Blogs and Stories
Bring on the Traitor Democrats
)
Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo
Who cares if Obama's electoral coalition is fragile? Democrats need to run against other Democrats to push Congress to the left.
With polls showing volatile levels of support for President Barack Obama and his policies, it's important to remember that political upheavals of the past 12 months have left the Democratic Party with a raft of new senators, and a presidential job-approval rating in the 60s. Most of them got to where they are the old-fashioned way. Freshman Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina was in the state senate, defeated several other candidates in a primary, then ran and won against Elizabeth Dole in a general election. Others, like Roland Burris (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand of New York—a House member chosen by unpopular governor David Paterson to replace Hillary Clinton even though the state featured a bevy of more-senior Democratic legislators—and party-switcher Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania got where they are through less-orthodox paths. And while those who've taken a traditional route to power are essentially all in good standing with their state-party organizations, the unorthodox senators face some discontent. The official position of the Democratic Party leadership, from the White House on down, is that people should leave well enough alone and support the reelection of incumbents. Nevertheless, both Specter and Gillibrand appear to be drawing strong primary challenges from Reps. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY).
To some, a popular president elected by a strong majority of the voters and backed by a majority in the House and 59 co-partisans in the Senate ought to have his program sailing through. The reality is quite a bit different.
Writing in Politico this week, Jonathan Martin observed that these challengers are defying "the unambiguous wishes of Obama" and said that his "political sway within his own party is about to be tested." In a sense, of course, that's true. But the reality is that the presence of primary challengers is likely to strengthen Obama's hand where it matters—on Capitol Hill as he tries to round up the votes for his legislative agenda.
Thus far, he's had a surprisingly hard time doing it. To some, a popular president elected by a strong majority of the voters and backed by a majority in the House and 59 co-partisans in the Senate ought to have his program sailing through. The reality is quite a bit different. The legislative prospects for the kind of strong climate-change bill Obama campaigned on look fairly bleak. The administration recently backed off its original idea of completely overhauling the structure of American financial regulation once it became clear that Congress wouldn't support it. And while the odds of health-care reform legislation passing look fairly good, Obama's proposals for paying for it were rejected out of hand on the Hill, and it seems reasonably likely that the administration may not achieve several of its key subsidiary goals. This has led some like Reuters' Felix Salmon to wonder what Obama's doing wrong, but the reality is simply that the situation is not as favorable as it seems.
Getting members of Congress to do what you want is hard. But more primaries on the Democratic side would probably make it easier.
After all, one thing to ask is how did Barack Obama come to possess this progressive agenda in the first place? A big part of the answer is the dynamics of the presidential-primary system. Former Sen. John Edwards started out as a sufficiently plausible candidate that if you squinted just the right way, you could imagine him winning, but he was clearly an underdog relative to celebrities like Obama and Clinton. Under the circumstances, it made tactical sense for Edwards to try to boost his appeal by laying out a bold progressive policy vision. One he'd done it, Clinton and Obama had to worry that Democratic loyalists would shift to his standard so they, too, outlined policy programs far more ambitious than what Al Gore or John Kerry had run on.
Similarly, among congressional Republicans there's a robust tradition of incumbents facing tough primary challenges from the right. The fanaticism of the conservative base can, at times, become counterproductive, as when Pat Toomey's proposed run against Specter wound up pushing him into the Democratic Party. But it also has its strategic and tactical virtues. A minority-party member of Congress normally has a strong incentive to try to cut deals with the majority. After all, the majority—and the White House—hold the strings of power and with it the ability to dispense favors. Meanwhile, a minority-party leader has relatively little to offer in the way of inducements. But fear of primary challenges does a great deal to bolster party discipline, and has allowed the Republican caucus to remain strikingly united in the face of Obama's popularity and the fact that many of them—not only Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, but also Richard Lugar, Richard Burr, Chuck Grassley, John Ensign, and Mel Martinez—represent states Obama won in 2008.
On the Democratic side, the only prominent example of party disloyalty being punished by primary voters is Joe Lieberman. But Lieberman held on to his Senate seat and was welcomed back to the Democratic caucus with open arms even after endorsing John McCain for president. For their trouble, Democrats now find Lieberman opposing the administration on the key question of creating a public health-insurance option as part of health-care reform. The overall dynamic is one in which "centrist" Democrats feel they have more-or-less free reign to buck the administration on its main priorities.
