Compromising on 2 Issues, Obama Gets Partial Wins

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, likes to say that the only thing that is not negotiable is success. The last 48 hours offered a case study in how the president applies that maxim to governing.

After weeks of frustrating delays and falling poll numbers, Mr. Obama decided to take what he could get, declare victory and claim momentum on some of the administration’s biggest priorities, even if the details did not always match the lofty vision that underlined them.

From Copenhagen to Capitol Hill, the president determined the outer limits of what he could accomplish on climate change and health care and decided that was enough, at least for now. He brokered a nonbinding agreement with other world powers to fight global warming, averting the collapse of an international summit meeting. And he blessed a compromise on health care to guarantee the votes needed to pass the Senate.

Neither deal represented a final victory, and in fact some on the left in his own party argued that both of them amounted to sellouts on principle in favor of expediency. But both agreements served the purpose of keeping the process moving forward, inching ever closer toward Mr. Obama’s goals and providing a jolt of adrenaline for a White House eager to validate its first year in office.

Mr. Obama seemed encouraged by the progress. He had just left Denmark on Air Force One with the climate change agreement in hand when he reached Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and heard of the health care deal. “He was, fair to say, pretty happy,” Mr. Reid later told reporters.

After landing in a Washington-area snowstorm and retiring for a few hours of rest, Mr. Obama appeared in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House on a snowy Saturday. He called the health care deal “a major step forward” and the climate change agreement an “important breakthrough.”

Still, he acknowledged that neither was exactly what he had set out to achieve. On climate change, he said that the Copenhagen pact “is not enough” and that “we have a long way to go.” On health care, he noted that “as with any legislation, compromise is part of the process.”

In an interview, Mr. Emanuel said the developments showed that Mr. Obama “sets out the North Stars for us” in terms of broad and ambitious goals, but is willing to let his staff and allies haggle over the specifics. “He doesn’t negotiate the ends,” Mr. Emanuel said. “He’s very open to discussing alternative routes.”

Critics cautioned against making too much of the agreements. “They are pyrrhic victories,” said John Feehery, a Republican strategist and former Capitol Hill aide. “Neither deal will necessarily improve his poll ratings with swing voters, nor will they energize his base. And neither take the necessary steps to put the American economy back on track, which should be the only thing he is thinking about right now.”

The climate deal in particular may seem more than it is. With the Copenhagen conference unable to agree on binding limits on greenhouse gases linked to climate change, Mr. Obama settled for a three-page agreement with no short or midterm goals but a long-term commitment to prevent world temperatures from rising by more than two degrees by midcentury.

The health care legislation is much further along, and while it compromised on abortion and abandoned a government-run health plan, it still includes many changes long favored by Democrats. If it passes the Senate this week as now appears probable, it stands a much better chance of actually becoming law, culminating decades of largely failed efforts to revamp the nation’s health care system.

Mr. Obama has put a high value on process and keeping things moving, recognizing that history generally does not remember the to and fro, only the big sweep of presidential accomplishments. He may not get the health care plan he envisioned but, if the legislation passes, he will insure 30 million more people, stop insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and at least try to rein in costs. He will not end climate change in his presidency, and may not get the market-based emission caps he wants, but he may move the country, and the world, toward meaningful action.

Of course, to many on both sides of the aisle, there is a less sympathetic narrative. To the left, Mr. Obama seems increasingly to lack the fire to fight on matters of principle. To the right, he appears to be overreaching, saddling the country with debt and the weight of a bloated and overly intrusive government.

Yet whatever their merits, coming at the end of a tough first year, the developments of the past couple of days were something of a balm for the Obama White House. Little this year has come as easily as Mr. Obama and his team once imagined, but as they sort through the balance sheet, they argue that the mediocre poll ratings do not reflect the record.

Mr. Emanuel noted that a year ago, the economy was on the brink of a depression and the financial and auto industries were near collapse. Today, the economy is growing again, and banks and one of the large car companies are repaying government bailouts, although unemployment remains perilously high and the national debt is soaring.

