Sunday, March 7, 2010

The Post asked former congressional leaders and other political observers to forecast how health-care reform will play out in the House -- and in November. Below, responses from Ed Rogers, Sarah A. Binder, David Bonior, Douglas E. Schoen and Martin Frost.

ED ROGERS
White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; chairman of BGR Group

To pass the Obama health-care bill in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama must assemble a coalition within the Democratic caucus of the politically doomed, defiant and delusional.

For the doomed, the calculation is easy: "If I vote for this turkey, I will lose reelection, but I get a plum executive branch post in return." The problem is there may not be 40 or so jobs open in January, when these people will be looking for work.

The defiant are an interesting lot. They have decided it is better politically to pass something unpopular and harmful to the economy than it would be to not pass something unpopular and harmful for the economy. They know that most of their constituents are against it and in many cases will be economically hurt by the bill, but they are going to vote for it anyway. Whether House Minority Leader John Boehner becomes the next speaker will depend on this group of at least 30 lawmakers.

The delusional are probably the most at peace with themselves. Zombie-like, they believe they are doing something good. Many in this group are not burdened by knowing much about the facts of the issue, the specifics of the bill or how the details will affect real people and businesses. They just know they are for "health care" and they are for "reform," and they believe this is it.

However, Pelosi is having trouble. Much of her caucus is angry about how they have been abused and misinformed about previous health-care votes. She also has opponents in her own leadership ranks who believe they could benefit if she fails on health care.

The burden of whipping the caucus and securing the votes falls on the White House. So far nothing has happened to indicate it is up to the task.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

The Post asked pollsters and others to explain the politics of changing the ban on gays serving openly. Below are responses from Scott Keeter, Ed Rogers, Dan Schnur, Michael Buonocore, Douglas E. Schoen and Sue Fulton.

ED ROGERS
White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; chairman of BGR Group

The cynic's first rule of politics is: "Be for what is going to happen." And it is inevitable that gays will openly serve in the U.S. armed forces. For GOP candidates, however, getting in front on this issue could be harmful, especially in a primary. Much of the Republican coalition will never support gays in the military. Also, there are unique aspects of military life that need to be considered before forcing this social policy on an unwilling defense establishment that is serving this country very well.

Therefore, the best politics for Republicans is to defer to respected former military leaders. The incumbent leadership is compromised by its rightful loyalty to the commander in chief.

And for Democrats? The acceptance of gay Americans in all aspects of life is evolving politically at a rapid pace, particularly among young voters, who see anything they perceive to be anti-gay as unfair and backward. But the general population is not there yet.

President Obama may be on the right side of history, but forcing action on this issue now, with troops in the field and other, more pressing problems, is a mistake that will only add to the Democrats' woes in November.

Wednesday, January 27

The post asked political experts to discuss what to watch for in tonight's State of the Union Address.

ED ROGERS
White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; chairman of BGR Group

By any measure President Obama is weaker politically today than he was a year ago. Tonight's address is more of a problem than an opportunity. It will be hard for the speech to have any lasting impact given the skepticism and cynicism that permeate American politics.

The president won't solve all of his problems and won't make everyone happy tonight, so ... he shouldn't try. He needs to convincingly acknowledge the obvious about our economic problems and be credible in offering a plan. If he doesn't strike the right tone on the economy, post-speech analyses will deem declare the address a bust and all his problems will become worse.

Even the dynamics of the room will be a challenge for Obama. If possible, he has to try to avoid partisan applause. The speech needs to be serious, and silence will be preferable over any cheering and celebration from the Democrat ranks.

He needs to say enough about terrorism and the war so that he doesn't take criticism for neglecting these topics, but tonight should be all about the economy, and he can't try to force economic vocabulary onto what are actually left-wing social programs the way he did with health care. Look for a graceful punt of comprehensive health-care reform.

Tonight Obama has to prove that he gets it, maybe eat a little humble pie, and begin to restore confidence in his judgment and political pitch.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The Post asked political experts, athletes and others whether the president should travel to Denmark as part of the U.S. bid for the 2016 Olympic Games. Below are contributions from Tony Fratto, Grover Norquist, Joey Cheek and Ed Rogers.

