this: She has been working toward this moment essentially all her life, diligently clearing away the brush blocking her path. The zeitgeist is ready for a woman president. Most important, she can win – and few think the country would be worse for it.”

About being a president-in-waiting this early in the selection process: it’s both a blessing and a curse for a Democratic frontrunner. Al Gore led wire to wire in 2000. On the other hand, Mario Cuomo, Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy and Edmund Muskie are examples of early odds-on-favorites who didn’t work out (some decided not to run, others did and flamed out). And there’s Mrs. Clinton’s experience in 2008 – starting out with a big advantage, only to be passed by Barack Obama.

Though it’s a long way to 2016, here are four reasons why Clinton inaugural planning may be premature:

1)  Despite the Conventional Wisdom, She’s Unconventional. Republicans choose their presidential nominee in an orderly fashion: the prize goes to the previous runner-up. It’s true of Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. But not so, for Democrats. Since 1972, six of the Democrats’ eight nominees had never sought national office before. Democrats like novelty; they venerate youth. And here, as David Frum points out, Mrs. Clinton has a problem. She’s 14 years older than Obama; neither party has gone with a nominee that much older than his or her predecessor. Turning 69 in 2016, she’ll be 24 years older than was her husband at the time of his acceptance speech in the summer of 1992 – seeking a Democratic nomination won only once, since 1972, by a candidate in his or her 60’s (John Kerry, age 60 in 2004). Presumably tanned, rested and ready by 2016, would Hillary be .  . . too old?

2)  Lean Left, Lean Right, Lean In? Presidential candidates succeed by finding their niche. Barack Obama neatly stepped into the disgruntled progressive void; Bill Clinton cloaked himself in centrism. The Hillary campaign of 2008 struggled as to where and how to position its candidate – as Democratic strategist Bob Shrum noted, making the fatal mistake of coming across, in a change election, as an establishment candidate “whose sell-by-date has passed”. How does Hillary avoid that? Perhaps she embraces “lean in” – the concept of women woefully underrepresented in leadership positions – and runs as the political answer to Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg. But that invites a very complicated discussion about Hillary Clinton as a role model. And that leads us to . . .

3) Buy One, Get One Free – Again? In 2016, as in 2008, the elephant in the room would be Bill Clinton. Does he overshadow his wife’s candidacy, as he did at times in the previous run (you might recall the former president whining about being the victim of racial politics)? Does his income from speaking gigs (here’s an example of how her husband’s finances came into play in 2008) remind voters of the Clintons’ pliant ethics? And there’s the complicated arrangement that is the Clintons’ marriage (which scholars are still trying to decipher).

4) Her Story Meets History. Let’s assume Hillary breezes past a weak Democratic field. As the party’s first woman nominee, she would be looking to achieve another historical first: a non-incumbent Democrat succeeding a Democratic administration. It didn’t work in 2000 and 1920, at the end of two-term Democratic presidencies. It didn’t work in 1968 or 1952 – the end of hybrid Democratic administrations. With the exception of the first Bush administration, the nation has swapped out partisan control of the White House every eight years, going back to 1980. Could Hillary reverse that pattern? That’s a tall order in what could turn in yet another change election.

Bottom line: baseball pennants aren’t won in April; presidential elections aren’t decided three years ahead of their actual vote.

Follow Bill Whalen on Twitter: @hooverwhalen

It’s also applies to a crowded field of 2016 Republican presidential ... continue reading]]> Tweet

Thanks to the NCAA basketball tournament, “March Madness” is now a household phrase.

It’s also applies to a crowded field of 2016 Republican presidential hopefuls. With two differences:

(1) 68 teams compete in the NCAA tourney; the Republican field right now may be larger;

(2) The basketball competition is over in less than a month, whereas the GOP’s winnowing process is a more prolonged mess.

Still, that doesn’t stop us from having a little fun with the idea of a 2016 primary competition, hoops bracket-style.

Here’s my list of 16 competitors, divided into two categories of contenders: eight possible candidates who make their living primarily inside the beltway; eight possible candidates from beyond the beltway.

(Author’s note: unlike the NCAA, I didn’t “seed” the field, ranking candidates from strongest to weakest. In this competition, the first round is all about similar/contrasting styles and good story lines.)