He also ticked off a series of legislative measures that passed with little notice — an expansion of health care for lower-income children, new regulations on the tobacco and credit card industries and an overhaul of military acquisition. With health care now looking closer to passage, Mr. Emanuel called it the “most significant legislative first year of a first-term president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.”

Even so, White House officials are frustrated at the difficulties they have had. As they talk about their agenda for 2010, some Democrats have suggested looking for a few easy, popular initiatives as sort of a breather between the big-ticket, often polarizing proposals that dominated 2009.

The problem, as they noted, is that they had expected some of this year’s proposals to be more popular, only to discover otherwise in a treacherous political climate.

Drone Breach Stirs Calls to Fill Cyber Post

Getty Images

Staff members at the Oct. 30 opening ceremony of the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team/National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center facility in Arlington, Va. The facility is designed to help protect the country's technological infrastructure.

 Read Article

The two big mistakes

Michael Tomasky

• Comments (90)

Obama is handcuffed by the political mess at home

• Comments (17)

Health-care debate wearing on Democrats' unity, popularity

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 19, 2009

Amidst the spectacle that has become the health care debate, Democrats have taken comfort in the belief that they will be rewarded politically if in the end they pass something -- almost anything. That proposition is being sorely tested in these final days of maneuvering.

For all the talk of the damage President Obama has sustained during this long and difficult year, congressional Democrats have suffered at least as much -- and will have to face the voters far sooner than the president.

Senate Majority Leader Hary Reid announced Saturday he had the 60 votes to pass the bill. The House still must be persuaded to go along but Obama and the Democrats are one step closer to achieving the goal that has eluded so many presidents and Congresses. That in itself is a significant achievement.

The long fight has been costly, however. The health care debate has split the Democratic coalition. Unity has given way to bitter infighting. This has been a moment for individuals to make war on one another.

What good will that existed among Democrats at the start of Obama's presidency has been fractured and will be difficult to put together again. The events of the past week underscore that reality.

Joe Lieberman who bolted the party in 2006 to salvage his Senate seat and then accepted the Democrats' generosity to maintain his committee chairmanship despite having backed John McCain in last year's presidential race, held the party hostage in negotiations, enraging many liberals.

Howard Dean, who has grievances about the way he was discarded by the Obama team after running the Democratic National Committee for four years, has led a vocal guerrilla war against the bill from outside the Congress, enraging the party leadership.

Democratic centrists have extracted costly promises to stay aboard but still fear for their political futures. Bloggers and progressive activists have counterattacked against them vowing retribution. Labor is unenthusiastic to hostile.

Progressives in Congress have swallowed hard over the compromises that have been needed to round up enough votes to beat back a Republican filibuster.

Hard-headed politicians would say there was no way to avoid this kind of squabbling, given the stakes and complexity of health care reform and the rules of the Congress. There are no immaculate legislative struggles on a piece of social legislation of this consequence.

Leading Democrats also believe that, in the end, voters care less about process than about outcomes. If, in the face of united Republican opposition, the Democrats produce historic changes in the availability of health care to millions more citizens and protect against some of the arbitrary practices of the insurance industry, that will override the messy path to success.

But there is something broader for Democrats to worry about as they try to finish their work this year and prepare for 2010 and the midterm elections. What began as an undercurrent of dissatisfaction has grown throughout the year. Disappointment with the president is dwarfed by discontent with the Congress.

No Congress is ever loved, but the assessments of this Congress are striking in their negativity. In the most recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll only seven percent rated the performance of Congress above average, and 34 percent called it one of the worst.

Two benchmarks put that number into perspective. In October 1994, shortly before Republicans ousted Democrats from power in the House and Senate, 16 percent called that Congress one of the worst. In October 2006, just before Democrats recaptured control, 25 percent called that Congress one of the worst. In the past five months, the percentage who rate this Congress that low has jumped 11 percentage points.