ED ROGERS
White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; chairman of BGR Group

It is good that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen to make the case for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics. I hope it introduces a new era of the U.S. president being a forthright advocate of American commercial interests. While the Olympics is bigger than just a business venture, it is important that the United States catch up with the realities of the competitive world marketplace. Other countries' political leaders aggressively sell their nation's products and solutions. America is falling behind.

I hope that the president sees making the pitch for Chicago to host the Games as not just a favor for his home town but, rather, as the start of a broader willingness to champion U.S. financial interests. If Obama is popular abroad, why not use that popularity to promote American jobs, products or tourism? We need to put an end to the idea of it being beneath the president to advocate on behalf of an American offering vs. a foreign commercial offering. If Obama makes the pitch and loses, he deserves thanks rather than hand-wringing by those who will flutter about the diminished presidency. The rest of the world is playing by one set of rules regarding what political leaders are willing to do to make a sale. We have been playing by an antiquated, ineffective set of rules. Go get 'em, Mr. President!

Obama's Media Offensive

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

The Post asked political experts what, if anything, President Obama has gained from his media offensive. Below are contributions from Karl Rove, Douglas E. Schoen, Dan Schnur, Ed Rogers, Dana Perino, Linda Chavez, and Lanny J. Davis.

ED ROGERS
White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; chairman of BGR Group

At most, all President Obama will accomplish with his media blitz is crowding out some of his critics for a moment; like his speech to Congress last week, the effects of the media blitz will be short-lived.

In fact, I think there has been more news coverage about whether the "full Ginsburg" was even a good idea than there was about anything he actually said. The president hasn't said anything to refresh or energize the health-care debate. He hasn't really had anything new to say. If anything, the message has been diluted by hard questions regarding Afghanistan. The real health-care news last week was the introduction of the package of Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and the president hasn't even said much about that.

While U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan will not be a distraction during tonight's David Letterman appearance, I can't imagine what substantive goodwill come from being on this comedy show. To give the White House the benefit of the doubt, maybe staffers think being on Letterman helps the president be more likable and that that helps his agenda in Washington. It won't work.

I suppose White House handlers believe that the president's convincing demeanor and eloquence will somehow carry the day. If that were the case there would have already been a Rose Garden bill-signing ceremony. Obama is good communicator, a critical asset for a world leader. But you still have to have something to say. Massive air time is no substitute for a real plan.

Obama's Sugar-Cube Speech
By Ed Rogers
September 9th 2009

President Obama's eloquent speech tonight was a sugar cube that may produce a 48-hour high. The speech was a net plus, but nothing substantive was resolved. The rhetoric and the facts still don't match.

The call for a public plan is alive and well. The left and the unions are happy, and the vulnerable democrats facing reelection in 2010 are still worried. Nothing in the speech suggested that the plan will do anything other than add to Americans' debt. Nothing in the speech makes seniors believe that they will not face Medicare cuts. The emotions that drove the summer town-hall confrontations are still as intense as before the speech.

Blaming Republicans is probably meant to lay the predicate for partisan votes that the president will force. And the GOP did not help the cause or their credibility with the disrespectful behavior during the president's remarks.

But, overall, the speech contributed to what I consider to be the most likely outcome for the administration: This fall there will be a Rose Garden ceremony celebrating the passage of something called health-care reform. It may have to be characterized as "Phase One," but something will pass. This speech moved us closer to that day.

The writer is chairman of BGR Group. He was a White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 

How Can President Obama Regain His Political Footing?
By Ed Rogers
August 30th 2009

While the president's effectiveness is eroding, the situation is not dire. He can regain the initiative, but an eloquent speech won't do it. I assume he will not convert to conservatism and abandon his flawed plans, but he should cut his losses and get back to reality.