Your 2016 tournament (click to enlarge):

The Sweet Sixteen

Paul Ryan vs. Marco Rubio. We start with two heavyweights – and for a reason: if Ryan seeks the presidency, he presumably has first dibs on Mitt Romney’s campaign network. If Ryan doesn’t run, then the fundraising, policy and field operations are there for Rubio’s (and others’) taking. At the moment, Ryan’s focused on budget reform, not 2016 politicking. He sounds like a man more interested in staying in the House. Rubio’s talking immigration reform (among other issues) – in the process, coming across as more and more presidential.

Because of that, Rubio wins this matchup.

Rick Santorum vs. Newt Gingrich. Both left Congress; neither left the Washington fishbowl. If they run, they run the risk of overlapping as they did in 2012. To the extent Gingrich is campaigning these days, it’s on behalf of California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s goofy Citizenville book (as when Newt bonded with Nancy Pelosi over global warming, cue The Odd Couple theme). I can see Santorum camping out in Iowa again (and at least one top donor wants him to).  Is Gingrich anywhere as determined? Santorum wins this matchup.

Michele Bachmann vs. Rand Paul. The two libertarians see eye to eye on foreign aid and Washington dealmaking. Where they differ: career trajectory. Bachmann ran for president in 2012 and didn’t last past the first week in January. Paul could easily step in, come 2016, where his father left off in 2012 (the son’s already been branded “the rabbit” in the GOP field). Paul wins this matchup.

John Thune vs. Kelly Ayotte. Since it’s not really a tourney without a Cinderella story, here are two longshots. Thune has two pluses: all-American good looks; easy access to Iowa from his home base of South Dakota. As for Ayotte, John McCain and Lindsey Graham’s “third amigo”, she’s the junior senator from New Hampshire. Need we say more? Because Hillary Clinton and gender politics loom on the horizon, the opportunities will continue to arise for Ayotte to step up for the party, as she’s been doing since the last election.  Ayotte wins this matchup.

Ben Carson vs. Sarah Palin. No one ever mistook Palin for a brain surgeon. Until his feisty appearances at the National Prayer Breakfast and CPAC, no one would have mistaken Carson, a neurosurgeon, for Palin. But that’s what he is at the moment: like the self-proclaimed “hockey mom” in 2008, the GOP’s newest plain-talkin’ star. Again, trajectories: Carson is leaving his medical post at Johns Hopkins, thus freeing him up for political dabbling; Palin’s doing prop comedy and pondering her next move. Winner: Carson.

Bobby Jindal vs. Scott Walker. Two governors who, if they run, are certain to offer their states as the Republican ideal. For Walker, it’s doing battle with public-sector unions. Jindal: eliminating his state’s income tax. This is a pick-‘em choice – one where Jindal has a slight advantage: he’s the chairman of the Republicans Governors Association, which gives him free rein to tour the country next year; Walkers’ the RGA vice chair. Winner: Jindal.

Jeb Bush vs. Bob McDonnell.  Two former governors, each with some serious work ahead with regard to skeptical party activists. For Bush, it’s the family name. For McDonnell, its raising taxes while governor of Virginia (though he did restore Scooter Libby’s civil rights). Winner: Bush.

Chris Christie vs. Mike Pence. Why this matchup? Because Pence, the newly elected governor of Indiana (“I’m a Christian, a conservative, a Republican in that order”) would be the anti-Christie in the race, taking social issues straight to Iowa (in 2011, he was the surprise winner of the Values Voter Summit straw poll). Christie is up for re-election this fall. That gives him the better part of two years to figure where and how to make his debut in the elimination derby, while at the same time amassing an enormous war chest that will come in handy if the selection process is more compressed and more nationalized. Winner: Christie.

The Elite Eight:

Rubio vs. Santorum. Electability is the dominant issue. Rubio’s seen as the party’s “new face”; Santorum had to deal with this question – is he too polarizing to win a national contest? – time . . . and . . . again in 2012. Winner: Rubio.

Paul vs. Ayotte. His father’s presidential run didn’t live up to expectations, leaving Paulistas to spin that it was all about the movement, not the campaign. His recent filibuster suggests the son might have a political sophistication the father didn’t. Winner: Paul.

Carson vs. Jindal. Name the last candidate with a record of cutting eliminating taxes. Name the last presidential nominee of either major party never to have held an elected office. While you’re thinking, we’ll move on. Winner: Jindal.