But there are at least two senators who haven't given the White House a peep of trouble recently—Specter and Gillibrand. This may come as a bit of a surprise. Gillibrand was one of the most conservative House Democrats and Specter was, though not very conservative for a Republican, still more conservative than every single Democratic senator. Now, though, they're loyalists. And this is no coincidence—both senators are facing possible primaries and both know perfectly well that their records will provide plenty of grist for a challenger's mill. Consequently, they're determined not to provide any new instances of deviation. Obama's inability to clear the field for these incumbents is actually critical to his ability to get them to vote for his agenda. In other words, if avoiding primaries is really the test of Obama's political strength, his success in changing policy may depend on him finding some more opportunities to fail.
Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Step Up to the Plate, China
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Next Battle for Health Care
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Defending a Bomb-Thrower
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
First, it's not "free reign"; it's "rein".
Second, how does it make sense for you to say that "Edwards pushed Obama leftward" when Obama was the most leftwing member of the Senate? At most, didn't Edwards "push Obama to where Obama always was"?
I think reign was a Freudian slip. And if Obama said it once, he said again and again, that he would be open to listening to the voters; and that includes the jerks among us. But, at the very least he should expect some loyalty on the part of elected officials.
Can you please cite examples to back up your assertion that Obama was the most left-leaning senator of all?
this was a talking point created by the Repubs during the campaign...........adn as fools as we are ........we keep repeating those phoney (BIGGER the LIE ) lines because we are stupid.
THE DEMOCRATS should start creating TALKING POINTS..........i do not know a single one............and i can recite the Republicans
OBAMA has LOST AUDACITY.........it is a shame.
BUT WE MUST HELP HIM regain it
Yes, please elaborate on what RomeoHotel is asking about. SlaveRevolt has half convinced me that Obama might be a DeceptiCon.
Not a decepticon
A prostitute puppet- that's different.
One of my favorite fantasies is trying
To imagine Slave as the one who has to
Deal with real world political machinations
I think he would be blown away.
Ritarita - 'prostitute puppet' sounds nasty and somewhat redundant. I think Obama is an Independent, doing whatever he pleases as circumstances allow.
One of my favorite fantasies use to be Ross Perot winning the presidency, just I could watch his head explode when having to deal with the congress.
Yo, Shit-For-Brains,
"It's not 'free reign,' it's 'rein.'" Okay, as long as you're going schoolmarm on us, RomeoHotel, let me school you.
Where the hell does the author state, "Edwards pushed Obama leftward." It doesn't. You need to be careful when you're using quotation marks, especially when your reply is first on queue, directly below the article.
He never uses those words, because if he did, he would be implying that Edwards staked a territory to Obama's right. He didn't. He was staking territory to Obama's left. So, if you're going to misquote the author, at least get the terminology correct. Edwards would have "pulled" Obama leftward.
That's just semantics and as silly as "rein" or "reign."
Let's get to the nitty-gritty, namely Obama's liberalism. You state that "Obama was the most leftwing member of the Senate." That's propaganda. You folks on the right can't get away from this crap, i.e. "he's a foreign-born, planted Muslim terrorist who consorts with domestic terrorists....yuuck, yuuck, yuuck. Scary. I mean you guys, not Obama.
The National Journal is the source that everyone on the left and right uses to make this claim; and it's true that in '07 NJ, using an arbitrary but useful
system, came to the conclusion that Obama was the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. But that was for '07. In '05, he was ranked as the 16th most liberal Senator, and in '06, NJ ranked him as the 10th most liberal. I'm not sure where he ranked in '08, but I do know that Patty Murphy of Washington was handed the crown.
So, in your small world, I guess you like a ball player who bats .250. I'll also bet that in that world, you and the Eye of Newt and Jaba the Rush can come up with a formula that would convert that to show that Obama was the most "leftwing member of the Senate."
To paraphrase an old high school cheer, not to mention taking this reply to an even lower level: Watermelon, watermelon, watermelon rind. Look who's livin' in the White House and kiss his behind.
Hey, here's a news flash from the city, Romeo--in paragraph 5, the Edwards paragraph, Yglesias writes, "One he'd done it..." Quick...call the SWAT team!
First class professorial rant.
All quiet from Romeo in the back row.
I think the polls reflect much more than "volitile support" for the Presidents policies. I believe what we're seeing is the deflation of the high hopes and dreams of "change we can believe in" that Obama instilled within all of us during the election season.
