What will we carry into 2017? -- Dec. 29, 2016 column

By MARSHA MERCER

In the classic short story “The Things They Carried,” Tim O’Brien writes about the weight of the things foot soldiers carried in Vietnam.  

These necessities and near necessities were as practical as mosquito repellent, as powerful as anti-personnel mines and as personal as memories.

Rereading the title story in the terrific book published more than 25 years ago, I started thinking about the New Year, what I want to carry into it and what I hope we can leave behind.

In the latter category is the 2016 presidential election. Yes, it was a shock, but we need to let it go. Unfortunately, talking heads aren’t alone in prolonging the agony.

President Barack Obama said this week he could have won the general election had he been able to run again. That’s the kind of wishful thinking Democrats should leave behind with 2016 – and not because the statement is untrue.

It’s unknowable, of course, which makes great fodder for late-night dorm sessions but not productive thought for the rest of us. 

Obama is still the “most admired” man in America, Gallup reports, and nobody worked harder on Hillary Clinton’s behalf than he and first lady Michelle Obama did, in large part because Obama’s legacy was on the line.

But the president’s confident assertion that his message of tolerance, openness, diversity and energy would have mobilized voters and defeated Donald Trump was a self-serving punch in the gut to Clinton and her supporters.

Naturally, though, it was Trump, not Clinton, who reacted.

“NO WAY!” would Obama have won, Trump tweeted. He returned to Obama’s remark in later tweets the way a tongue explores a sore tooth.

Obama, in the podcast interview with his old friend David Axelrod, also said Clinton was too cautious during the campaign because she thought she was winning, but she “performed wonderfully under really tough circumstances.” He blamed the news media for a double standard in reporting negative news about Clinton.

Basically, he did everything but say she pitched great for a girl.

It’s time to stop beating up on Clinton, stop second-guessing her campaign decisions and why she never matched her husband on the stump.

I’d also like to see politicians stop blaming the news media when things don’t go their way, but that’s not happening.

What-ifs keep us focused on the past when we need to be clear-eyed about the policies and ethics of the incoming administration. And there’s plenty for Democrats to do to prepare for the next congressional election. In 2018, Democrats have to defend 10 Senate seats in states Trump carried.

Trump won the White House, if not the popular vote, with promises to roll back the clock at least to pre-Obama days, maybe earlier. No wonder he wants the Rockettes at his inauguration. They performed at George W. Bush’s in 2005 and 2009.

One thing I’d like to see left behind with 2016 is Trump’s tweets. Complicated policies can’t be resolved in 140 characters.

But, says Sean Spicer, incoming White House press secretary and communications director, tweeting is “a really exciting part of the job.”

Trump has a combined total of 39 million followers on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, and that, “allows him to add an element of a conversation that’s never occurred,” Spicer, a Rhode Island native, told a radio station in his home state.

Will Obama tweet? We’ll see. He plans to write another book, speak out when he sees Trump heading in the wrong direction and help develop the next generation of Democratic leaders.

One notion we can leave behind is that the Obamas will strew rose petals in Trump’s path to the White House. No big surprise there since Obama during the campaign called Trump “unfit to serve” and “woefully unprepared” for the job.

It was unrealistic to expect Obama, who sees Trump eager to dismantle everything Obama has done, to be as gracious as George W. and Laura Bush on their way out.

It’s been a tough year, and there aren’t many things I want to carry into 2017. Here’s one: “When they go low, we go high.”

More slogan than reality in 2016, “when they go low, we go high” is a worthy goal for the New Year.

30

Pandering to religion, Trump style -- June 23, 2016 column

By MARSHA MERCER

Before the 2012 election, businessman Donald J. Trump made wild, false accusations that President Barack Obama was a Muslim and not a citizen.

So it’s hardly a surprise that candidate Trump questioned Hillary Clinton’s religious faith.

“We don’t know anything about Hillary in terms of religion,” Trump told evangelical leaders Tuesday. “She’s been in the public eye for years and years and yet there’s no – there’s nothing out there.”

That’s ridiculous. Clinton, a church-goer, doesn’t wear her faith on her sleeve, but she does talk about it.  

In January, when a voter in Iowa asked Clinton about her faith, she began a lengthy response with, “I am a person of faith. I am a Christian. I am a Methodist. I have been raised Methodist. I feel very grateful for the instructions and support I received, starting in my family but through my church…”

Courting evangelical leaders, Trump followed his slam on Clinton with a pander. He promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who oppose abortion. In a Trump administration, he said, department store clerks will say “Merry Christmas” again. And he will end the ban on political campaigning by tax-exempt churches.

“I think maybe that will be my greatest contribution to Christianity – and other religions – is to allow you, when you talk religious liberty, to go and speak openly, and if you like somebody or want somebody to represent you, you should have the right to do it,” he said.