Bush vs. Christie. How many of the old guard (the five previous Bush presidential runs, 1980-2004) will jump on board the Christie bandwagon? Winner Christie.

The Final Four:

Rubio vs. Paul. The last guy to support Paul might his Blue Grass colleague, Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The two are “frenemies”, at best. Rubio will try to keep one foot in each camp: GOP establishment and disaffected outsiders. They teach surfing in Florida, right? Winner: Rubio.

Jindal vs. Christie. Conservative orthodoxy born on the Bayou takes on the Jersey style of center and right, though it’s not always a friendly greeting from Asbury Park (check out these comments on teachers’ unions). Winner: Christie.

Finalists:

Rubio vs. Christie. We’d love to tell you the winner of this one, but where’s the fun in that? You’ll have to stay tuned until 2016.

One final note: NCAA brackets are about the known – the teams are already chosen; the matchups already set. That’s no so with presidential elections. We’ll have to wait to see how the field takes shape and where the path leads the candidates.

Early favorites? The University of Kentucky was ranked third in pre-season polls; the Wildcats didn’t make the tournament. Rudy Giuliani, Howard Dean, Gary Hart, Hillary Clinton? All frontrunners that didn’t last.

Anyone up for a little bracket-busting in 2016?

Follow Whalen on Twitter: @HooverWhalen

In a year in which Washington will be dominated by loose talk of federal largesse and limitations, congressional Republicans face an image challenge: how best ... continue reading]]> Tweet

In a year in which Washington will be dominated by loose talk of federal largesse and limitations, congressional Republicans face an image challenge: how best to argue the case for budgetary austerity without coming across as . . . well, too austere.

To answer that question, let’s turn to another contact sport – football – and the curious case of Manti Te’o, the former Notre Dame linebacker.

As recently as early January, Te’o was in a most enviable position as far as his professional stock stood. In addition to leading his team to an undefeated regular season and a spot in the national title game, the linebacker had endured an incredible tale of personal woe – the death of his grandmother, followed a day later by the passing of his leukemia-stricken girlfriend. Te’o not only played through his grief, but took his game to a higher level – so high that NFL scouts rated him a top-ten pick in next month’s draft. With the help of Notre Dame’s publicity machine, Te’o was the runner-up for the Heisman Trophy, a rarity for a defensive player.

And then it all came crashing down.

The girlfriend, whom the media had turned into this generation’s George Gipp, never really existed. The “relationship” was in fact an Internet hoax (“catfishing”, it’s called), forcing Te’o to answer a lot of awkward questions about his character and gullibility. Add the personal drama to his underwhelming performances on the field in the championship game and off the field at the draft combine, and Te’o is now projected as a mid-to-late first-round pick at best.

Here’s the tie to the Republicans’ plight in Washington. Te’o could have taken ownership of his image problem – say, doing a Super Bowl ad spoofing the “catfish” debacle. Instead, there was an uncomfortable interview with Katie Couric, followed by some edgy questions at the NFL’s draft combine about the football star’s sexuality. Instead of owning the controversy, the controversy owned the linebacker.

The concept of “ownership” isn’t something new to politics. Sarah Palin and Bob Dole did cameos on “Saturday Night Live” to show they could take a joke (curiously, perhaps tellingly, the two Clinton’s haven’t). More recently, there’s Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and his on-air water break. Rubio could have declared war on the media for turning one gulp of water into a sea of bad press. Instead, he cleverly turned with the skid – literally turning water in wine by selling water bottles online, the proceeds going to his political action committee.

Which leads us to this year’s budget wrangle.

Republicans are justified in feeling they won the sequester battle. President Obama and his administration looked foolish in cooking up hell scenarios of nonexistent pay cutsfor Capitol Hill janitors and pink slips for teachers, to say nothing of breaking the hearts of sixth-graders in Waverly, Iowa, by screwing up their Washington field trip.

Score this round to the GOP.

But that doesn’t mean Republicans are in a position to win the budget war.

First, there’s the question of how Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan will fare in yet another entitlements debate that, historically, has played to the Democrats’ advantage (think: “Mediscare” in the 2012 and 1996 election cycles).