Occasionally all White Houses contort themselves into situations where they begin to say things they know are not true. The more you say such things, the more you have to keep saying them to try and make them true. But the Obama administration needs to face it: The president's energy bill is not a jobs bill! His health-care plans will lead to government bureaucratic decisions about individuals' heath care and will cost a fortune. The deficit is not under control. The administration should not deny the obvious or defend the indefensible. White House officials know they are losing the public debate on these issues and must scale back to what is possible and credible given America's economic circumstances -- or use brute force in Congress to pass unpopular, harmful and vast new programs.

Even if he did use his congressional majorities to win these battles, the president would lose the war by slowing economic growth, only resulting in more political pain for himself and his party. Obama doesn't have any political problems that a couple of years of 4 percent GDP growth won't solve. But he has to want it, and he needs honest policies to achieve it. Now, though, he is on a course that terrifies his political handlers and his party's candidates.

How Many Troops for Afghanistan?
By Ed Rogers
August 16th 2009

It is not good short-term politics to escalate the war in Afghanistan. However, it is necessary to avoid the political and security debacle that would arise from an American failure there. We are in Afghanistan to prohibit the rise of an enemy regime or a failed-state environment that would endanger Americans. Failing to do so would be much worse for the Democrats than the fatigue voters will feel from a prolonged, ugly fight in another foreign land. For his sake and ours, President Obama should be in it to win, not just interested in doing the minimum necessary to follow up on his 2008 campaign rhetoric about staying tough on terrorism.

Too often, the administration appears to have an agenda that is not about practical solutions or ensuring American victories. In Iraq we appear to want to get out more than we want to win. But we have seen what a broken Afghanistan can produce. Another Sept. 11 is the worst possible politics. 

The Post asked former politicians and political experts how officials embroiled in scandals can recover politically
By Ed Rogers
June 28th 2009

In more than 25 years in Washington, I've been in and around a lot of trouble. Almost nothing is politically fatal. In politics, you almost always survive if you don't quit. Some level of rehabilitation is almost always possible. Blunders leave scars, and some are more visible than others. Gov. Sanford has an open wound on his forehead that will ultimately become an unattractive scar, but who's to say it would keep him from elective office in the future? It will keep him from being a credible candidate for president, certainly, but rehabilitation is different from complete reconstruction.

Much of one's ability for rehabilitation depends on how the initial blast is handled. It has become formulaic to have a teary news conference, go through some sort of mental or physical rehab, and make syrupy commitments to your family and to the public good. But this synthetic formula is worn out and tends to perpetuate the problem and increase the ridicule. When you've been caught or the damage is done, say what you're going to say in public, then keep your chin up and your mouth shut. Commit yourself to your work and act like it doesn't bother you. With any luck it will fade and everyone, including you, will move on.

Americans love a story of a fall from grace and then redemption.

Who'll Suit Up for the GOP in 2012?
By Ed Rogers
June 21th 2009

As with most presidential reelection races, 2012 will mostly be a referendum on the incumbent. If Obama's stock is down, what characteristics should a GOP alternative have? Our nominee must set a good philosophical contrast with Obama, have low negatives, be likable and be good on live TV. He or she will have to be able to hold his or her own with Chris Matthews, David Letterman and the like. The core of the GOP must find him or her philosophically acceptable, and libertarian independents must find the nominee credible. It will be tougher if our nominee has a long history in Washington, was a mostly ineffective legislator or has never successfully led anything. We should also be careful about a nominee who is unacceptable to a large bloc of the Hispanic vote.

Whom does this leave us? I'm going to resist the temptation to name names, but it is unlikely that we will have a nominee who bursts onto the scene the way Obama did. Republicans are hierarchical, and we always nominate the second-place finisher from the last nomination contest. But that's a problem for us in 2012. Who came in second to Sen. McCain? Was it Mitt Romney? Mike Huckabee? Did Sarah Palin, as the vice presidential nominee, receive an honorary second-place finish?

The entire GOP field starts in no better than fourth place. And who will emerge depends more on Obama than it does on our own candidate's circumstances or ability. So it's impossible to know if 2012 will be a real contest or if the GOP field will just be positioning for the race in 2016, when the Obama era will end for certain.