Trump, who also wants to change the libel laws so he can sue news outlets, either doesn’t understand the Constitution or has little regard for it.

The ban against politicking applies to any tax-exempt charity -- secular nonprofits as well as houses of worship.

Religious leaders can and do endorse candidates – just not from the pulpit. They also can support ballot measures and take stands for or against issues. They can run non-partisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives.

Since Thomas Jefferson wrote approvingly on Jan. 1, 1802, that the First Amendment had built “a wall of separation between church and state,” Americans have been arguing over religion and government.

Conservatives have railed against the politicking ban for decades, claiming that it limits pastors’ free speech. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has made repeal his pet issue, but his attempts have gone nowhere.

We have Lyndon B. Johnson to thank -- or blame -- for the ban. In 1954, the senator from Texas introduced the ban in an amendment to the IRS Code. The measure was so uncontroversial it passed by unanimous consent, reflecting agreement that tax-exempt groups should not be overtly partisan.

While historians disagree about Johnson’s motives, it seems clear he wanted to stop groups – not churches – that were critical of him as he ran for re-election from sending campaign materials to voters.  

Congress has strengthened the ban over time. To qualify for 501(c)3 tax-exempt status, a church or charity may not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

Despite what Trump says, the ban has not stopped religious leaders from speaking up about their candidates of choice. Several ministers have endorsed Clinton.

Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr., son of the late televangelist, endorsed Trump last January. But the nonprofit university, which calls itself the largest Christian university in the world, does not endorse candidates, Falwell says.

The IRS rarely has revoked a church’s tax-exempt status, but it did after Church at Pierce Creek in upstate New York took out full-page ads in USA Today and The Washington Times four days before the 1992 election.

“Christians Beware. Do not put the economy before the Ten Commandments,” read the headline. The ad urged people not to vote for Bill Clinton and solicited tax-deductible donations to pay for the ad. A federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling backing the IRS.

There’s a simple solution for churches and other tax-exempt groups that want to electioneer, and it has nothing to do with Trump. They can give up their tax- exempt status.

©2016 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30

The state of our union is . . . political -- Jan. 7, 2016 column

By MARSHA MERCER

The state of our union is strong -- unless it’s getting stronger or is the strongest ever.

Presidents from Ronald Reagan through Barack Obama have used “strong” in their State of the Union addresses to summarize the country’s current state.

It wasn’t always so simple.

On Jan. 14, 1963, President John F. Kennedy packed 66words into one sentence to assess the state of America: “And today, having witnessed in recent months a heightened respect for our national purpose and power – having seen the courageous calm of a united people in a perilous hour and having observed a steady improvement in the opportunities and well-being of our citizens – I can report to you that the state of this old but youthful Union, in the 175th year of its life, is good.”

Ah, the pre-Twitter, pre-Trump, pre-sound bite era, when reasons and context mattered and we had respect for “our national purpose.”

On Tuesday night, President Obama will give his final State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress. I wish he’d take a look at Democrats and Republicans, as well as at himself, and state the obvious, “My fellow Americans, in 2016 the state of our union is . . . political.”

An election year is always political, but we’ve become resigned to deferring substantive policy moves until the next president for most of a president’s second term. The State of the Union address should be a time for the president, even one on his way out, to seek common ground and work for the public good.

Instead, political calculations rule.

Obama’s address is earlier than usual because of the primary calendar. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, the GOP’s vice presidential nominee four years ago, will be seated with Vice President Joe Biden on the dais behind the president. Ryan has already announced his goals for 2016.

“We have to have a conservative in the White House,” Ryan told Fox’s Sean Hannity Tuesday night. “We want a mandate election.”

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley will give the Republican response. Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rebranded the response as the “Republican Address,” an attempt to put it on a par with the president’s remarks.

And perhaps to launch Haley into her next political phase. Haley, 43, the daughter of Indian immigrants and the nation’s youngest governor, is on the short list of potential GOP running mates.

The opposition party always picks a rising star for the response, although it’s no guarantee of greatness. In 2010, then-Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell gave the GOP response. He was later convicted on corruption charges involving gifts from a political supporter, and is appealing.

When then-Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine gave the 2006 response to George W. Bush, Kaine was thought a likely Democratic VP pick. That hasn’t happened, although Kaine did make it to the U.S. Senate.

In 2007, then-Sen. James Webb, Democrat of Virginia, responded to Bush. Webb quit the Senate after one term. His 2016 bid for the White House fizzled last year.

Speaker Ryan started the year by sending Obama a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s signature achievement, reverse the expansion of Medicaid and defund Planned Parenthood.

The bill wasn’t about changing health policy; a veto was assumed. It was about how quickly a future Republican president could scrap Obamacare.

“The best way to win the election is to give people a choice,” Ryan said.

Obama also wants to show voters their political choice. He will deliver a nontraditional address with no long list of legislative priorities for the coming year, although there will be some, the White House says. Instead, he will talk about his and Democrats’ vision for the country.