Second, what happens when the painful spending cuts, unseen as the sequestration deadline passed, actually materialize? Will the public side with cut-happy Republicans, or the President and his party who most likely will play their safety-net victim card. Will Republicans stand their ground on budget cuts or start backpedaling – i.e., maintain ownership of fiscal conservatism or abandon the faith?

While at least one poll shows the public embracing the idea of a 5% sequester-like cut (but not so much the defense budget), Republican congressional approval was all of 12% in February, or about one-fourth Obama’s 46%. The good news: Obama’s below 50% for the first time in four months. The bad news: only one in eight voters naturally sides with the House and Senate GOP.

For Republicans, perhaps it’s time to raise the profile of a member of Congress who passionately studies the budget, goes to the trouble of weighing the merits if its endless line items, but gets limited play in most fiscal conversations: Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn.

Every fall, Coburn releases a “Wastebook” detailing 100 examples of federal waste, mismanagement and favors for special interests. Add his one-man war on earmark spending, and the physician-turned politician who swears he’ll stick to his term-limits pledge and not seek a third term in 2016 won’t win many popularity contests on Capitol Hill.

Which is what makes Coburn an attractive surrogate: he hates how Congress goes about its business, so does the public. Why not put the man ho has no taste for pork front and center?

This isn’t a new concept as far as Washington is concerned. From 1975-1987, Wisconsin Sen. William Proxmire issued monthly “Golden Fleece Awards” – citations for especially nonsensical federal spending. My favorite: the National Science Foundation spending $84,000 on a study on love, which prompted Proxmire to note:

“I object to this not only because no one – not even the National Science Foundation – can argue that falling in love is a science; not only because I’m sure that even if they spend $84 million or $84 billion they wouldn’t get an answer that anyone would believe. I’m also against it because I don’t want the answer. I believe that 200 million other Americans want to leave some things in life a mystery, and right on top of the things we don’t want to know is why a man falls in love with a woman and vice versa.”

Twenty-five years after the “Golden Fleece’s” retirement, advances in media and technology allow members of Congress to spread the word about wasteful spending in ways that Proxmire’s paper press releases couldn’t and didn’t achieve. There’s nothing stopping Republicans from daily – even hourly – citations of grill sergeants, “robos-quirrels” and cow burps found hidden inside department budgets. Add up the waste, calculate and translate in terms of keeping national parks open and White House tours operational. It’s another way for Republicans to educate Americans as to what taxpayers can live without.

A purist will note that these and other citations of profligate spending won’t balance the federal budget. And they’re right. But that’s not the point. In order to claim the high ground on fiscal policy, the GOP must embrace austerity, not steer away from it. That means steering the public toward recognition that not all spending cuts are cruel or uncalled for.

Follow Bill Whalen on Twitter: @hooverwhalen.

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

By historical standards, the current recovery from the recession that began in 2007 has been disappointing. This is part 3 of a three-part series with ... continue reading]]> Tweet

By historical standards, the current recovery from the recession that began in 2007 has been disappointing. This is part 3 of a three-part series with John Taylor of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and Department of Economics.

Taylor puts the recovery in historical perspective and explores possible explanations for why the recovery has been so mediocre.

In Part 1 of this discussion of the recovery, Taylor quantified how unusual this recovery is by historical standards. In Part 2, Taylor looked at a number of standard explanations for the sluggish recovery.

Here in part 3, Taylor argues that the slow pace of the recovery is due to poor policy decisions made by the Bush and Obama administrations that have increased the amount of uncertainty facing investors, consumers, and employers. Examples include the rising debt forecast, the fiscal cliff, expiring tax provisions, and quantitative easing. Taylor argues that the uncertainty surrounding these policies in the future along with increased regulation have held back the recovery.

Mitt Romney is a cautious politician by nature (some would say: more a technocrat ... continue reading]]> Tweet

I’ll admit: cynic that I am, I didn’t see this one coming.

Mitt Romney is a cautious politician by nature (some would say: more a technocrat than a politician). He didn’t lack for cautious (i.e., safe) vice-presidential picks. Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor would fall into that category (the second time Pawlenty has been a finalist for the ticket), as would Ohio Sen. Rob Portman.

What, then, prompted Romney to throw the long ball and go with Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan?

Romney, in making the announcement, praised his running mate’s intellect and ability to work across the aisle. Over at The National Review’s website, Robert Costa explains how Ryan fits the profile of a Romney Bain hire – young, smart, uber-confident, career-wise upwardly mobile.