Thirty-five percent gave the Democratic Party a positive rating, still higher than the 28 percent who rated the Republican Party that way. But since February, Democrats have seen their overall image go from net positive to net negative. Republicans, while still living in negative territory, have improved slightly.

A third finding underscores the problem for Democrats: 38 percent said their member of Congress deserves to be reelected, while 49 percent said it is time to give a new person a chance. That is identical to the percentage who said give a new person a chance a month before the 1994 GOP landslide and slightly above the number a month before the 2006 Democratic takeover.

Why won't that anti-Washington sentiment fall equally on Republicans and Democrats? Because it rarely does. Republicans are hardly secure or popular, but Democrats are in control. If the public is ready for change again next November, the Democrats will feel the brunt of that anger.

Many factors contribute to the dissatisfaction with Washington. People are angry about bailouts for bankers. The unemployment rate is at 10 percent. They see the deficit rising and worry about the long-term consequences. Conservatives and liberals question whether their leaders have the right priorities.

Health care has exhausted the Democrats and tested their capacity to govern. Democrats hope that passage of a health care bill will prove to be a political restorative. But the longer the debate has gone on, the less people like what they think they may be getting. Congress may be on the cusp of a historic achievement, but right now the public believes the status quo is preferable to change.

Democrats have a dual problem. They must find the votes to pass a bill to avoid the charge that, even with their big majorities, they are incapable of governing. They also must persuade voters that the policy changes they want to enact include far more plusses than minuses.

That is a big challenge, not only for Obama and Democratic leaders. They are governing in difficult times and and see themselves close to the finish line on health care. But they are nonetheless bracing for a difficult election year in 2010.

Congressional staffers turn lobbyists:

Health care lobby drafts army of insiders to help fight overhaul

Former staffers of lawmakers from Harry Reid to Mitch McConnell push clients' agenda

Tribune Newspapers

December 20, 2009

WASHINGTONDavid Nexon had a big problem. An early version of national health care legislation contained a $40 billion tax aimed squarely at members of the medical device trade association he represents.

Nexon, a former adviser to the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, went to work. He marshaled 14 people like himself -- lobbyists who were once congressional aides, many of them from staffs of congressional leaders or committees that had a hand in crafting the health care overhaul.

When Senate Democrats unveiled their bill in mid-November, Nexon's handiwork was evident. The tax on device-makers was still large -- $20 billion -- but only half what it might have been without the efforts of Nexon and his fellow lobbyists.

Nexon's team is an illustration of how deeply the health care industry has embedded itself on Capitol Hill, using former aides of lawmakers and ex-lawmakers themselves.

An analysis of public documents by Northwestern University's Medill News Service in partnership with the Tribune Newspapers Washington Bureau and the Center for Responsive Politics found a revolving door between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies with a stake in health care legislation.

At least 166 former aides from the nine congressional leadership offices and five committees involved in shaping health overhaul legislation -- along with at least 13 former lawmakers -- registered to represent at least 338 health care clients since the beginning of last year, according to the analysis.

Their health care clients spent $635 million on lobbying over the past two years, the study shows.

The total of insider lobbyists jumps to 278 when non-health-care firms that reported lobbying on health issues are added in, the analysis found.

Part of the lobbying pressure on current members of Congress and staffers comes from the powerful lure of post-congressional job possibilities.

"There's always a worry they may be thinking about their future employment opportunities when dealing with these issues, particularly with health care, because the stakes are so high and the breadth of the issues -- pharmacies, hospitals, doctors," said Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz.

Lobbyists' earnings can dwarf congressional salaries, which currently top out at $174,000 annually for lawmakers and $156,000 for aides, though committee staff members can earn slightly more.

In the health care showdown, insider lobbying influence has magnified the clout of corporate interests and helped steer the debate away from a public insurance option, despite many polls indicating majority support from Americans, according to Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker.

"It imposes a kind of conservative bias on the discussion," said Baker, himself a former Senate staffer.