Defying lame duck status, Obama rolled out modest efforts to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.

Obama expects little except opposition from the GOP-controlled Congress, but his year ahead looks like a cakewalk compared with what Bill Clinton faced in 1999.

In the midst of impeachment proceedings in the Senate, Clinton delivered a State of the Union address that lasted 77 minutes and never mentioned impeachment.

“The state of our union is strong,” Clinton said.

A year later, having weathered scandal and impeachment, Clinton declared in his final State of the Union, “My fellow Americans, the state of our union is the strongest it has ever been.”

May we survive politics in 2016 and be so lucky next year.

(C)2016 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

How 'bout those girls? Daughter power in the White House -- Oct. 29, 2015 column

By MARSHA MERCER

Since Jimmy Carter was mocked for quoting his 13-year-old daughter Amy on nuclear proliferation, presidents have been careful about citing their daughters’ views on issues.

In a debate with Ronald Reagan a week before the 1980 election, President Carter said he’d asked Amy what was the most important issue, and, “She said she thought nuclear weaponry and the control of nuclear arms.”

Carter intended to use the conversation to personalize the nuke threat and show that it affects all ages, but most commentators hooted. He lost his re-election bid and there was not another daughter in the White House until Chelsea Clinton moved in with her parents in 1993.

Every election since 1992, though, voters have chosen a president with daughters, and the girls influence the dad-in-chief.

“I’ve got two daughters – I care about making sure these streets are safe,” President Barack Obama said Tuesday in Chicago as he called for tougher gun control measures.

When his daughter Malia suffered asthma as a 4-year-old, the experience influenced his views about the environment as well as health insurance, Obama has said. Because the family had good health insurance, “we were able to knock (the asthma) out early.” 

Obama has made climate change and health insurance priorities of his presidency.

Malia is now 17 and Sasha, 14. Dinner table conversations helped change his mind to support same-sex marriage, he said. The girls have friends whose parents are same-sex couples and they could not understand why those parents should be treated differently.

“It doesn’t make sense to them, and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective,” Obama said in a 2012 interview with ABC News.

The White House isn’t the only place where daughters’ opinions count. Academic research is mounting that daughters affect decisions in corporate boardrooms, courtrooms and in Congress.

Companies run by chief executives who have daughters have stronger corporate social responsibility ratings and spend more of their net income on corporate social responsibility than do companies whose CEOs have sons, the November issue of Harvard Business Review reports. 

For example, companies led by CEOs with daughters do more about and spend more on workforce diversity, employee relations and environmental stewardship, Henrik Cronqvist of the University of Miami and Frank Yu of China Europe International Business School found.

An earlier study found that when a member of Congress has a daughter, the representative is more likely to vote liberally, particularly on reproductive rights.

“Such a voting pattern does not seem to be explained away by constituency preferences, suggesting that not only does parenting affect preferences, but also that personal preferences affect legislative behavior,” Yale economist Ebonya Washington wrote in a 2007 paper.

After her landmark work, researchers studied the “daughters effect” on federal appeals court judges.

“Judges with daughters consistently vote in a more feminist fashion on gender issues than judges who have only sons,” Adam N. Glynn of Emory University and Maya Sen of Harvard University, wrote in an article published in January in American Journal of Political Science. Male Republican judges seem to be driving the trend, they said.

None of the studies looked closely at whether the gender of the CEO, judge or member of Congress matters more than that of his or her children, although researchers suspect it does.

After 22 years with First Daughters, voters next November will decide whether to extend or end girls’ long run in the White House.

Among the 2016 Republican presidential contenders, Donald Trump has two daughters and three sons ranging in age from 37 to 9. Marco Rubio has two daughters and two sons, while John Kasich has twin daughters,and Ted Cruz has two little girls.

Ben Carson has sons, and Jeb Bush has two sons and a daughter, all of them grown.

Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton’s daughter has a daughter, while Martin O’Malley has two daughters and two sons. Bernie Sanders has a grown son.

In 2012, you may recall, voters rejected Republican Mitt Romney, who has five sons and no daughters. Coincidence, you say? Sure.  But presidential candidates with daughters do have a good track record.

You likely won’t hear any of the candidates quoting their teenage daughters on nuclear arms this campaign season, but watch for the effect of daughter power if a candidate with girls is elected.

© 2015 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

NOTE: An earlier version said Jeb Bush had only sons. This has been corrected to include a daughter. 

30

`The Martian' reminds that we're stuck on Earth -- Oct. 15, 2015 column

By MARSHA MERCER

To escape our earthly troubles, Americans are going to the movies to see plucky fictional astronaut Mark Watney, played by Matt Damon, struggle with problems that are, well, out of this world.