My question: was Romney’s decision based on preference or necessity? In other words, is Ryan on the GOP ticket because Romney wanted him, or because he had to have him to stand a chance to fall?

Or, was it a matter of the two intersecting?

Look back at the four times an elected presidential incumbent has been given the heave-ho over the past century and you’ll find two common traits: personality and transformative ideas. Theodore Roosevelt (he didn’t win in 1912, but cost William Howard Taft the election), Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton all oozed charm and persona.

And each offered a dramatic departure.

In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt called for the prohibition of child labor, a minimum wage for women and (surprising for an environmentalist) developing Alaska’s natural resources.  In 1932, FDR veered sharply to the left with his New Deal (a phrase he borrowed). In 1980, Reagan made the same dramatic departure, this time to the right. Bill Clinton didn’t offer revolutionary thought in 1992 – his “transformation” was selling the American people on the concept of a grown-up Democratic Party (welfare reform, defense hawks).

Romney’s not going to win this election by virtue of a charm offensive. He needs a big idea in order to make the contest a choice between continuity and change. Ryan’s presence on the ticket – bringing with him a new focus on budget, Medicaid and entitlement reform – gives the Republicans the policy oomph they were lacking.

Some random thoughts on what else the pick means:

1)  The Map Just Shrunk. Had Romney chosen Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, we’d be talking about what it means to Hispanic voters in the Mountain West (Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico). With Ryan, we turn instead to the Upper Midwest (his native Wisconsin takes on added importance) and Florida (look for the Democrats to scare every gullible senior citizen living within a 50-mile radius of Boca Raton . . . how long before a reprise of the granny-over-the-cliff ad?). For Romney, this is where the election will be won or lost.

2)  Youth Appeal? Born just 29 days into the decade of the 1970s, the 42-year-old Ryan is, by definition, a Gen Xer. He also has a story (more ordinary than Romney) that his generation can relate to – lives with his wife and three kids in a riverfront city in southeastern Wisconsin, lost his father when he was just sixteen (fatal heart attack), is a bow-hunter, reportedly listens to Led Zeppelin and Rage Against the Machine, is addicted to P90X workouts, once drove the Wienermobile. Ryan’s candidacy tests the theory that younger voters are hungry for an adult message from a likeable messenger (here’s a lengthier profile of the man).

3)  Press Responsibility. Will the election actually become a serious debate of big ideas? That’s largely for the media to decide. The Obama campaign has deftly managed the election’s narrative by making mountains out of non-economic molehills like Romney’s tax returns. It’s a junk ball approach made easer by the media’s willingness to take the bait – the same media that lament candidates avoiding knotty problems like entitlement reform. If two months from now, the talk’s not about Medicaid reform but some Wisconsin couple claiming Ryan went on a bow-hunting spree in a petting zoo, then we’ll know the process is broken – with both politicos and reporters sharing the blame.

4)  Breaking New Ground. This is only the second time that a Catholic’s been on the GOP ticket (the other being William Miller, Barry Goldwater’s running mate in 1964). Not that Ryan was Romney’s only Catholic option: he could turned to Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez – not to mention Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. If he wins, Ryan will take the vice presidential oath just nine days before his 43^rd birthday – putting him in the same neighborhood as Dan Quayle (41 years, 351 days when he became veep), Richard Nixon (40 years, 11 days), Theodore Roosevelt (42 years, 128 days), John C. Calhoun (41 years, 351 days) and the esteemed Daniel D. Tompkins (42 years, 256 days).

By the way, that list of Republicans candidates waiting in the wings (and maybe rooting for Romney to lose) is a long as it is Catholics. As is the list of winners and losers as a result of Romney’s choice.

My two winners: the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, which argued Ryan’s case (as did The Weekly Standard). Those fans of democracy that think, with only 87 days remaining until the election, there are more pressing concerns than Bain Capital and horse dressage.

The two major parties choose their presidential candidates. But that doesn’t stop a slew of lesser-known third parties from ... continue reading]]> Tweet

We go through this every four years.

The two major parties choose their presidential candidates. But that doesn’t stop a slew of lesser-known third parties from trying to crash the big party, with a vow to dramatically reshape the political landscape.