The lineup of insiders working for clients with health care interests includes at least 14 former aides to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and at least 13 former aides to Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee and a key overseer of the health care overhaul.

Nexon, who is now senior executive vice president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, is among at least a half-dozen former Kennedy aides lobbying on health care.

Nexon acknowledged the value of congressional connections, "but in the end, it's not who I know, it's what I know."

It makes sense to hire former staffers for the health care showdown because they tend to be "more generalists, dealing with a broad range of issues," something that is in demand for legislation that sprawls across at least a half-dozen federal agencies and encompasses issues ranging from tax policy to hospital reimbursement rates, according to Nexon.

But specific issues also get specialized help. Earlier this year, the Christian Science Church hired a former Kennedy staffer, Carolyn Osolinik, and three of her colleagues at the Mayer Brown law firm, all veterans of Capitol Hill. The firm has been paid at least $110,000 so far to push a provision requiring insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments.

Phil Davis, a senior official of the church, said the church wanted access to decision makers. "The noise level goes sky high. It's hard to get in to talk to people," he said.

The largest insider lobbying cadre belongs to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, which employs at least 26 former congressional members and staffers, according to Medill/CRP research.

Two other drug interests, biotech firm Amgen Inc. and the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group, with at least 24 and 16 insiders respectively, ranked second and fourth among reported hiring over the past two years of lawmakers' former staffers and members of committees considered in the analysis.

"The numbers shouldn't surprise anyone," said Ken Johnson, a PhRMA senior vice president. "Former staffers have a unique understanding of how the legislative process works. And when you are trying to advocate on behalf of smart public policies, you want smart people on your team."

But Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog group, had a harsher assessment, blaming "a toxic cocktail of insiders and money" for short-circuiting a government-run plan that would have competed with private insurers.

"We'll get a bill. And the president will sign it. But it'll be less than the country deserves," said Edgar, a former six-term member of the House.

Health care lobbyists increase their effectiveness by strategically targeting their campaign contributions or the donations of the interests they represent, Edgar said.

Health industry contributions to congressional candidates have more than doubled so far this decade, rising to $127 million in the 2008 election cycle from $56 million in the 2000 election, with disproportionate sums going to the party in power and to members of committees that oversee health care, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

But lobbyist and former Kennedy staffer Andrew Rosenberg said political conditions, not big money or the predispositions of lobbyists sidelined a public option.

"You could see this coming from a long way off. The Democratic Party is now the big tent party. They have to get to 60 votes. That is the reality," Rosenberg said. "It was going to have to be something that appeals to moderates" opposed to expanding government-run health insurance.

 

Tribune Newspapers' Tom Hamburger and Joe Markman contributed to this report.

Sen. Ben Nelson, right, agreed after hours of negotiation Friday to back the Senate Democrats’ legislation, making him the pivotal 60th vote.

"Senate Democrats said on Saturday that they had clinched an agreement on a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health care system, and that they were on track to approve the legislation by Christmas over fierce Republican opposition."

Read Article 

Johann Hari: The truths Copenhagen ignored

Politicians have chosen low taxes and oil money today over survival tomorrow.

Read Article

Copenhagen closes with weak deal that poor threaten to reject

Copenhagen climate conference: The grim meaning of 'meaningful'

• Comments (127)

Gutless, yes. But the planet's future is no priority of ours

Obama emerges from climate talks with slender pact and bruised stature

US president urges decisive action on climate change, but shows no sign that Washington will take such steps itself

Barack Obama emerged from the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit last night having salvaged an agreement for action on global warming – and his own reputation as a politician who can bridge the most challenging of political divides.

After 15 hours of negotiations, an exhausted looking Obama said he managed to secure a deal on climate change incorporating America's three main goals of emissions cuts, financial aid for the poorest countries, and a measure of accountability for emissions pledges from developing countries.

But he acknowledged the skimpy 2.5 page draft produced at the end of his effort was not the comprehensive agreement he had come to Copenhagen for.

