Obama's Muscle

Richardson, Geithner, now Daschle – is there a pattern here?

In three cases, President Obama’s nominees have encountered potentially nomination-wrecking problems. Richardson withdrew, Geithner brushed past all objections, and to date anyway Daschle is benefiting from senatorial courtesy.

So: multiple sloppiness on the part of the Obama vetters? Not impossible, but unlikely. Richardson’s issue was common knowledge; Daschle volunteered the information about his tax difficulties.

The Obama administration went ahead anyway – even though Geithner’s and Daschle’s issues were at least as serious as those that blocked the confirmation of Linda Chavez in 2001 and Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood in 1993.

So why is Obama succeeding where Bush and Clinton failed?

It’s not just that President Obama has the votes in the Senate: Clinton and Bush both started with Senate majorities too. (50 votes plus the vice president in Bush’s case.)

It’s not just that he has the press on board: Clinton started with a favorable press too.

What Obama has that Clinton and Bush lacked is the self-confidence that comes from facing a thoroughly defeated opposition.

In 1993 and 2001, it was the administration that wanted to avoid unnecessary fights. This time it is the Senate minority that feels it has to choose its battles carefully. The administration is aware of that weakness, and is taking full advantage of it, not only in confirmations but in major matters like the stimulus.

What is most galling about the situation is that the administration is right. Had Republicans seriously tried to stop the Geithner nomination, they would have done more damage to themselves. Wall Street wanted Geithner confirmed. The financial industry is already pathetically beholden to the Obama administration; a fight over Geithner would only have tinted this important constituency even deeper blue. And the broader American public would almost certainly have backed the new president over senators who would have been accused of playing congressional games during a financial emergency.

What’s the lesson here? It’s this: Popular vote margins matter. On paper, the Republican bloc in the Senate is stronger than it was in 1993. In practice, defying a 52% President Obama is more difficult and dangerous than defying a 42% President Clinton.

When people like me worry about losing the political center, we are worrying precisely about the situation in the Senate today. Probably no campaign on earth could have saved the Republican nominee in 2008. But not all losses are created equal. A narrower loss in November would have real world benefits in February.

We should keep that fact in mind as so many of our fellow Republicans succumb to enthusiasm for a 1964-style Palin kamikaze campaign for 2012.