And how does it turn out? Some underdogs actually make it on the ballot. Rarely does one make it to a presidential debate (Ross Perot, yes; Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, no), where 15% in the polls is the price of admission. A select few, historically, actually succeed in impacting the November election.

And the rest of the bit players?

“Alex, I’ll take “Forgotten Also-Rans” for $200, please . . .”

The 2012 election, it turns out, is more of the same (here’s a list of all third-party candidates who’ve toyed with the idea of running). It began with talk of a third-party outfit, Americans Elect, radically changing the process by holding a first-of-its-kind national online party. The group talked boldly of qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states, and even spent $35 million to get on the ballot in some 29 states.

The problem was: lots of bucks, but no Buck Rogers. Absent a quality candidate, the online movement fizzled earlier this year.

Write it down: here’s one of the worst prophecies of the 2012 election, courtesy of The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman from July of last year:

“Write it down: Americans Elect. What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life — remove the barriers to real competition, flatten the incumbents and let the people in.”

Uh-huh.

In this Olympic year, it’s worth remembering those third-party candidacies that medalled in electoral mischief. That would include:

• Gold Medal: Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party. TR raked in 27% of the vote and 88 electoral votes in 1912 (to just 8 electoral votes for the incumbent GOP President William Howard Taft), handing the election to Woodrow Wilson.
• Silver Medal: Perot, whose entry, withdrawal and subsequent re-entry to the 1992 election (he’d end up with 18.91% of the vote, but nada in the Electoral College) opened the door to a Democratic victory (Clinton, like Wilson getting 43% of the vote).
• Bronze Medal: A tie between George Wallace (carried 5 Deep South states in 1968 and threatened to push the contest into the U.S. House of Representatives) and Nader (nothing to show in the way of states or electoral votes, but his presence in New Hampshire and Florida may or may not have cost Al Gore the 2000 election).

In 2012, three third-party candidates bear watching – two, because there’s a remote chance of impacting the swing states; the third, simply because it’s hard to ignore a train wreck. And that would be the comedienne Roseanne Barr, who’s running on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket with the anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whom she met via filmmaker Michael Moore (Peace and Freedom being the party“socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism, and racial equality”).

No joke.

In this interview, the former sitcom star (and noted butcher of the national anthem) says America has been “bamboozled and hoodwinked” . . . government is “owned by bankers” . . .  “Americans have been bull—–ed into forgetting that war does not mean freedom . . . When I’m president, I’m gonna outlaw bull—.”

If elected, Barr says she’d cut defense spending, tax the rich and legalize marijuana.

Which takes us to the second third-partier worth watching: Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor and current Libertarian Party standard-bearer (party slogan: minimum government, maximum freedom”). Johnson, like Roseanne, favors marijuana legalization – which, of course, has branded his campaign as having gone to pot.

That said, Johnson’s candidacy is more than smoke and mirrors. In a close election, the Libertarian presence could cause mischief in the swing states. Take Colorado, for example. A recent survey by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling gives the state to President Obama, 49%-43%. But add Johnson to the mix (he gets 7%, according to PPP) and the President’s lead over Mitt Romney shrinks to 46%-42% – again, the wild-card nature of the Libertarian vote in that there’s no certain rule as to which major majority suffers more.

Of course, Romney could lose Colorado and still win the election. That’s far less likely if he comes up short in Virginia (most Romney victory scenarios begin with the GOP nominee recapturing Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia), another state where third-party influence could come into play.

The problem for Romney in the Old Dominion: Virgil Goode, the former Virginia congressman currently headlining the decidedly conservative Constitution Party ticket. That is, if Goode gets on the ballot: he needs 10,000 signatures by August 24 to qualify for the Virginia ballot (he aims to hand in 20,000). And, if he can survive an investigation into “suspected petition fraud.”

Goode and the Constitution Party are already on the ballot in 17 states. But it’s the potential of that 18^thstate – Virginia – that has both the Romney and Obama worrying (potentially, he could pick off both steadfast conservatives who’d vote for Romney, as well as lifelong Democrats who normally would tow the party line but like Goode from his twelve years in Congress).

In other words, it’s no laughing matter – unless you’re thinking about Roseanne Barr.

This ... continue reading]]> Tweet

To the question: why would Mitt Romney decide to visit Israel, of all places, a nation with zero electoral votes (ok, a few expatriate voters)?