"I think it is important that instead of setting up a bunch of goals that just end up not being met, that we get moving," he said. "We just keep moving forward."

Obama's hectic day of negotiations began immediately on his arrival in Copenhagen, when he encountered what he described as a "fundamental deadlock" between rich and developing countries.

Much of that was a product of the deep resentment at America for its emissions reductions target: a 17% reduction over 2005 levels by 2020. That offer too was conditional on Congress passing climate change legislation. In the final days of the summit, a more vexing issue emerged over America's demands that China and other rapidly emerging countries offer an accounting of their actions to curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama emerged last night claiming to have wrung an important concession from China and India to offer a fuller accounting of its emissions reductions.

"The truth is that we can actually monitor a lot of what takes place through satellite imagery and so forth," he said.

The reassurances are crucial for American domestic political consumption, where there is concern about losing economic ground to China and India in the transition to a clean energy economy. It did not seem at first that the president would be capable of breaking down the divide. Obama's eight-minute speech to the summit was viewed as a huge disappointment.

Although he called for bold and decisive action, Obama – who had been skittish at going to Copenhagen in the first place – offered no sign that Washington was willing to take such steps itself.

There were no further commitments on reducing emissions, or on finance for poor countries, beyond Hillary Clinton's announcement that the US would support a $100bn global fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change. He did not press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months. Obama did say America would follow through on his administration's clean energy agenda, and would live up to its pledges.

But in the absence of any evidence of that commitment the words rang hollow and there was a palpable sense of disappointment in the audience. He warned African and island countries that the alternative – of no agreement – was worse.

Obama's lacklustre speech proved a frustration to a summit that had been looking to him to use his stature on the world stage, and his following among African leaders, to reach an ambitious deal.

But by the end of the day, after Obama spent hours closeted with Chinese, Indian, South African and Brazilian officials, he managed to pull the situation back from the brink.

In his press conference, Obama held up the results of his deal-making as a sign that the era of American isolation under George Bush was over, and that he had returned the country to a position of leadership.

The day of diplomacy also allowed him to reassert the political skills which have not been seen to best advantage in the US during the struggles over health care and Afghanistan. "The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and shape the future that we seek. That is why I came to Copenhagen today," he said. "I believe that what we achieved in Copenhagen is not going to be the end, but rather the beginning."

UN hails climate deal as 'essential beginning'

As delegates agree to "recognise" the US-brokered deal, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, welcomes the progress in the face of strong opposition from developing nations.

Read Article

Leaders hail 'meaningful' climate change deal

World leaders hailed an “historic” deal on climate change after two weeks of difficult negotiations in Copenhagen.  

Read Article

China holds the world to ransom

Michael McCarthy:

Beijing accused of standing in the way of climate change treaty at Copenhagen as US throws down the gauntlet by backing $100bn fund to help poorest countries

Read Article

Will the Huffington Post strategy pay off?

Arianna Huffington says of the Huffington Post: "Our site is not built around the freebie. Our site is built around very hard-working editors and reporters who do all the curating and aggregating and original content. Then bloggers can write when they want, if they want."

 Read Article

The Conservative-Christian Big Thinker

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic, is this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.

 Read Article

“If there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy,” the conservative Catholic journal Crisis concluded a few years ago, “its leaders probably meet in George’s kitchen.”

Peter Alliss: 'I always thought it could all go wrong for Tiger'

 The garrulous Voice of Golf, delivers his typically forthright verdict on the scandal of the year

David Ashdown

 "He's a handsome black man married to a beautiful white girl, and there are some strange people in America, who take exception to that."

 Read Article

Democratic congressman from North Carolina angers supporters by voting against health-care bill

Read Article 

"People want change, and when someone puts their foot in the door to kill the whole thing, that's what has them riled up," said Michael Lawson, an African American leader of the state Democratic Party and one of Kissell's constituents. "It's almost like 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' but Mr. Smith turned out to be somebody that wasn't Mr. Smith."