"YES WE CAN" Weer the words repeated over and over again, not only by the cantidate, but by his surrogates, his fund raisers and the huge crowds that came to catch a look at the charismatic, different kind of politician.
The problem is not that we are growing weary of the deficit as much as we are all beginning to realize that we've been had by another slick talking, run of the mill politicians.
Nearly everything he promised as coming "Change", has been all but faded away into the breeze.
-Closing Guantanamo
-Health Care
-End the war
-Transparency
-Don't ask, Don't tell
-Shutting down special interests
-Tougher rules on Lobbiests
-Re-Regulation of Wall street
- Et Cetera, Et Cetera
As it turns out, it's all just too hard to accomplish, or there's just not enough support on the hill, or we might do more harm than good, or we don't want to tilt the windmills.
All presidential hopefuls make promises, and nearly everyone knows that they're not going to come through on those promises, but Obama was supposed to be different, wasn't he.
I voted for him, and given the same choices I would again, but I and many others will never again believe Obama can bring any REAL "Change" to washington or anywhere else for that matter, mainly because he has let us al down.
In his quest to have everyone "on board", he has renounced change in favor of "comprimise". Maybe that's not all that bad, but then again, he never promised us a "comprimise" on health care, he never promised us a comprimise on ending the war, he never promised us comprimise at all, he promised us all "Change".
The problem is, that what we're getting is not change we can or even want to believe in, what we're getting is more of the same.
More of the same bowing down to special interest money, more of the same jibberish about bi-partianship, and more of the same old washington politics.
As much as it hurts me to say this, sometime the truth hurts. Obama has shown us all that he is no different than any other washington politician, no different than the last president, no different than the next president, change does not exist.
Sure, you can change the color of the presidents skin, his foreign sounding name and even his party affiliation, but when it comes to delivering on the hopes, dreams, aspirations of all Americans desperately in need of the Change promised, he's just another empty suit.
What America didn't need, was another smooth-talking lawyer with a knack for telling people what they needed to hear, so he could get a better paying government job, get his "piece of the pie", and leaving the rest of us without exact change for anything.
We might have elected him anyway, but maybe not.
Johnny-Boy
you do realize that the man has only been in office since January right? What kind of change were you expecting in less than one year? I have a hard time believing you voted for Obama. You sound like a troll trying to push your republican/terrorist agenda. My advice to you is to put down the crack pipe and cultivate some patience.
dj, you say I sound like a troll, who's attacking who here bro-
I believe you're letting your ideaology interfere with your common sense. I did vote for Obama, I don't use Crack and I don't appreciate your personal attack in response to my "opinion" of the performance of our president.
If he had not already shown us all his position on the above listed issues, I would not be saying what I did, but he has.
Look at what he's done about those things, then try to remember what he SAID he would do. They don't match up.
Now attack if you wish, but if you're honest with yourself, if nobody else, you HAVE to admit that his promises of change have become piece-meal compromises with the devil, so to speak, and you know it.
I want him to come through for us like he said he would. I want the healthcare he promised, I want the wars to end like he promised, I want to get the special interest groups out of power like he promised, I want him to repeal dont ask, dont tell Like he promised. I WANT THOSE THINGS.
It's a pretty sad day that someone will spout vile crap at you for holding someone to their pledges.
Gimme a break dj, and stop trolling people that you dont agree with.
Um excuse me Johnny-Boy but I do believe this is a free country and if I want to call you a crack head that is my right. And talk about attacking? What to you call that diatribe above? An empty suit?! That's why you're a crackhead! Maybe it's not crack but you are on something.
It's stupid. Completely stupid to assess any results at this juncture. The only people doing so are cons/terrorists which I am convinced you are.
Come on darling, you're better than that. Ad hominim attacks on a website are not considered protected speech, and I would hate to see you suspended by the site's tenders. What would Sailor Moon do?
Obama had time to increase the faith based initiative that gives our tax revenue to churches.
Obama had time to spread Bush's illegal war even further into Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Obama had time to defend the position that the United States government can kidnap, torture, and indefinitely imprison any person on the planet.
Obama had time to give away over $780 billion of our taxes to corrupt Wall Street companies.
Obama had time to extend FISA which spies on our own citizens.
I guess it's just a question of priorities.