A box office bonanza for all the right reasons, “The Martian” is an entertaining adventure film that’s funny and thought-provoking.  No matter how bad our days are, we’ve never been left for dead by our colleagues on a hostile planet millions of miles from Earth. 

To set the stage: Watney gets stranded when a storm prompts the crew to make an emergency departure for Earth. He’s the only human and the only living creature on the entire planet. His supply of astronaut food will last only a couple of months, but a rescue, if it comes at all, will take years. To survive, he needs air, water and food in a barren world – and therein lies a tale.

The story is futuristic science fiction, but the movie bathes us in 1950s’ sensibilities. Wearing our 3D glasses, we bask in the glow of pride for Watney’s relentless determination and can-do spirit. He never falls into self-pity or depression.

“I’m going to have to science the (bleep) out of this,” he says cheerfully, in one of the movie’s most-quoted lines.  

With so much going wrong, just about the only thing he complains about is the disco music the mission’s commander left behind.  Oh, and when he runs out of ketchup. What a great American.

  

“The Martian” sends the message that smart is cool. Working hard is cool. Never giving up is not only cool but a matter of life and death. When was a botanist a cinematic hero -- or growing potatoes a major feat?

As we root for Watney and his ingenuity, we admire the dedication of his fellow crew members and NASA’s tireless staff. The country and the world rally around him. In the movie version of America, people work together, united in a cause greater than themselves. Even China wants to be helpful.

The real-life story of the novel on which the movie is based could itself be a movie. Software engineer Andy Weir wrote “The Martian” as a serial in 2009, posting the novel chapter by chapter on his blog. Readers asked for the book in one piece, and he put it on Amazon for 99 cents. It became a cult classic, Random House approached and “The Martian” hit the bestseller lists. Hollywood came calling. Fairy tales can come true.

Reports of salty water on Mars stir our imaginations, and “The Martian” could help NASA gin up support for a Mars mission in an era of flat budgets. When we sent a man to the moon in the 1960s, NASA’s budget peaked at 4.5 percent of federal spending; it’s less than half of 1 percent now.

Without more money, the Mars mission is grounded. The Obama administration is working on a Space Launch System and Orion manned crew vehicle, but NASA’s latest “Journey to Mars” report released Oct. 8 contained no budget, schedule or deadlines.

“It’s just some real pretty photographs and some nice words,” complained Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Tex., chairman of the House Science Committee at a hearing. “A journey to nowhere,” he said.

  

While there is bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for deep-space exploration, presidents come with different visions. President George W. Bush called for a lunar mission by 2020 leading to a trip to Mars. Barack Obama dropped the moon mission when it fell behind schedule in favor of an asteroid mission first, pushing back a crewed mission to orbit Mars to the mid-2030s.

In 1962, at the dawn of the Space Age, President John F. Kennedy said: “We choose to go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone.”

The atmosphere in Washington is too political and too toxic to expect much of anything soon. But the next president should galvanize the public and Congress behind the robust goal of a crewed mission to Mars with a date, budget and deadlines.

The space program has been a technological and emotional boon for generations of Americans and can be again. 

We need the shared national purpose and pride of reaching for the stars in real life – and not just at the movies.

 (C) Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30

Wrong song: Correct the Angelou stamp -- April 9, 2015 column

By MARSHA MERCER

In 2011, poet Maya Angelou insisted that a paraphrase of a quotation by Martin Luther King Jr. be removed from his memorial in Washington because it made him “look like an arrogant twit.”

Told that King’s actual quote was too long for the space on the granite edifice, Angelou replied, “Too bad.”

The National Park Service ultimately agreed the paraphrase had to go. The sculptor chiseled it off in 2013.

Angelou isn’t here to say how she feels about the quotation on her new commemorative stamp -- she died last May at 86 – but we can imagine that she would want her own words on the stamp in her honor.

Her fans should do more than complain about poor fact-checking at the post office. They should demand that the U.S. Postal Service issue a replacement stamp.

The beloved author left many original, quotable lines. “A bird doesn’t sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song” is not one of them.

“That’s my quote,” author Joan Walsh Anglund told The Washington Post.

Only the pronoun – originally “he” -- and punctuation were changed from the line Anglund wrote in “A Cup of Sun,” a book of poems published in 1967. That was two years before Angelou’s acclaimed autobiography “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” was published.

Angelou used the line frequently over the years in media interviews and appearances, apparently never attributing it to Anglund. The line became so associated with Angelou that last year in a White House ceremony President Barack Obama quoted it as hers.

That something as old-fashioned as a stamp (who sends letters anymore?) would be swamped by the ocean of misinformation online should be lesson to all of us. Multiple hits on Google does not a fact make.

Anglund, 89, had been unaware that Angelou had appropriated her words -- but was gracious about it.

 “I think it easily happens sometimes that people hear something, and it’s kind of going into your subconscious and you don’t realize it,” she told the Post’s Lonnae O’Neal.