Barack Obama says world is 'running out of time'

President has given warning that the Copenhagen climate conference is running out of time amid fears that the meeting could yet end in failure.

Climate deal on knife-edge as Obama speaks

Liberal Revolt on Health Care Stings White House

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Liberals like Senator Bernard Sanders are signaling that they have compromised enough to win over moderates.

• A Race to Win Nelson's Vote

Iraq Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones

Militants in Iraq have used inexpensive, off-the-shelf software to intercept video feeds from Predator drones.

 Read Article

Nation of Islam investigated:

U.S. recalled 2007 intelligence probe on group because report violated rules about spying on Americans

By Sebastian Rotella

Tribune Newspapers

December 17, 2009

WASHINGTON

-- The Department of Homeland Security issued but then recalled a 2007 intelligence analysis about the Nation of Islam after deciding that the document broke rules on intelligence activity in the U.S., officials said Wednesday.

Internal DHS documents reveal that intelligence chiefs found that analysts "unintentionally and inadvertently" violated rules governing the collection, retention and distribution of information concerning "U.S. persons and organizations." The apparent error took place during the Bush administration, an agency spokesman said Wednesday, adding that steps have been taken to ensure it does not happen again.

"DHS has implemented a strong and rigorous system of safeguards and oversight to ensure similar products are neither created nor distributed," said Matthew Chandler, a spokesman for the agency. "DHS is fully committed to securing the nation from terrorist attacks and other threats, and we take very seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people while fulfilling this mission."

The 2007 analysis was titled "Nation of Islam: Uncertain Leadership Succession Poses Risk," according to DHS documents released Wednesday as the result of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy group.

At the time, Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan had ceded control to an executive board and gone into seclusion to recover from complications of prostate cancer treatment.

He remains active, though his exact role in the Chicago-based group is unclear. Nation of Islam officials did not return calls for comment.

After the analysis came out, a subsequent review found the analysis had violated internal intelligence guidelines that protect civil liberties and govern the collection and retention of information on the Nation of Islam and other "U.S. persons," a supervisory official wrote.

"The intelligence note on the Nation of Islam should not have been written," the official wrote. "The organization -- despite its highly volatile and extreme rhetoric -- has neither advocated violence nor engaged in violence." The official stressed that the violation had not been intentional and that during more than two years, this was the first among thousands of intelligence analyses about which questions had been raised.

A Columbia University researcher who focuses on the Nation of Islam said the revelation recalled FBI probes in the 1960s and 1970s.

The U.S. government has long been interested in leaders of the religious movement that melds black nationalism with the Islamic faith, said Zaheer Ali. "As a historian, it's not surprising that the federal agencies under a new name -- in this case 'Homeland Security' -- would be so interested."

While no investigation has produced evidence suggesting the Nation of Islam poses a threat, such concerns linger, he said.

"In the minds of many, Islam poses a threat. Black people pose a threat. And the combination of black people and Islam pose a threat in the imagination of people," Ali said. "I don't think our intelligence community is immune to these kinds of perceptions."

The analysis under scrutiny was prepared in October 2007 by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security, according to agency officials.

That office acts in cases involving domestic security as a conduit for the flow of intelligence between federal agencies -- principally the FBI -- and state and local law enforcement authorities.

DHS intelligence personnel in that office routinely write analyses based on information gathered by other agencies, but do not engage in intelligence collection in the field, officials said.

The intelligence and analysis note was distributed by e-mail to 482 recipients, including federal intelligence officials, congressional staff and "at least one state government entity and one educational institution," a DHS report said, without naming them.

Immediately after the note about the Nation of Islam was sent, the office's intelligence oversight officer and its associate general counsel "expressed concerns" about its "content and dissemination," documents said.

DHS intelligence officials contacted the recipients and asked them to delete the note, the documents say.

 

Tribune reporter Manya A. Brachear contributed to this report from Chicago.