With Virginia Democrats picking their gubernatorial nominee on Tuesday, The Post asked political experts to explain the national implications of elections there and in New Jersey
By Ed Rogers
June 7th 2009

The elections in Virginia and New Jersey present little downside for the GOP. To lose both would mean only that both states remain in Democratic hands; the losses would amount to one more mangled car added to the colossal political train wreck that started in 2006. But in politics bad gets worse, so if we lose both many in the media will declare the results a metaphor for the larger demise of the party -- America's rejection of narrow-minded Republicans. George Bush will be blamed, and the legend of Barack Obama's political appeal will grow.

If Republican Bob McDonnell wins Virginia it would suggest that the party's decline is slowing and the traditional GOP strongholds are coming back. More important, a win in New Jersey would suggest that the dangerous regionalization of the party is not at all certain. We would certainly enjoy overstating the significance of the results. Some would say that this is the beginning of the end for Democratic control of Congress and that it foreshadows the defeat of President Obama in 2012. A double win would give us our first good election night since 2004.

Clearly, this is not a good time to be an incumbent, and it is hard to argue that more of the same is desirable in any of the 50 states. Just being the party out of power is an advantage in Virginia and New Jersey. This could be the case in many parts of the country in 2010. The GOP's darkest days could be about to end.

The Post asked lawmakers, activists and others whether the president is striking the right balance between national security, civil liberties and government transparency
By Ed Rogers
May 24th 2009

Obama's tone and apparent balance of national security, civil liberties and government transparency are good and effective with most audiences. Whether he is doing the right things substantively is another matter. Releasing the interrogation memos made America weaker and will continue to weaken us. Closing Guantanamo is the least worst option of a situation he inherited (he reminds everyone of this often). But central questions about Obama's national security philosophy remain unclear.

I have spent the past several days in Iraq and Lebanon. In Iraq there is growing fear about the U.S. desire to leave regardless of the consequences. In Lebanon, people wonder why Vice President Biden is coming there just before the close, and crucial, June elections. No one is sure whom the visit is supposed to help or what it is meant to accomplish. And the big questions of America's intent and options regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions remain unclear. The unreconciled attitude I have observed in the region is that if Obama is weak, Iran will gain nuclear weapons, and that would be a disaster; if he is strong, he might attack or let Israel do so -- and that would be a disaster.

So his tone is good, but we are all waiting to see where the real decisions will take us.

As for the Republican contribution to the conversation, former vice president Dick Cheney has served his country and his party with great distinction. He certainly has the right to speak; whether it is wise to do so now and with such intensity is debatable. Where is Brent Scowcroft when the GOP needs him?

Obama’s Voucher Compromise
By Ed Rogers
May 10th 2009

By any measurable standard, President Obama is governing from the left. Increased spending, raising taxes, exerting government control over private business. What domestic initiative has he taken that should be considered moderate? Allowing a few students to continue with school vouchers in the District wasn't a move to the center; it was a tactical retreat to avoid more bad press. He wanted to please the union bosses, but the kids who were hurt turned out to be sympathetic on television and wouldn't go away. Just as it did with the Air Force One photo-op debacle, the White House tried to make a joke about it, but no one laughed. Tactical retreat to cover up your liberal bias or blunders does not equal moderate governance.

Obama's liberalism doesn't appear to be like that of FDR or Hubert Humphrey, and it isn't new like Clinton's. We may be in for an era of rule by the cold, hard left. No limits to spending on government bureaucracy, taxes that are punitive rather than part of an economic plan, government takeover of private business, and look out for the faux religion of extreme environmentalism that will dictate a lifestyle for the rest of us while the priestly class exempt themselves. The challenge for Republicans is that Obama sounds sensible and reassuring on television and in meetings. Is he deceitful? Clever? Sincere? No one knows, and it has Republicans muttering to themselves.

