Gary Andres's blog

Organizing citizen involvement in campaigns is a lot easier than mobilizing Americans in the legislative process.  It's a hard lesson President Obama and his team are learning this summer.

The White House says it's going to pull out all the stops to show a groundswell of support between now and when lawmakers return to Washington after Labor Day.

I'm skeptical it will work.  Some of the reasons are outlined here.

Part of it has to with asymetrical energy.  My friend Jon Henke has it right when he says the Democrats enjoyed the power of a "storming the fortress" mentality while Bush was president. No more.   Now  the enthusiasm is with conservatives and Republicans.

Then there's the issue of lawmaking vs. campaigns.  Elections involve a binary choice: vote for candidate A or B; give money or not; make telephone calls for a candidate or do something else, etc.

The legislative process is more nuanced and often requires compromise.  It's hard to get people energized about supporting a middle ground position.

For all the talk about conservative "astro-turf" grassroots, it seems the White House and DNC are more guilty of trying to prime their allies.  My guess is the genuine energy and enthusiasm we see developing this summer around a "counter moblization" to the President's health care approach will only grow int he weeks ahead, no matter what the White House tries to orchestrate.

I wrote this piece today in the Weekly Standard Online exploring the value of outside efforts aimed at promoting President Obama's legislative agenda. The raw political value of these activities is obvious -- capturing emails, phone numbers, and keeping partisans engaged. But I also believe there is another less obvious benefit.  I call it "making noise," so that those normally not paying much attention to politics sit up and listen.

We know Democratic partisans strongly support the White House agenda.  But that's only about a third of the electorate. Those with weaker partisan attachments are less engaged, know less about the President's agenda, and are therefore less intense in their support.   I believe groups like Organizing for America    and Unity '09 (the liberal-backed group that includes MoveOn.org Politico's Ben Smith writes about here ) help mobilize partisan Democrats, but also create the kind of political noise necessary to break through the din of other cultural and media messages -- a crtical tactic in reaching certain electoral blocs.

Less politically engaged Americans tend to hear the "loudest voice in the cafeteria." These efforts by liberal organizations and Democrats help project the White House agenda to this often hard to reach, but key constituency.

Some say it's difficult to translate support from a campaign to a legislative agenda.  That may be correct. But I also believe entities like Organizing for America and Unity '09 will have a much bigger impact on political communications than we currently understand.

Given all the talk about Obama's nominees and their problems paying taxes, you might believe these issues are confined to inside-the-beltway Democrats.  Apparently not.

This piece in today's Politico suggests Democratic congressional candidate Scott Murphy (NY-20) has some tax problems of his own.  Murphy will face New York Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco in a special election to fill the seat vacated by Kirsten Gillibrand who was recently appointed to the Senate. Politico writes this:

"Murphy has been the Democratic nominee for less than a week, but already he finds himself on the defensive for not paying thousands of dollars in taxes on a start-up computer software company he owned more than a decade ago."

Democrat Murphy seems out of step with the standard set recently by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said this about two Obama nominees that withdrew due to non-payment of taxes.  Here's Gibbs:

“I think they both recognized that you can't set an example of responsibility but accept a different standard in who serves. They both decided and recognized that their nominations would distract from the important goals and the critical agenda that the president put forward.”

The Democrats' tax problems are part of a growing narrative taking root among Republicans.  For example, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) said this recently at the GOP retreat last weekend according to Politico:

It’s easier for the other side to advocate for higher taxes because you know what?” Cantor asked the crowd.“They don’t pay ‘em,” the crowd hollered back in unison.

Not a great start for the Democrats in NY-20, a seat many believe is a toss-up.

This past Saturday, President Obama formally announced the formation of "Obama for America," an effort to harness and mobilize the millions of activists who worked on his campaign to help advocate for his legislative agenda. Others, like Patrick Ruffini, have written about this new organization here. The new organization is unprecedented at several levels and carries both potential risks and rewards. It's also a little ironic that a president who consistently criticized the practice of "lobbying" during the campaign is now mobilizing an army of his own grassroots advocates.

I write about these developments in this piece in today's Weekly Standard Online.

I agree with Jon Henke -- who I quote in the article -- that one of Mr. Obama's biggest challenges will be how to bring these activists into the policymaking process and still retain the kind of flexibility necessary to negotiate with Congress.

Anyone interested in the future of grassroots advocacy should watch how "Obama 2.0," as some call it, unfolds.