Anglund is nowhere nearly as well known as Angelou, but she has published more than 95 titles and sold 45 million copies of her children’s and adult gift books, according to her biography on Amazon. She said she loves Angelou’s work and hopes the stamp is a success.

The postal service issued the Angelou limited-edition “Forever” stamp Tuesday in an unveiling ceremony attended by first lady Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey.

“Had we known about this issue beforehand, we would have used one of [Angelou’s] many other works,” a USPS spokesman wrote the Post in an email.

Naturally, people jumped on the postal service, asking variations of the question:  Don’t they have fact-checkers? Well, yes, they do. But the checkers evidently assumed from Angelou’s frequent use of the line and its repeats across the Internet that she wrote it.     

“We found the phrase was widely attributed to Angelou in many mediums and by some dignitaries and we were not aware of Ms. Anglund’s 1967 book,” the spokesman said.

A writing professor at Emerson College in Boston who is a former editor at the Post was aware of Anglund’s book and the quote. Jabari Asim, author of six books for children and four for adults, keeps a notebook of quotes he likes – and their sources.

Asim had noticed the Anglund quote was being attributed to Angelou on the Internet but was unconcerned until the postal service announced the stamp. He found the quote in his notebook.

The misquote may make the postal service, and not Angelou, look like a twit. But it tarnishes the honor of having the portrait of the renowned poet on a stamp.

It sends the wrong message to millions of young people who need to know that proper attribution matters, the Internet can be a highly unreliable source and it’s never too late to correct your mistakes.

A stamp isn’t granite, and it need not be forever wrong. The postal service should quickly correct and reissue the stamp, with one of Angelou’s original phrases.   

© 2015 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30

Catching up on news you may have missed -- March 12, 2015 column

By MARSHA MERCER

You know about Hillary Clinton’s private emails and about the infamous letter signed by 47 Senate Republicans aimed at torpedoing an international deal on Iran’s nuclear program.

But did you know the federal government is about to make many of us envy a fourth grader?

That’s one of the lesser news items you may have missed the last few weeks as news outlets obsessed over weightier topics and scandals du jour.

Here are three recent developments that won’t change the fate of the world or even the 2016 presidential election but may – just may -- improve Americans’ quality of life:

1) About those fourth graders: Starting this fall, the federal government will give every fourth grader and their families a pass for free admission to all of America’s national parks and public lands for a full year.

“We want every fourth grader to have the experience of getting out and discovering America. We want them to see the outside of a classroom,” President Barack Obama said in Chicago last month when he announced his “Every Kid in a Park” initiative.

“Put down that smart phone for a second. Put away the video games. Breathe some fresh air,” the dad in chief counseled.  A 2010 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that young people devote an average of more than seven hours a day to electronic media use, or about 53 hours a week, he said. That’s more than a full time job.

Besides the addictive appeal of electronic devices, there are practical reasons why kids don’t spend more time in nature. About 80 percent of families live in urban areas where it’s not easy to spend time outdoors safely; many schools have dropped field trips to save money.

An annual pass to the nation’s parks and public lands usually costs $80, and children under 16 are always free. Giving kids themselves the passes, though, may help create a lifetime connection to nature. But first, they have to get there.

Needy families will receive transportation grants to visit parks, public lands and waters from the National Park Foundation, a charitable organization that supports the National Park Service.

Research has found that early exposure to nature and outdoor activities can influence attitudes in adulthood. Today’s young hiker may be tomorrow’s steward of the environment. Or not.

Young screen fanatics who spend most of their time indoors will grow up without any appreciation of nature. As adults, they won’t care less about preserving undeveloped nature.   

2) Which leads us to Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell and her announcement Thursday of a $5 million grant over four years from the American Express Foundation.

The goal: triple the number of volunteers in national parks and public lands to one million volunteers annually by 2017.

Interior is working to engage the next generation of ordinary citizens, mayors and state and federal officials in nature so everybody understands and wants to preserve green space.

“We need partners,” said Jewell, whose agency has responsibility for one in five acres in the United States. “We can’t do it alone.”

American Eagle Outfitters donated $1 million last year and began engaging other companies in the campaign.

“We won’t have advocates for open spaces if people don’t value them,” Jewell said.

Among her plans is to expand the 21^st Century Conservation Service Corps, modeled on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps, which puts the unemployed and recent veterans to work.

3) Finally, a hopeful news alert: The cherry blossoms are coming.

Blossom experts (yes, they are) predict the peak will be April 11 to 14, a week or so later than usual because of the long, cold winter. But even in politically-fractured 

Washington, the blossoms are a sure sign that spring is around the corner. Somewhere.  

Dates for the Cherry Blossom Festival were set earlier. The festival is slated to run from March 20 to April 12, which means the blossoms once again may only partly coincide with the festivities.