The Republicans Respond
By Ed Rogers
April 29th 2009

Notice to Republicans: Arlen Specter changing parties is good for the Democrats and President Obama and bad for us. If you think otherwise, put down the Ann Coulter book and go get some fresh air. There's always a delusional element within the GOP that thinks if we lose badly enough the Democrats will gain so much power they will implement all their crazy plans, the people will revolt and purest Republicans will then be swept back into power. Even if this were true, it doesn't take into account the damage done while our opponents are in control.

Specter didn't want to be a Democrat. The party deteriorated to the point where there was no place for him. Who knows if he will be elected as a Democrat in November 2010? The damage will be done right away, when he votes with the majority. This is the latest in a series of wake-up calls the GOP should have gotten starting with the 2006 elections.

Despite this, I believe we have not lost the battle for ideas, because the Democrats don't have any. We have lost our majorities in Congress through corruption and mismanagement. Obama's victory in 2008 was an Obama phenomenon, not a Democratic Party phenomenon. What they haven't been able to do through legitimate party building, we've handed them on a silver platter. We need to stop.

The Post asked former officials, strategists and others what the administration should focus on
By Ed Rogers
April 26th 2009

President Obama and his allies have proven that they can spend taxpayer dollars like none before them. The most doe-eyed in the media and in the punditocracy have declared this a meaningful accomplishment. In fact, he hasn't done anything difficult so far.

Over the next 100 days the ownership of our problems will begin to pass to Obama, and the biggest challenge will be reconciling the president's leftist agenda with our economic realities. Obama says he didn't create our problems, but that doesn't mean he can ignore them or that he won't pay a price when things get worse. Cap-and-trade that will increase power bills, taxes that will increase gasoline costs, health-care plans that will produce shortages and increase costs -- in the best of times these plans would depress manufacturing, cost jobs and increase the deficit.

Already, even his most ardent defenders blushed at his demand to cut $100 million from his $3.5 trillion budget. We can really cut the budget by reducing the number of government employees and by limiting entitlements. Does anyone think Obama will do either? We could grow our way out of the deficit if we had a few years of 4 percent GDP growth. Does Obama have a pro-growth plan? Does he even want it to happen?

And by the way, Afghanistan is getting worse, Guantanamo prisoners may be coming to a home near you, Hugo Chavez better return the favor, the administration's leaks to smear Jane Harman will bloom into a real scandal, Iran's centrifuges are spinning faster, Kim Jong Il is emboldened, the Rattner matter will not go away, GM and Chrysler bankruptcies will not be flattering, and blaming Bush will not produce enough of a distraction.

Political analysts and others assess the New Hampshire senator's withdrawal as a Cabinet nominee
By Ed Rogers
February 13th 2009

Judd Gregg 's withdrawal means that the world is round, that water is not flowing uphill and that the laws of physics are intact. Gregg is an earnest, sincere, old-school conservative all the way to his bones. And I love him.

How was he going to support card check for labor unions? How was he going to argue that Obama's plans for punitive environmental regulation and mandated health care would be in America's best commercial interest? But those weren't the only problems; this nomination was a flawed concept.

If a Republican were elected president and needed a list of 100 likely candidates for commerce secretary, Gregg would not be on it. The secretary of commerce must be an aggressive personality, a charmer and a real operator capable of battling competing interests at the State, Treasury, Labor and other departments. Judd Gregg should have been something like the U.S. trade representative or envoy to Russia and Iran, jobs in which having the ability to never move, blink or sweat would come in handy.

This doesn't mean that attempts at bipartisanship in Washington must end. But Obama can't have Cabinet secretaries from the core of the Republican caucus because the core of the party has too many sincere disagreements with Obama's liberal approach, especially on matters related to commerce! It was a blunder to think this could work.

Did He Do the Right Thing?
By Ed Rogers
February 4th 2009

It looks like the status quo is holding in Washington. If Tom Daschle didn't do anything illegal or deceitful, he should not have withdrawn. We Republicans would have had our say and our fun. Let's face it, the liberal insider who forgot to pay taxes on the limo given to him by the New York financier would have been a good pinata for us.

