Visual source: Newseum
President Obama's campaign invites a discussion on his "evolving" views on marriage equality by putting out a statement against Minnesota's anti-equality amendment. Pam Louwagie at The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports:
President Obama's Minnesota campaign waded into the state's marriage amendment fight on Monday with a statement saying the president opposes the proposal that would define marriage only as the union of a man and woman.
Obama for America's Minnesota communications director, Kristin Sosanie, said in a news release that "while the President does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. That's what the Minnesota ballot initiative would do -- it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples."
Minnesotans will vote Nov. 6 on a state constitutional amendment that would, in effect, ban same-sex marriage.
More from
Michael Memoli at
The Chicago Tribune:
President Obama, who has fended off questions about his position on same-sex marriage for nearly a year and a half by saying his views are "evolving," faces increasing pressure within his party as momentum builds to declare support for marriage equality in the party's official platform.
Often derided as windy (frequently) and nonbinding (always), platforms nonetheless can play a crucial role in shaping a political party. Republican and Democratic platform debates in the 1980s crystallized the partisan divide over abortion. Earlier, the Democratic Party platform debate in 1948 marked an opening triumph of the civil rights era. Gay rights groups and their allies believe this year's platform can play a similar role for their movement.
That puts Obama in an awkward spot. He's asking gay rights supporters for votes and money — he is scheduled to headline a fundraiser with gay supporters Tuesday in Florida — without committing himself on an issue of paramount concern.
At the same time, his allies have appeared to be prodding him to embrace, or at least not to block, language that would explicitly commit the party to support "the freedom to marry."
On the other side of the aisle, veepstakes talk is in full swing.
Jules Witcover at
The Baltimore Sun:
[T]he experience of the last two decades weighs heavily on Mr. Romney, if he is nominated, to choose his running mate on the basis of true qualification to assume the presidency if so required, and to play a productive role in helping the president govern the country in the meantime.
In eight years as vice president, Mr. Gore proved to be an effective right-hand man to Mr. Clinton over a range of domestic matters. Mr. Cheney in eight years under Mr. Bush became a powerful voice in the shaping and implementation of foreign policy. And Mr. Biden for nearly four years has been an influential figure for Mr. Obama in both realms, as a former chairman of both the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees.
Whether Mr. Romney will follow suit in his selection of a running mate obviously depends on his own perceptions of what role he wants that individual to play. The fact that he himself has had little experience with foreign policy or governing on the national level would suggest he will seek to shore up those deficiencies, but with someone personally compatible, to assure a smooth working relationship.
Julian Zelizer at CNN thinks Mitt Romney should make a "boring" pick for VP:
The first lesson is that vice presidential picks should be boring. In the end, Mitt Romney must overcome his weaknesses as a candidate by what he does on the campaign trail, not by who he picks as his running mate.
Having the right person stand beside you rarely will change the way the public sees you. But calling on the wrong person can draw all the focus away from the campaign's main themes and raise serious concerns about the competence of the candidate.
Very often, less than exciting candidates -- Dick Cheney in 2000, Sen. Al Gore in 1992 or George H.W. Bush in 1980 -- turned out to be perfect primarily because they didn't cause much of a stir. When it comes to vice presidential candidates, less attention is better.
Jon Healy at
The Los Angeles Times:
With Rick Santorum staying off the campaign trail for another day to be with his hospitalized toddler, front-runner Mitt Romney has suspended the barrage of negative campaign ads he’s been airing. That seems like a humane move, and he seems like the sort of guy who’d do it for that reason alone. But it may not be the only reason for Romney to call back the hounds.
Studies have shown that attack ads tend to reduce public esteem for the target. What’s not so clear, however, is whether they inflict more damage on the candidate who uses them. Two groups of researchers led by Richard R. Lau, a political science professor at Rutgers University, found in 1998 and 2007 that there was no persuasive evidence that attack ads helped a campaign more than they hurt the candidate who sponsored them. [...] The effectiveness of negative advertising varies by campaign, but political scientists say there are some clear patterns. Such ads make their greatest impact early in the campaign, when people are still getting to know the candidates. Once they like someone, it’s hard to move them off that favorable opinion. [...]
Negative attacks ads are the
modus operandi of American Crossroads, and
Alexandra Le Tellier at
The Los Angeles Times looks at the upcoming negative campaign against the president:
Our editorial board has also been critical of super PACs. The board has written that “the Supreme Court was naive in believing that most independent expenditures would be hermetically sealed off from campaigns. It was also too sanguine in concluding that independent expenditures pose less of a potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption than direct contributions to campaigns.”
And it’s not just the mainstream media waving red flags. In a column earlier this year, Washington columnist Doyle McManus pointed to gambling tycoon Sheldon Adelson, a super PAC critic and donor.
"I'm against very wealthy people … influencing elections," the eighth-wealthiest man in America told Forbes. "But as long as it's doable, I'm going to do it."
Of course, it’s not just the wealthiest people doing what they can to rig campaigns. It’s corporations too. On March 30, “This American Life” devoted an entire episode to how money is currently corrupting politics. “The trouble with this issue -- and I think John [McCain] would agree with this -- is people have gotten so down about it, they think it's always been this way,” says Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) in an interview. “Well, it's never been this way, since 1907. It's never been the case that when you buy toothpaste or detergent or a gallon of gas, that the next day that money can be used on a candidate that you don't believe in. That's brand new. That's never happened since the Tillman Act and the Taft Hartley Act. And so, people have to realize this is a whole new deal. It's not business as usual.”