  "Money Corrupts the System" Crowd Missing in Action

Political candidate should raise and spend as much money as they can or want in campaigns. Government limits on freedom of speech always produce unintended consequences.  But like many conservatives, I feel pummeled by the impact of Democratic/liberal money this cycle. The causes and consequences of the money gap require a much longer post/discussion. 

I just want to make one narrower point today. If you consider the amount of money the Obama campaign raised this cycle and combine it with the various Democratic campaign committees (e.g. Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) they will raise a total of over $1 billion this cycle. That's never happened before. And that also doesn't include any labor or liberal 527 money.

Good for them. But join me in a little thought exercise. What would the so-called reformers be saying if Republicans blew the doors off fundraising records?

I explore the numbers in more detail in this  column in the Washington Times today and end with this caution.  Republicans should ensure they're never outspent like this again. But once they ratchet up the fundraising next cycle, get ready for the "reformers" to charge the GOP's trying to "buy the election."

An enthusiasm gap has dogged the GOP this election cycle like nasty virus.  Measured by money, new registrants, the number of voters excited by the election – you name it – Republicans struggled. Stephen Hayes summed it up well back in July here and here.

But then came Sarah Palin. 

I wrote about how she helps with down ticket in a Washington Times piece.   She’s energized the party like a Caribou Coffee jolt of caffeine.  Down ticket congressional Republican candidates will realize the benefits from this new source of enthusiasm.

GOP campaign operatives tell me money is still a problem in some critical congressional races. But improvements in the generic ballot, the party’s image and a growing number of energized volunteers will save some vulnerable Republican candidates who were sure political road kill without the Alaska governor on the ticket.

Skeptical?  Don’t take my word for it.  Even the Washington Post  ran a front-page story about how Palin improves the congressional battleground by infusing the GOP with a new source of enthusiasm.  So now you know it HAS to be true!

McCain’s Revival?

            John McCain’s campaign experienced a revival at Saddleback Church this past Saturday -- a reawakening of enthusiasm that could fuel him to victory in November.

The Rick Warren Obama/McCain interview surprised me like a sucker punch. I was floored. McCain came across as the candidate I wanted as Commander in Chief – confident, substantive and even inspirational (“I want to encourage a generation to aspire to more than their own self interest.”).  Obama struck me as a mediocre contender for a guidance counselor – everything will be ok if we can just understand one another and get along.  The contrast was jarring.

Promising to “bring people together” is not a sufficient answer in a dangerous and complicated world.  Obama sounded like a playground supervisor who tries quelling bullies by telling them they just need to be nicer. While liberals may swoon under Obama’s spell, shouting “stop it” won’t deter Bin Laden and other Islamic extremists from wanting to murder Americans and end our way of life.  The Illinois Senator’s hubris might lead him to believe his personality and intellect can defeat evil.  Thousands of years of human history prove he’s wrong.

            On moral issues Obama was equally opaque. His responses to Warren’s questions were more appropriate for a University of Chicago honors seminar on Derrida – post-modern soliloquies that clearly expressed his relativist world view: All Truth is Your Truth (whatever that might be).

            Before it began ,I thought Obama would dominate the event.  He is comfortable in the Oprah style, “tell me how you feel,” interview setting.  He is urbane, likeable and quick witted.  And he is more conversant in the language of faith.  Rhetoric like “we need to focus on deeds, not words,” or “whatever you do to the least of my brothers,” flows easily from the lips of one schooled in the liberal Social Gospel. McCain does not share that religious tradition, and I thought he would struggle in that venue.

            Yet in the end, contrast was McCain’s friend. After each of Obama’s answers I had to ask myself “what did he just say?” Not so with McCain. Democratic strategists believe the Illinois Senator can do better than Gore and Kerry among faith-based voters by just showing up at events like this, or at least not speaking about religion with a hostile voice.  I’m not sure.

            Liberals erroneously construct a caricature that they think captures the faith-based community. They assume religiously-attuned voters only care about a narrow set of issues such as gay marriage and abortion.  In reality, these American voters take a much broader and deeper view of the world.

            McCain offered this broader perspective. He provided clarity, not rhetorical mush. And on issue after issue – from “what was your greatest moral failure,” to “does evil exist,” the presumptive Republican nominee answered clearly and concisely.  There was no “on one hand some people believe this and on the other some believe that.”  Agree with him or not, McCain’s positions were unambiguous and more understandable.  He communicated convictions with courage.  Obama tried to wrap traditional liberal beliefs in language acceptable to faith-based voters.  In the end he seemed vapid and confusing. 

            While I started watching the Warren interview thinking Obama’s message of hope would resonate well in the Saddleback Church, I ended completely inspired – by John McCain.