But, naive as it may sound, I thought this nomination presented an opportunity to see if we could actually argue about policy. Tom Daschle is a steady hand whom any president could use, especially Barack Obama, given his inexperience. I thought this could have been an occasion for Republicans to say, "No more of the politics of personal destruction that has victimized so many Republicans." (Remember Linda Chavez?) Obama could have been true to his pledge to change Washington by sticking with Daschle and encouraging Republicans to move on and Democrats not to gloat.

Now, Daschle's quick exit was not caused by Republicans, so maybe there is more to the story. We will probably never know.

But Republicans should not think that this is winning. The voters are sick of posturing, and they can sense phony outrage. They see through our crocodile tears and self-righteousness. Republicans should still look for chances to prove that our disagreements are over policy, not personalities, and it appears that the Obama administration will give us plenty of opportunity.

The Post asked former administration officials whether the pardon of Marc Rich will be an obstacle to Eric Holder
By Ed Rogers
December 3rd 2008

The Marc Rich pardon will be an irritant for Eric Holder but not a crisis for his nomination. Just about everyone who crossed paths with the Clinton presidency will have a pebble in their shoe as they run to get on board with the Obama administration.

Under the Constitution, the president's authority to pardon is unlimited. There was no deceit or malfeasance by Holder. Everyone knows this was Bill Clinton 's initiative. Eric Holder is innocent. In Washington, of course, being innocent is an advantage; being guilty is only a disadvantage. Neither is determinative. But in this case, the Rich pardon is no bar to Eric Holder being an effective attorney general -- even though we Republicans and some in the media will enjoy rehashing it.

Where the GOP Went Wrong
By Ed Rogers
November 6th 2008

Let the autopsy begin! Despite John McCain's history of independence, the case for a third term for the GOP was very hard to make. The political environment could not have been worse: an unpopular incumbent; an unpopular, costly war; and an economic calamity. Also, the campaign that has the most money, that makes the fewest mistakes and that has the candidate who makes the best presentation often wins.

The McCain campaign added to all of the negative circumstances: McCain's decision to suspend his campaign and rush back to Washington to associate himself with an unpopular Bush economic program -- the Wall Street "bailout" -- was inexplicable. And Sarah Palin never fully recovered from her interview with Katie Couric. How could that possibly have been a good idea?

Republicans need to respect the legitimacy of our defeat. We didn't just lose; we got beat. While the GOP should stand up against bad policy, we should not make excuses or pretend this was a fluke. Republicans must learn from this and come back with a clear purpose and a clear definition of what being a Republican means.

Do We Really Know the Outcome?
By Ed Rogers
November 1st 2008

By all accounts McCain is behind but closing in on Obama, who appears to be stronger in the electoral college than in the popular vote. It's not pretty for McCain, but it's not over. Three ingredients could be mixing to create an explosive comeback for McCain. No. 1: buyer's remorse and resentment of the media forecast. Voters are being lectured that the election is over. This might cause them to have regrets about Obama and resent being told what they had already decided. No. 2: presumptuousness by the Obama camp. More than once they have shown a tendency to act like they have won, to assume that the Oval Office is already theirs. Voters resent this and may be itching to show their independence. No. 3: Obama fatigue and classic American support for the underdog. Voters notice the number of ads, phone calls and gushing accounts of the giant Obama machine. Maybe the good old US of A instinct to support the underdog is working to McCain's benefit.

McCain has to draw to an inside straight to get 270 in the electoral college. The odds are against him, but that's nothing new for John McCain. He will not quit. Never count him out.

Biden vs. Palin
By Ed Rogers
October 4th 2008

Palin cleared the bar. She had a good command of the facts, was likable and fun to watch. Her candidacy should not raise doubts or be a distraction. Republicans are relieved, and her presence on the campaign trail will be greeted with renewed enthusiasm. Now maybe she can give an interview that isn't a pop quiz but a legitimate inquiry into how she and John McCain might govern. The usual suspects in the media will surely find fault and not let up, but by any standard, Palin did better than hold her own.