OK, I totally agree with you that the policy expounded during the campaign is not a perfect reflection of where the policies are today:
1 Gitmo is not fully resolved; 2 Health Care reform is not passed; 3 Troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan; 4 WH is refusing to open the visitor's log; 5 DADT is not repealed; 6 umm... who even believed special interests were going away; 7 There ARE tougher rules on lobbiests, actually; 8 Re- regulation is not fully drafted; 9 etc etc...
But seriously, come on, you have to realize that the gap between the policies as they are today and how they were described during the campaign has more to do with the fact that THESES POLICIES ARE STILL BEING FORGED. The bulk of his proposals have not been signed into law yet, and regardless, no President has the power to enact everything that he sees fit -- not even George W. Bush got away with that.
And most importantly, WHAT HE HAS DONE SO FAR IS DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM HIS PREDECESSORS. The budget is the largest budget ever put forth by a President; the stimulus bill, the intervention with GM and the auto industry, the proposals for regulation of the financial sector are all DRASTICALLY different from the positions of President Bush....or Senator McCain, for that matter.
You CANNOT possibly defend the point that this is more of the same. If anything, this is more of the same problems that every President faces: trying to appease the will of a public with absolutely no patience...which I fear you, Johnny-Boy, are exhibiting perfectly.
Hey JohnnyBoy: BHO has not been in office even 6 months, yet, and you're bemoaning the fact that he hasn't delivered anything?
His people just issued proposed Wall St. regulations yesterday, he has developed and is implementing an economic stimulus plan--based on successful FDR actions in the 30's, he has repaired our incredibly battered image in the rest of the world, he has told Israel to get their shit together and recognize Palestine and supported a 2-state solution--the key to getting the mid-East calmed down, stopped torture, and he has admitted he's got more work to do. He has NOT used the obstructionism of the Party Of No as an excuse.
If you don't agree with everything he has done, and it's been a hell of a lot, then fine, but don't say he hasn't done anything. By this time in 2001, George W Bushleague has already racked up a lot of time in Crawford and Camp David, plus he only worked about 6 friggin' hours a day! And he was making plans to take FIVE WEEKS off in August, when the 8/6/01 PDB came in that WARNED him of the impending al Queda attack.
---and I hate your screen name.
Johnny-Boy
Grab some bean curd, sit back, and smoke a doob. For your sake, I hope you pull a Rip Van Winkle and wake up in about 20 years. At that point you should be about 30 years old and, perhaps, ready and willing to face the real world. It's rough and tumble out here, and politics, like life, can sometimes be tough.
Hey, you do realize Obama's only been in office for 5 months, right? And you also realize he didn't need the money. He's a millionaire.
Now you're right about Clinton, he needed the money. But, frankly, he's still the best president of the 21st Century.
Change takes time. Now jump on board and grab your cojones. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Everything on your list is a work in progress, Jack:
-Closing Guantanamo= blocked by the Senate, 17 prisoners released THIS WEEK, about left to go with seven months left. He'll get congress to do it or use power as commander-in-chief and ship that ass to Bagram or supermax here.
-Health Care=Examining models, getting input, not making anyone feel marginalized or compulsively "socialized"
-End the war= scheduled to pull out of cities this month
-Transparency=CIA docs released, others withheld (people in transparent houses get their windows smashed)
-Don't ask, Don't tell= same sex bennies yesterday; DADT is federal law and must be repealed by congress (want to bet the farm he won't sign it?)
-Shutting down special interests=Sec Def Robert Gates killing very expensive and unnecessary programs not enough for you? What exactly does "shutting down special interests" mean anyway? Does that mean I have to quit the union of which I am a member and which protects my rights as an employee?
-Tougher rules on Lobbiests (sp)=like the unprecedented restrictions for hiring them in the White House?
-Re-Regulation of Wall street= like the reforms Geithner has been explaining all week?
- Et Cetera, Et Cetera= how precise, should he try to read your mind for those?
DO you watch the news, or did you actually believe that OUR MAN is, in fact "Barack the Magic Negro" when you "voted" for him?