For that miscalculation, you may blame Obama…Clinton…Republicans...but it’s all a stretch.

Speaking of stretching…put down that phone, step outside and breathe. We can’t all be fourth graders, but we all can get outside. And that’s not an inconsequential goal in the digital age. 

© 2015 Marsha Mercer. All rights considered.

30

Third time's the charm for Romney? -- Oct. 16, 2014 column

By MARSHA MERCER

Oh, Mitt, they need you.

No, not the out-of-touch, loser Mitt Romney of 2008 and 2012.  

What they want is the new and improved Mitt, version 2016, who would connect with voters by showing his compassion and his competence. And maybe his sense of humor. That, anyway, is the hope of establishment Republicans who have been trying for months to persuade Romney to make his third bid for the White House.

“Run, Mitt, run!” supporters chanted in Iowa last Monday.

As always with political nostalgia, the boomlet for Romney says more about current discontent than a true longing for the past. Romney is the Republicans’ national leader, and he looks positively statesmanlike next to, say, Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Showing their compassion, the Romneys will raise $50 million for the just announced Ann Romney Center for Neurologic Diseases, which will bring 200 scientists together to study multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s and other diseases. Ann Romney, 65, was diagnosed with MS in 1998; it is in remission. The center is scheduled to open in 2016 in Boston.

Even so Romney, 67, is an odd choice as the GOP’s next big thing. He was a terrible presidential candidate.

To recap, Romney in 2012 lost women, 18- to 29-year-olds, African American, Hispanic and Asian voters to President Barack Obama. Romney’s fan base was whites, people 45 and older and especially those 65 and above. Romney barely won college educated voters, but Obama took the post-graduate school set.

  

Romney’s defenders blame his advisers and insist voters never saw the real Romney. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Romney’s running mate in 2012, says he will forgo his own presidential run next time if Romney tries again.

“Third time’s the charm,” Ryan says.

For now, Romney is generating buzz by saying he’s not planning to run for president. His wife also says he has no plans to run. She told the Los Angeles Times the family is “done, done, done” with presidential campaigns.

But Ann Romney told The Washington Post, “Honestly, we’ll have to see what happens.” Romney himself recently conceded that “circumstances can change.” Aha!

Romney says he learned a lot from 2012, particularly that anything he says may wind up on the front page. At a Florida hotel in May 2012, he thought he was speaking only to donors at a closed fundraiser when he disparaged the “47 percent” of the electorate who are dependent on government, pay no income taxes and will vote for Obama “no matter what.” Mother Jones later obtained the video and put it online – where it lives in perpetuity.

Given that the video will live forever, consideration of Romney for 2016 has an air of desperation:  Who else could stop a kook like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz in the GOP primaries? Who else might stop the Hillary Clinton juggernaut? 

Jeb, of course. If former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush decides to run, the pressure on Romney to run could evaporate. Bush also hasn’t decided whether he’s in, although he now says his wife is supportive and his mother has moved to neutral.   

To prove he’s not running for office, Romney actually told a joke the other day. Advisers always tell candidates to avoid jokes. Here it is:

“President Obama went to the bank to cash a check, and he didn’t have his ID. And the teller said, `You’ve got to prove who you are.’

“He said, `How should I do that?’ She said, `The other day Phil Mickelson came in; he didn’t have his ID but he set up a little cup on the ground, took a golf ball, putted it right into that cup so we knew it was Phil Mickelson. We cashed his check.’

“`And then Andre Agassi came in and...didn’t have his ID either. He put a little target on the wall, took a tennis ball and racquet, hit it onto that target time and again. We knew that was Andre Agassi, so we cashed his check.’

“And she said to him, `Is there anything you can do to prove who you are?’

“And [Obama] said, `I don’t have a clue.’

“And she said, `Well, Mister President, do you want your money in small bills or large bills?’”

The crowd loved it. Meet the new Mitt. What a card.

© 2014 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30

Losing control of the Senate no big deal? Really? -- Oct. 9, 2014 column

By MARSHA MERCER

After months of dire warnings about what will befall President Obama and Democrats if they lose control of the Senate next month, something odd happened.

The opinion tide turned. The new take, even among progressives, is that a GOP-controlled House and Senate wouldn’t be so bad after all. Not for Democrats, who might emerge stronger in 2016, and not even for Obama, who might get more accomplished.

But make no mistake: Such revisionist pre-history can only hurt Democratic Senate candidates in tight races. 

Last November, Obama told worried Senate Democrats at a private White House meeting that losing the Senate would make his last two years as president unbearable, Politico reported.

“I don’t really care to be president without the Senate,” Obama said.

Back then, the litany of egregious actions congressional Republicans would likely take was long: Repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act -- for real. Dismantle protections for consumers and the environment. Block Obama’s nominations to federal agencies, boards and the Supreme Court. Possibly impeach the president.