Biden did fine: He didn't say anything bizarre, and there doesn't appear to be a need for any retractions or apologies.

These two are probably headed for the place where vice presidential nominees traditionally find themselves in October: electoral irrelevance. Neither will drive any new voters to their ticket, but they will reinforce the base votes of the presidential nominees.

Political analysts, pollsters and others assess Joe Biden and Sarah Palin's debate performances
By Ed Rogers
October 3rd 2008

Palin cleared the bar. She had a good command of the facts, was likable and fun to watch. Her candidacy should not raise doubts or be a distraction. Republicans are relieved, and her presence on the campaign trail will be greeted with renewed enthusiasm. Now maybe she can give an interview that isn't a pop quiz but a legitimate inquiry into how she and John McCain might govern. The usual suspects in the media will surely find fault and not let up, but by any standard Palin did better than hold her own.

Biden did fine: He didn't say anything bizarre, and there doesn't appear to be a need for any retractions or apologies.

These two are probably headed for the place that vice presidential nominees traditionally find themselves in October: electoral irrelevancy. Neither will drive any new voters to their ticket, but they will reinforce the base votes of the presidential nominees.

How They Can Win
By Ed Rogers
October 2nd 2008

It's time for the McCain campaign to turn mama's picture to the wall and get rough. Palin needs to attack Obama for being the extreme liberal that he is. Attack, attack, attack. Ignore Biden and put the McCain campaign on offense. Republicans will love it and breathe a sigh of relief. Independents need to hear the truth about what a cliche orthodox leftist Obama is. She needs to attack, with ferocity, real facts and a smile. If this becomes a geography bee or a "name that foreign national anthem" show, we are in trouble.

Biden needs to say nothing -- a great challenge for him. It will be hard for him to show subtle expertise without looking smug, to flaunt his experience without talking too much. It is impossible for him to present himself as a credible agent of change.


Assessing Joe Biden
By Ed Rogers
August 24th 2008

There are three reasons Republicans should be satisfied with Obama's selection.

First, all Americans should be glad that Obama did not choose another lightweight left-wing snob for the ticket. Joe Biden is good-natured, serious and truly qualified. Everyone who cares about good government and serious politics can imagine him as president, unlike Obama.

Second, Obama did nothing that will help him in a swing state. Biden has no following in a key state or among any particular voter group that will help Obama appeal to the center, nor does Biden reinforce Obama's appeal as an agent of change . All previous Biden attempts to build support with voters outside his native Delaware have been spectacular failures.

Third, Biden is famous as a lengthy and reckless talker. On any given day, there is a good chance that he will say something that could destroy the Democratic ticket or at least hurt its chances in November. The media will be on gaffe watch with fine-tuned antennae for Biden to be off-message. This should be interesting and fun to watch.

Whew, as a concerned citizen and McCain supporter, I am relieved and encouraged by the Biden selection.

Race, Celebrity and the Presidential Campaign
By Ed Rogers
August 2nd 2008

John McCain's celebrity ad was effective. It wasn't uncontroversial and it didn't please all the political scientists, but it sure got noticed, and it made Barack Obama overreact. Questions about Obama's desire for celebrity status will linger. He now has to be very careful about intersecting with Hollywood, pop culture and entertainment. Lee Atwater said the worst thing you can do in American politics is play to your negative stereotype. Well, Obama's negative stereotype now includes the idea that he may be a little too glitzy. (Speaking of negative stereotypes, when Obama was talking about the pictures of presidents on dollar bills, was he introducing the presumptuous notion that his face belongs on American currency? I wonder whom he thinks he should replace.)

There are signs that Obama is beginning to believe all the hype. So, thinking he would have media cooperation, he tried to preemptively accuse McCain of attacking him because of his race. He forced it, and it didn't work. Bottom line: If McCain had the celebrity ad to do over again, would he do it? Answer: Yes. If Obama had it to do over again, would he talk about race and presidents' pictures on the money in our wallets? Answer: No.

McCain broke through this week and helped himself.