gdi-2011-politics-master-file-mercury

Twelve conservative senators including four members

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: h 19, 2010, he attacked health insurance lobbyists for stopping what he felt was in the public interest: Massive public hatred of lobbyists makes them easy foils for Obama Thurber, American University Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies Director, 11 (James, Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 2 (June), “Changing the Way Washington Works? Assessing President Obama’s Battle with Lobbyists,”, http://www.american.edu/spa/ccps/upload/Thurber-psq-article.pdf, p. 359, date accessed - 7-9-11, GJV) The overwhelming public perception of lobbyists, whether convicted or investigated for malfeasance, is that they are bad, a corrupting influence on government and the way Washington works. The public agrees that lobbyists undermine the rights of other citizens, to summarize Madison. This negative public perception of lobbyists was a major cause of Obama’s attacks on them. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents in the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) national poll felt Obama would be very likely or somewhat likely to change the way Washington works. (See the Appendix for CCES public opinion survey results.) After the economic crisis, government corruption was the second-most important issue mentioned by voters in national surveys in 2008 and the most important issue among the electorate in the midterm election of 2006 (See the Appendix for 2008 CCES public opinion about Obama and lobbying reform). Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 241 Mercury Politics Internal Link Answer – Political Capital and Popularity Not Key to Agenda No internal link – popularity and political capital are not key to agenda Rockman, Purdue University Political Science professor, 9 (Bert A., October 2009, Presidential Studies Quarterly, “Does the revolution in presidential studies mean "off with the president's head"?”, volume 39, issue 4, Academic OneFile. accessed 7-15-10) Although Neustadt shunned theory as such, his ideas could be made testable by scholars of a more scientific bent. George Edwards (e.g., 1980, 1989, 1990, 2003) and others (e.g., Bond and Fleisher 1990) have tested Neustadt's ideas about skill and prestige translating into leverage with other actors . In this, Neustadt's ideas turned out to be wrong and insufficiently specified. We know from the work of empirical scientists that public approval (prestige) by itself does little to advance a president's agenda and that the effects of approval are most keenly felt--where they are at all--among a president's support base. We know now, too, that a president's purported skills at schmoozing, twisting arms, and congressional lobbying add virtually nothing to getting what he (or she) wants from Congress. That was a lot more than we knew prior to the publication of Presidential Power. Neustadt gave us the ideas to work with, and a newer (and now older) generation of political scientists, reared on Neustadt but armed with the tools of scientific inquiry, could put some of his propositions to an empirical test. That the empirical tests...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/14/2013 for the course POL 090 taught by Professor Framer during the Spring '13 term at Shimer.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online