At the very least, Senate Republicans would open more investigations into the Obama administration, especially the Benghazi affair. It’s easy to imagine split screen coverage of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a hearing and at presidential campaign events.

Sky-is-falling scenarios are common for both parties in the run-up to elections. Voters sometimes need a dose of fright as motivation to get to the polls

But now, with time dwindling and polls showing a Republican takeover of the Senate likely, the idea seemingly has lost its fear factor.   

One of the first silver lining pieces appeared Aug. 25 on the liberal-leaning American Prospect’s website. “Here’s the good news for Democrats: Even if Republicans take the Senate this year, Democrats will almost certainly take it back in 2016,” blogger Paul Waldman wrote.

Then, “Good News, Democrats, You’re Going to Lose!” trumpeted a headline in Politico on Sept. 30 over a column  that began:  “If the latest round of polls is accurate, Democrats will lose nearly every competitive Senate race, giving Republicans full control of Congress for the first time in 10 years. This is excellent news for Democrats.”

The Wall Street Journal on Oct. 7 proclaimed:  “Why a Senate Loss May Be a Win for Obama.” Columnist Gerald F. Seib wrote that eras when the Congress was completely controlled by one party and the White House by the other were marked by great productivity.

“And if you are a president yearning for elusive legislative achievements in the final two years of your term, anything that makes Washington more productive would be welcome, even if attaining some of that productivity required trimming your ideological sails,” Seib wrote.

We’ve not seen evidence that either Obama or Republicans will be inclined to capitulate on their principles, though. And Seib concedes that “Fights between Congress and the White House would erupt, brinksmanship would ensue, vetoes would be issued.”

Fun times.  

The Washington Post followed with “Could a Republican Senate actually help Obama?”

The Post’s Philip Bump reviewed legislative records of past Congresses on GovTrack and found that six of the 10 most productive Congresses since 1973 had a president of one party and Congress controlled by the other. But the Post didn’t delve into the content of those bills. How many merely named a post office or declared peach pie month?

Supposedly, when they’re in control, Republicans will lose their excuses for being a do-nothing Congress and will work with Obama on such important issues as immigration and the budget.  Or they’ll self-destruct.

Unless they don’t.  This is not the 1990s when Bill Clinton triangulated. If Republicans do win control, why would they then jettison the very obstructionist tactics they believe worked in their favor?

“If there is no public backlash against an utterly dysfunctional Congress and a near-complete lack of productivity, why rock the boat?” veteran Congress-watcher Norm Ornstein wrote in The Atlantic in March.  

In the last weeks of the campaign, Democrats should fight the impulse to downplay loss of the Senate. If Democratic voters believe ceding control to Republicans is OK, defeat becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Democrats will have only themselves to blame if they’re singing the blues come January.

© 2014 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30 

Can Obama hit reset with State of the Union address? -- Jan. 23, 2014 column

By MARSHA MERCER

Here’s something you will NOT hear from President Barack Obama Tuesday night: “I must say to you that that the state of the union is not good.”

That was the dour assessment of President Gerald Ford in his 1975 State of the Union address, five months after Richard Nixon resigned and Ford moved into the Oval Office.

“Millions of Americans are out of work. Recession and inflation are eroding the money of millions more. Prices are too high, and sales are too low,” Ford said.

The bad news kept coming. He lamented a rising federal deficit and debt and our dependence on foreign energy.  And, he said, “Some people question their government’s ability to make hard decisions and stick with them; they expect Washington politics as usual.”

A year later, in 1976, Ford tried again. “The state of our union is better…but still not good enough,” he said. So much for presidential candor.  Voters turned him out for a political outsider named Jimmy Carter that fall.

Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address comes as polls show many Americans think the country is on the wrong track.  Only 45 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job, and 53 percent disapprove, the latest Associated Press-GfK poll reported Thursday.

“Nice guy, so-so president,” the AP concluded.

Obama is expected to try to use his one-man show Tuesday to hit reset.  He can recite some good news : Unemployment is down; Congress has passed a two-year budget deal and $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, and about 2.1 million people have enrolled in health insurance plans on the new exchanges.

He’ll stand before a joint session of Congress, but his real audience is middle class voters, who hold the key to whether he can turn around his dismal job approval ratings before they chill Senate Democrats’ prospects in the midterm elections.

“The State of the Union is not just a conversation with Congress but a conversation with you, the American people,” Denis McDonough, Obama’s chief of staff, says in a video on the White House website, which invites viewers to “watch, then say you’re in.”

The Constitution requires that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress information on the state of the union,” but it doesn’t require a high-profile speech. Presidents basically mailed in a written annual message until Woodrow Wilson delivered his 1913 message in person.  

Other 20^th century presidents embraced new technology to connect. “Silent” Calvin Coolidge’s 1923 speech was the first broadcast on the radio. Harry Truman’s 1947 address was the first televised, and George W. Bush’s in 2002 was the first broadcast live on the Internet.

