Congress NAILs the President

NAIL is a mnemonic device for four ways by which the legislative branch oversees or checks the executive.

• Nominations. The Senate must confirm presidential nominations to high-level executive posts. Most nominations are uncontroversial and win easy approval. But the threat of defeating nominees may influence the names that the president sends to the Hill. And confirmation hearings not only enable senators to judge the nominees' qualifications but let them send messages to the administration. See Leahy ask Mukasey about torture.
• Appropriations. Lawmakers may use earmarks and limitations are to direct and restrict the availability of funds for specified activities. Look here for a map of some earmarks. As with nominations, they may also use hearings to raise policy questions. See Obey ask Secretary Gates about Gitmo.
• Investigations. Congressional committees often conduct investigations and oversight hearings. One famous example was the Senate Watergate Committee, in which then-staffer Fred Thompson played a role. Congress may also study executive branch operations through the GAO, the CBO, and the CRS.
• Legislation. Of course, Congress may influence the executive by passing laws requiring or forbidding certain activities. As the readings point out, the Supreme Court ruled against the "legislative veto."

Congress seldom resorts to a more powerful weapon: impeachment. See the cases of Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton.

In curbing the executive, how successful has Congress been? Under which circumstances does which branch have the upper hand?

Romney: Consultant-in-Chief

In last weekend's Wall Street Journal, there was an article describing how Romney's consulting background would shape a Romney presidency (link to the article)

An interesting excerpt from the article:

When asked for details about how he would reduce the size of government if elected, he mentions two things: The organizational chart of the executive branch, and consultants. "There's no corporation in America that would have a CEO, no COO, just a CEO, with 30 direct reports."

Running a government organized like this is, he explains, impossible. "So I would probably have super-cabinet secretaries, or at least some structure that McKinsey would guide me to put in place." He seems to catch a note of surprise in his audience, but he presses on: "I'm not kidding, I probably would bring in McKinsey. . . . I would consult with the best and the brightest minds, whether it's McKinsey, Bain, BCG or Jack Welch."

Romney goes on to mention how duplicative and wasteful government is, and talks about how he would "cut the fat". I think this is an interesting take on how to fix government, but how realistic is this in light of the discussion we had today? Government rarely shrinks, not even under avowed small-government politicians like Reagan. Given Romney's lack of inside-the-beltway experience, I really wonder whether he would really be able to pull this off.

But if Romney actually wins, I guess anything is possible.

Geoff Lewis

FBCI

Over the weekend I was thinking about something from last week's topic. It is small and relatively unimportant, but I was curious about it nonetheless. I was wondering about the Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives. I imagine it has played a significant role during the Bush presidency in catering to the religious voters. But I was thinking about the role this office would have in a Romney administration. Just how much does the religious preference of the president influence this office? Would Romney use this office to promote a Mormon faith-based agenda? Or would he specifically refrain from this? I also was thinking of what would happen in a Giuliani presidency, where faith clearly is not of much of importance. How would this office look under his stewardship? I guess I am wondering whether this office tends to be filled by members of the president's church, or if it is simply given (almost like a cabinet position) to someone who will please religious supporters.

Campaign Strategy in the Democratic Primary

According to this Politico article http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6816.html, it looks like Clinton and Obama are taking opposite strategies. Clinton opts for the partisan technique, rallying the base and "turning up the heat" against Republicans. Obama, on the other hand, is going for the "nation healed" motto and seeks to "reunite the country."

Why do you think these two candidates are going for these distinct strategies? What about Clinton makes "turning up the heat" more appropriate versus "a nation healed?" Also, what about the enviornment? When does the political enviornment call for a more conciliatory approach?

Also, does anyone know of examples in history where multiple candidates ganged up on the front runner in a primary and that front runner lost? If so, which underdog took the nomination? Has this proven to be a successful campaign strategy?

Swift Kids for Truth

A spoof off of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.

Click here to see the satirical videos on Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, created by 23/6.com, a new comedy "news" site. Unlike the Swift Vets for Truth commercials, these farcical ads wont impact the polls, but they're funny.

Ted Strickland for Vice President?

On the topic of possible running mates, Ted Strickland, who was elected governor of Ohio last year by a wide margin, recently endorsed Clinton. Although he only has a year of experience as governor, he had a long career in the house beginning in the early nineties. He would be a huge asset in Ohio and he has the endorsement of the NRA. I also think he's fairly moderate, especially on social issues.

Congress and the President

This week, we look at relations between the branches. On Monday, we stand at the White House end of Pennsylvania Avenue. How does the president try to get his way with Congress? (See roll call votes). How does the president try to get his way around Congress? The answer to both questions involves a mix of formal authority (e.g., vetoes, executive orders, signing statements), public pronouncements (veto messages, statements of administration policy (SAPs) and informal persuasion.

As for the former, note how both President Clinton and President Bartlet used the Antiquities Act. In this case, as in others, have presidents overstepped their authority?

As for the latter, shall see a classic video presentation of LBJ working his will on Congress. Here is an audio on the same topic. (And another.) Could you picture similar conversations with President Bush?

On Wednesday, we take the view from Capitol Hill. How does Congress seek to influence or restrain the president and the rest of the executive branch. The ultimate weapon is impeachment, which Representative Kucinich tried to use last week.