This answer: (a) because he can – and President Obama hasn’t since taking office; (b) it makes for good campaign optics; (c) it makes scads of political sense.

Allow me to explain . . .

1)  Thank you, Al Gore or whoever invented the Internet, for making it possible to find out post-haste that Barack Obama has made 24 presidential trips to 46 countries, none of them to Israel, since becoming America’s 44^th President. The commander-in-chief some conservatives mock as “Chosen One” has been in the neighborhood – Egypt, Iraq, Turkey and Saudi Arabia – but he’s yet to spend quality time with the “chosen people.” Watch for Romney, during his pledge to “do the opposite” on Israel, to promise a first-term return to the Promised Land.

2)  Consider the visuals of an Israel mission. Romney’s seen coming off a plane, meeting with the head of a foreign government, talking international security. In a word, it’s presidential. Challengers struggle with this in national elections – the optics of competing with an incumbent president seen deplaning from Air Force One and speaking to large, adoring crowds. It’s one reason why Obama did his swing through Israel and Germany (remember the Berlin speech?) in 2008 – a chance not only to sound like he belonged in the international big league, but to look Kennedyesque, even Reaganesque. The wild card: if Romney decides to take in the London Olympics, where Ann Romney’s horse is competing. Republicans will say why not – he ran the 2000 Winter Games in Utah. Democrats will point to the calendar. But again, it’s what heads of state do.

3)  Finally, the payoff back home. Two stories that won’t go away this fall: Obama’s struggle with the Jewish vote (at present, not what it was in 2008); Romney’s struggle with the evangelical vote (still a work in progress). What those two blocs have in common: passionate support for Israel. And it ties into an interesting theory: whereas Romney can make inroads with Obama-loathing evangelicals despite his faith, Jewish voters might turn out to be unusually sympathetic toward a Mormon candidate.

When trying to make sense of the 2012 election, it helps to look at the numbers. And the numbers on display in Ohio and Florida offer yet another clue as to why Romney’s making the journey overseas.

Let’s start with Ohio.

In 2008, John McCain lost the Buckeye State by 200,000 votes. The story here: Republican underperformance. Barack Obama received 2.708 million votes, which turned out to be about 32,500 fewer votes than Democrat John Kerry’s take in 2004. The problem for Republicans: McCain’s 2.501 million Ohio votes were roughly 358,000 less than what George W. Bush earned four years earlier. In order for Romney to turn Ohio from blue to red, he has to reassemble the Bush coalition. And that means turning out evangelicals in larger numbers than McCain failed to do in 2008.

As for Florida, Republican turnout wasn’t the story in 2008. McCain’s 3.939 million votes in the Sunshine State were only 25,000 fewer than Bush’s 2004 haul. Small potatoes. The problem for Republicans: the Obama surge (the same bow-wave that put the Democrats over the top in North Carolina, Virginia and Indiana). Obama’s 4.143 million votes in Florida bettered Kerry by 640,000. So Romney returning to a Bush-level performance isn’t enough; he has to chip away at Obama’s numbers. Skeptical independents will help, as will mobilizing evangelicals. But Romney has to chip into Obama’s 2008 base, which is where the state’s Jewish vote comes into play (Florida Jewish-Americans accounting for only 3% of the state’s population, but a higher portion of the November vote thanks to a 95% turnout rate).

As with the Hispanic vote, the goal isn’t to carry the bloc (William Howard Taft being the last Republican to carry the Jewish vote, 104 years ago; and Democrats getting at least 70% of the Jewish vote in 15 of the last 21 national elections).

Instead, the aim would be to play to a “draw” – more accurately, an acceptable minority. For argument’s sake, let’s say the same 35% that the Romney camp would take from Hispanic voters in a heartbeat.

Such a shift, in and of itself, isn’t enough to deliver Florida to Romney.

Then again, have we forgotten what happened there in 2000?

Or so it seems.

Whoever said that April is the cruelest month (actually, it was T.S. Eliot) never set foot in ... continue reading]]> Tweet

Finally, Barack Obama catches a break.

Or so it seems.

Whoever said that April is the cruelest month (actually, it was T.S. Eliot) never set foot in this White House. In the past 30 days, the Obama Administration has been hit with a gawdawful May jobs report, Big Labor’s failure to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Attorney General Eric Holder fast and furiously becoming a political liability/lightning rod.