To reach its target audience, the Obama White House promises more digital bells and whistles than ever.

There will be an “enhanced version” of the address with graphics, data and charts that can be viewed on any device. Viewers may comment on social media during the speech and ask questions of administration experts afterwards. Obama will take questions in a Google+ Hangout Jan. 31.

Almost none of Obama’s 2013 State of the Union proposals got through Congress. He’ll renew his call for immigration reform and a hike in the minimum wage. He’ll also urge Congress to extend jobless benefits and expand workforce training. He calls 2014 a “Year of Action” and vows to use executive actions to help the middle class if Congress balks.   

Naturally, Republicans in their responses to Obama’s address will dramatize their opposition and their contention that he and Democrats have been an abject failure. Fox News host Sean Hannity reportedly will attend the address as the guest of Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tex.

Some Democratic House members are inviting jobless Americans as guests. First lady Michelle Obama has invited about two dozen guests, several of whom can expect to be mentioned by the president to illustrate his points.

A year ago, Obama declared, “We can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger.”

Expect no less Tuesday.  But it may take specific proposals and concrete action --not just an upbeat tone and tweets -- for Obama to convince Americans that he can make it even stronger.    

© 2014 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30

All you need to know about Washington in 2014: It's an election year -- Dec. 24, 2013 column

By MARSHA MERCER

Trying to put unlucky 2013 behind him, President Barack Obama was upbeat about the New Year.

    

“I firmly believe that 2014 can be a breakthrough year for America,” he said Dec. 20 at a White House news conference before heading to Hawaii for vacation.

“It’s probably too early to declare an outbreak of bipartisanship,” the president conceded, “But it’s also fair to say we’re not condemned to endless gridlock.”

OK, it’s the holiday season, so let’s be charitable. It’s possible that 2014 will be more productive than 2013 in the nation’s capital. But don’t bet your new MacBook Air on Democrats and Republicans suddenly discovering they have a lot in common.

Everything you need to know about 2014 in Washington can be summarized in two words: midterm elections.

Obama and members of Congress are battling for their survival. Everything they say – and they will say far more than they will do -- will be focused on winning middle-class votes. The technical term is pandering, and both parties are masters of the craft.

The stakes are large. If Obama’s approval rating doesn’t rebound from the miserable 42 percent he hit in the latest CBS News poll, he’ll be an albatross for Democratic candidates running for the House and Senate next November.  And if Republicans don’t stop playing fiscal brinksmanship games without offering alternatives, they risk writing their own political obituaries.

Some things won’t change when the ball drops at Times Square. Health care and the economy will dominate politics. Republicans will keep describing Obamacare as a train wreck and the economy as an abject failure. Democrats hope voters won’t listen once people start getting insurance coverage and the economy continues to grow.  Yes, those are big ifs.

Republicans in the Senate and House are convinced that public disapproval of the Affordable Care Act will translate into GOP votes. That means more hostile hearings presided over by House Republicans and more horror tales from Senate Republicans, although we may be spared another attempt to defund the law, given the political hits the GOP took from forcing a government shutdown last fall in a futile attempt to stop the law.

The bipartisan budget agreement this month showed that compromise is possible on Capitol Hill. An early test of whether bipartisanship will last will come over the debt ceiling. The Treasury Department says the amount the government can borrow must be increased by early March so we can continue paying our bills.

Conservative Republicans will demand budget concessions; Obama has reiterated his refusal to negotiate. Such a standoff also led to the shutdown.  

But 2014 has the added intrigue of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s tough re-election fight in Kentucky. With only a 31 percent approval rating in his state, McConnell is the least popular senator in the land. In Kentucky, though, 31 percent was also Obama’s approval rating, which doesn’t help Democrats. 

If McConnell beats tea party challenger Matt Bevin in the Republican primary, he still has a formidable general election competitor in Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky secretary of state.

For their part, Democrats on Capitol Hill will focus on working families and income inequality. A priority is raising the minimum wage. Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who’s retiring, has proposed an increase from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour, which Obama supports.

Republicans counter that a higher minimum wage will mean that employers hire fewer workers. Both sides see the minimum wage as a potent campaign issue.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the first order of business in January will be extending long-term unemployment benefits, which Congress allowed to expire this month.  House Speaker John Boehner may go along with the extension, if spending cuts are part of the package.

Progressive Democrats, including Harkin and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, are defying conventional wisdom that curbing entitlements must be part of any long-term fiscal plan.  They say Social Security benefits need to be raised, not cut.

Critics say it’s irresponsible to suggest raising benefits, which would require higher payroll taxes, and nobody, but nobody, expects anything to happen. But it does make a dandy campaign promise.

So much pandering ahead in 2014, and we haven’t even touched on 2016. Happy New Year!   

© 2013 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30