Obama is more moderate than a lot of you want to believe.
it doesn't matter if Obama is "more moderate" or "more left" or "a socialist". what matters is what he ran on and whether the signs point to him living up to it. my wife and i both sent him more money than we have ever sent anyone. and, we both worked on his campaign. so far, of course he is so much better than Bush; but not living up to his advocacy of issues in the campaign. if i am any example, his support is starting to fray. I need him to stand up for issues that are important to people over corporations and status quo. healthcare is the real test. so far I am not impressed. single payer not even on the table...get real
Hey, he can't put stuff on the table or he gets branded and the stuff gets shot down. It ain't the role of the President to introduce legislation, but to sign it or veto it. Remember HIllarycare! It wasn't killed because it was a bad plan, it died because Ted Kennedy didn't like bring dictated to by the executive.
If the single-payer crowd has the weight (and watching BIll Moyers makes me think they might) they get their seat...
The only "traitors" are the "progressives" READ socialist trash that has infiltrated and hijacked the Democrat Party.
Yes, by all means Bring It On! It's time for Democrats to take back OUR party and send the DSA and their acolytes such as the revolting Yglesias back to their own party.
Wake up fellow Democrats. Look at who the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are. All but a handful are "former" members of the Democratic Socialist Party of America. These losers could never get elected under their true name and objectives so they had to infiltrate one of the two major parties in order to push their Leftist agenda. An agenda which has proven itself a failure in every continent, with every race and ethnic group.
Yes, there is a battle between real Democrats and pseudo democrats (marxists-progressives). The former care about our country and the American people. The latter only care about imposing their failed ideology regardless of the consequences.
And the same can be said for the Republican party. It's time for both parties to get off their perceived moral high ground and enact policies that represent principles of the Constitution and a free Democratic society.
Cathay, are you a Republican Troll? What a load of codswallop you wrote. "Socialist trash", ha, what has been socialist so far by Obama. He seems to be a corporate who backs a lot of Republican issues so he and Rahm can play tough politics on Republicans without being trashed by our media.
And it is time to primary Democrats who consistantly vote against the wishes and interests of their constituents.
You seem to be a right winger.
You should get a sign. Quite a message. Wake up fellow Democrats the left has risen again.
Does that include Daschle, who has publicly announced that the Kennedy proposal won't fly right now?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/18/daschle-urges-obama-to-dr_n_217 329.html
full disclosure - Tom Daschle's law firm has numerous ties to the same healthcare industry that is under scrutiny here - how slippery is this guy?
those psuedo Sally Jesse Raphael glasses should be a dead giveaway
HAHA, this is where it all begins. I voted for Obama, don't get me wrong. But I enjoy watching political parties destroy themselves. I believe the cyclical nature of it is an inherit check on power corruption. And I can see the Democrats starting to overplay their hand, be VERY careful.
Other's in this nation that don't agree with a progressive agenda have just as many rights as those do. And they're not always wrong. When one side overplays it's hand, the other side wins. It wasn't too long ago that Republicans had the WH, and both houses of congress. Obama won by what, 52-46%? That's considered a landslide statistically, but practically, 48% of the country didn't vote for him.
Great article and very true. These people need a bit of fear.
well, WE the PEOPLE have to FORCE them by coming out in the streets..................just like in IRAN
I think OBAMA should start smoking again to regain his AUDACAITY...............he is trying to quit and that hurts him.
HE NEEDS to smoke...............hell , 3 cigarettes a day won't kill him.
Please Michelle ...........let him smoke.
I guarantee you, if Specter doesn't do whatever Obama says, he is not going to be in office next election. He can pretend he's not loyal, but he has no friends left.
In the end the Democrats will fall in line, because they have no excuse anymore to not get Obama's agenda done.
For years the Democrats have shown how really spineless and addicted to lobbyist money they are. Not that the GOP is any different. But they're so afraid of losing their lifestyle and perc they forgot who put them in office and why.
So let's get rid of them! Every democratic who agrues against the agenda the public made clear it wanted in November shoudl face a serious rival in the next election.
Only by getting rid of the out of touch Old Guard (as was done to Elizabeth Dole) do we the people have a chance of seeing this country restored and our opportunties to work, support our families, own a home and afford quality healthcare become reality.
Pay Your Way Party off stride
In 1980 we had 1000B of Debt and 600B budget
20 years three conservative presidents--18 years conservative Senate-12 yers conservtive House
What did we get?
4000B spending in 2009(Bush budget)
10,000 Debt
23M net new jobs per month
carter clinton= 33M
Two most scurrilous admistrations in history
Reagan Bush II
Enrich the rich where today top 10% have 71% of Total National Private Wealth
Democrats built a Great Middle Class
Republicans destroy it.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.