Once a candidate of enthusiastic hope, the Obama of the summer of 2012 is a downer of an incumbent – capable even of riling Red Sox fans in Democratic Beantown.

And then the Supreme Court verdict upheld his landmark healthcare reform law. So much for Bad Luck Barack (for June, at least).

Moreover, it gets at something that’s been nagging the President’s liberal base for three years running. In their eyes, Obama hasn’t been the real-life embodiment of the fictional President Bartlet or Shepard – do-gooding chief executives willing to buck the political system and stand up to icky conservatives.

Obama still may not to live up to the stuff of Aaron Sorkin’s fantasies, but he can still talk up an idea that’s a long-held Democratic ideal – mandated healthcare being both a liberal dream and a conservative nightmare.

Some thoughts about said ruling:

1)  Be Thankful for What You Wish for. The ruling’s a win for Obama, for all the reasons listed above. It re-energizes the base and it’s grist for his fundraising mill (just as Republicans already have done and will continue to do). Conveniently, the ruling occurred right as the Obama money machine needed a boost. And it reinforces the presidential stump message about the people (the uninsured) versus the powerful (insurers). Absent that ruling, Obama would have been reduced to something along the lines of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s missive: “everyone is against me except the voter” (Roosevelt, like Obama, seeking re-election in 1936 amidst a terrible economy, Republicans nipping at his heels, and the Supreme Court chipping away at his New Deal agenda). The great political Walter Lippmann once said of FDR: “He is a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be president.”  Sound familiar?

2)  Beware of What You Wish for. It didn’t take long for conservatives to voice their displeasure with the ruling. For a Republican nominee who’s relationship with the right is a little complicated, it means Mitt Romney will get louder applause when he vows to repeal Obamacare. And maybe more votes come November, if conservative grassroots organizations link the ruling both to taxation and another lesser-discussed aspect of this election: the likelihood of the winner transforming the Supreme Court by choosing one or more new justices. If a single issue can draw and first-time and otherwise tepid voters to the polls on Romney’s behalf, the consequences can be enormous. Just ask Ohioans who voted on same-sex marriage in the 2004 presidential election.

3)  Beware of Republicans Misplaying Their Hand. “Repeal” is now the GOP’s favorite six-letter word, what with that other six-letter word – Romney – pledging to undo the now-upheld law on day one in the Oval Office and Speaker Boehner promising a repeal vote the week of July 9. That may seem like a winning hand, what with a majority of Americans long opposed to Obamacare. But it comes with the risk of Republicans falling into a trap. The President, on the campaign trail, deliberately cherry-picks the more popular aspects of his law – allowing existing pre-conditions, folding coverage for twenty-something children into their parents’ policies. Here’s what he gets: Obamacare is toxic brand (according to at least one poll, more Americans wanted the law rejected than upheld), but Americans are open to the health reform in other guises – creating insurance pools, subsidizing the less fortunate, and so forth. Since no one asked, might I suggest that Republicans modify their message to something more positive: “repeal . . . and replace” with an alternative GOP vision that shows it’s more than a “a party of no”.

4)  It’s (Still) the Economy, Stupid. On the same morning that the Supreme Court delivered its ruling, the Commerce Department reported America’s economy expanding at a 1.9% annual rate in the first three months of the year – too weak to lower the jobless rate. Meanwhile, the Dow was down triple digits, Fed officials said get used to the present economic rut, Germany was talking slowdown, Syria’s a multidimensional mess, and Greece . . . well, it’s become a nation of grape expectations. This is the big picture in the 2012 election: bad economy, troubled world stage – and lots of talk ahead about GDP, quantitative easing and the chronically unemployed. To the extent that Obama or Romney prevails this November, it’s because one of the two did a better job of easing the electorate’s concerns over those mega-trends. And at this moment, the electorate is shopping for that assurance.

This much we do know: this coming Monday marks the 14-month anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of Navy commandos. The bounce the President received from that accomplishment – the one that supposedly locked up his re-election? It lasted all of a month. Then it was back to politics as usual.

The guess here: Obama – and his law – will get a similar month’s bounce. Voters like winners, and this Supreme Court ruling is the strongest affirmation of Obamacare since Nancy Pelosi declared: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it . . . away from the fog of controversy.”

And after that? Back to the economy and a malady Obamacare won’t cure: this chronic recession.