The Presidential Leadership Dilemma: Between the Constitution and a Political Party

7Taking Credit and Avoiding Blame

7 Taking Credit and Avoiding Blame The Politics of Rhetorical Signing Statements under Unified and Divided Government Christopher S. Kelley, Bryan W. Marshall, and Deanna J. Watts In June 2009, President Obama acted like many of his predecessors: he assembled a mix of politicians and regular citizens to stand behind him as he signed an important piece of legislation into law. The bill, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, was designed to blunt the consequences of smoking-related illnesses that affect “more than 8 million Americans” and lead to “health problems [that] cost us all more than $100 billion a year.”1 There were other parts of the statement that were also important for President Obama. He equated signing the bill as a victory for health care reform. He also stressed the concept of change, which had been a centerpiece of his 2008 presidential campaign. Change in the sense that it was a victory for bipartisanship since it was “passed overwhelmingly in both houses.”2 Change in the sense that it scored a victory against “special interests . . . today, despite decades of lobbying and advertising by the tobacco industry, we’ve passed a law to help protect the next generation of Americans from growing up with a deadly habit that so many of our 159 160 Christopher S. Kelley, Bryan W. Marshall, and Deanna J. Watts generation have lived with.”3 And finally, just change: “Today, change has come to Washington.”4 Obama’s words were intent on showcasing his leadership toward a greater good rather than the narrow partisan victories so prevalent from Washington. The Obama signing statement resonated positively among interest groups on his side of the fight. For example, Kathy Mulvey, the international policy director for Corporate Accountability International wrote on her organization’s website that Obama’s signing was a “critical step toward regulating what has historically been one of the least regulated products in commerce, and reversing an epidemic that continues to be the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.”5 She also underscored the theme of change and compromise, describing the bill as a signal that the “winds of change” have begun to blow for controlling tobacco and that “Congress and the President are to be commended for enacting” the legislation.6 Douglas W. Blayney M.D., the president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology also underscored the change theme, noting that Obama’s signature “marks a new era in which the federal government now has sweeping regulatory authority over how tobacco products are manufactured and marketed in the United States” and also congratulated Obama and the Congress for having the temerity to pass such important legislation.7 Recently, the presidential signing statement has received considerable attention because of the controversial manner in which President George W. Bush used it to challenge the constitutionality of provisions of law. By the time President Bush left office in 2009, he had issued around twelve hundred challenges to bills he signed into law. As political scientists who are interested in the signing statement, we are happy that it has had its day. Yet, like any other obscure action that shoots to the top of public interest, the coverage of the statement has not been complete—popular attention has focused on the Bush administration’s constitutional challenges and most of the scholarly focus has been on the use of the signing statement to challenge or interpret bills being signed into law. What has not received much attention is the use of the statement for purely rhetorical purposes—to congratulate or condemn members of Congress or actions of outside parties, or to praise administration policy or signal support to important constituencies. This oversight is surprising given the important attention to presidential rhetoric overall.8 Hopefully, this analysis will be a first step in closing the information gap on the different types of signing statements and give us a better understanding of the 161 Taking Credit and Avoiding Blame tools the president uses to promote his office and his policies. In doing so, this analysis illuminates how the signing statement can be used to communicate with a variety of political constituencies demonstrating his leadership appeal toward both partisan and national interests. This chapter will unfold as follows: first, we will discuss what the signing statement is, its history, and the different ways the president uses it. Next, we focus on the rhetorical signing...