OHIO —President Obama visited the Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights, Ohio Wednesday to tout his economic policy, but the press devoted much of its ink to former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray.
With good reason.
Obama’s visit amounted to an early stop on the 2012 campaign trail (and his 16th Ohio visit since getting elected), and his speech was presented as an economic address. But the president used the visit to snub obstructionist Senate Republicans and publicly appoint Cordray as the chief of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Ohio’s major news organizations zeroed in on the president’s Congressional end-around, pointing out that Obama made the appointment while Congress is, arguably, in recess—which would mean that Cordray could serve until the end of 2013 without being confirmed by the Senate.
The president’s move was met with fierce GOP criticism, to which the White House responded in kind, with each side arguing that the other had bent or even broken the rules surrounding Senate confirmation and recess appointments.
At the root of the debate was a surprisingly simple but complicated question: Is Congress in, or is it out of, session? Most of the papers here did a good job explaining the partisan viewpoint on each side of that coin. But some did a better job than others in sorting out the facts in a way that would allow readers to evaluate the rhetoric from both sides.
Senate Republicans, who filibustered Cordray’s appointment in an effort to force changes that would restructure the bureau, are outraged that Obama acted on his own because, in their view, Congress has not “officially” gone into recess. Instead, every few days, legislators have conducted brief, informal sessions with no business agenda—a move designed to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House has called the tactic a “gimmick” and taken the stance that Congress is effectively in recess, permitting executive appointments.
The administration clearly wanted to use Cordray’s appointment to the watchdog agency to call attention to the president’s get-tough stance with Congressional Republicans.
It worked. The focus for most of the news outlets was the partisan push-pull, and what it said about Obama’s 2012 campaign.
For instance, Cleveland’s hometown newspaper, The Plain Dealer, wasted little time fanning the flames with juicy quotes. By the fifth paragraph, the paper was quoting GOP National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus calling the appointment “crazy” and “unreal,” and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell accusing the president of arrogance. Not to be outdone, House Speaker John Boehner called Cordray’s appointment an “unprecedented power grab” that could have a “devastating effect” on constitutional checks and balances.
But though it was buried near the bottom of the story, the P-D eventually weighed in on the legal context, providing the fullest picture for readers. The paper noted that two former Bush administration lawyers had previously weighed in on the president’s side of the legal debate, and that a Brookings Institution scholar and a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond also thought Obama had the upper hand. That doesn’t settle the case—and the P-D might have noted that even some liberal observers don’t think Obama is in the clear here—but the legal arguments help clarify the political battle and provide context for some of the rhetoric, such as Boehner’s assertion that the move was unconstitutional. (The P-D could have done more for readers by actually linking to the arguments it cited, though, such as a 2010 op-ed column by those Bush administration lawyers and a blog post by Sarah Binder, the Brookings scholar.)
Elsewhere in the state, The Cincinnati Enquirer opened its story with perspective from Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute. The focus was to show how Obama might score politically with the Cordray appointment by putting the spotlight on a gridlocked Congress. That’s good politics context, and the newspaper also gave each side its due on the recess appointment issue. But after the partisan back-and-forth, the article circled back to the politics, simply noting that “the constitutional questions are murky.” Pushing further into that legal territory could have helped clarify the issues for readers, and help them make sense of the political rhetoric.