View Full Version : Trouble in paradise? -- Democratic infighting
The intent of this thread is to document and comment on the Democratic Party's incredible ability to be its own worst enemy.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/11/waxman_defeats_dingell.html
Waxman Defeats Dingell
By Paul Kane
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) won the vote, 137-122, to become the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, defeating the legendary Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.).
The vote came a day after the House Democratic steering committee recommended Waxman for the post in a narrow 25-22 vote. The powerful Energy panel, with jurisdiction over health care, energy issues and telecommunications policy, will play a significant role in moving much of President-elect Barack Obama's agenda in the 111th Congress.
"It's the mantra of the Obama election. People want change," said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who supported Waxman. "He'll work best with the new administration."
Senior Democrats were stunned by the Waxman victory, which seemingly dealt a blow to the party's long-held principle of seniority.
"It's just been buried," Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said of seniority.
Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's public neutrality in the race, Rangel accused her of playing a role. "I assume that not playing a role is playing a role," Rangel said.
Obama even mentioned it, "The ability of the Democratic party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." The D's love to bleed themselves in public.
More grousing in paradise.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5239776.ece
November 27, 2008
Barack Obama forced to deny abandoning 'change' amid insider appointments
(Charles Dharapak/AP)
There have been mounting concerns Barack Obama has pivoted sharply since his election to the centre-right
Tim Reid in Chicago
Barack Obama defended his decision to pack his new Cabinet with veteran Washington insiders and former Clinton officials yesterday after a campaign in which he promised change.
The President-elect responded after naming the former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, a veteran of the Carter and Reagan Administrations, as the head of a new economic panel to stop “groupthink” infecting his inner circle of White House financial advisers.
There have been mounting concerns, particularly from the liberal wing of his Democratic Party, that Mr Obama has pivoted sharply to the centre-right with his choice of top Cabinet posts.
His main economic advisers have close ties to the Clinton White House and Mr Obama has already chosen Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, once served Bill Clinton, and more appointments still to be announced will include a slew of officials who served in the most recent Democratic Administration.
“What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking,” Mr Obama said at his third press conference in as many days. He said he would be foolish, at such a “critical time in our history”, to pick people who “had no experience in Washington whatsoever”.
He added: “What I don’t want to do is somehow suggest that because you somehow served in the last [Clinton]administration you are barred from serving again.”
Mr Obama said he was forming an economic recovery advisory board, with Mr Volcker to head it, to give independent economic advice from outside the White House. “Sometimes policymaking in Washington can become a little bit too ingrown, a little bit too insular,” Mr Obama said. “The walls of the echo chamber can sometimes keep out fresh voices and new ways of thinking.”
Mr Obama said the board, which would report to him regularly, would be filled with individuals from diverse sectors of the economy and would be government outsiders, “to challenge some of our assumptions, to make sure that we are not just doing the same old thing all the time”.
Mr Volcker, 81, a legendary economic figure who has been a close adviser to Mr Obama, was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve by Jimmy Carter in 1979, a time of runaway inflation and high unemployment. He tamed inflation by raising interest rates; a highly controversial move, but one that was later credited with reviving the economy. He was retained in his post by President Reagan.
Mr Obama told anxious Americans that “help is on the way” for the beleaguered economy, but he again gave warning that it would take time to revive the nation’s fortunes.
He spoke as more grim economic news emerged, and as the federal deficit was revealed to be on course to surge to well over $1 trillion (£650 billion).
On Tuesday the Bush Administration announced that it was going to spend another $800 billion — in addition to the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package passed by Congress last month — to unclog credit markets and help homeowners threatened with repossession.
The total of $1.5 trillion does not include Mr Obama’s proposed economic stimulus plan, which could exceed $700 billion, that he wants to sign into law as soon as he takes office.
He made it clear yesterday that his job of governing the country had, in effect, already begun. “I was elected with the charge of getting this economy back in shape,” Mr Obama said.
He added that over the next two months he would put together an economic crisis plan that he would implement “starting day one, when I come into office”.
He suggested that US banking executives should forgo big bonuses, given the financial climate. “I think that if you are already worth tens of millions of dollars and you are having to lay off workers, the least you can do is say, ‘I’m willing to make some sacrifice as well’,” he said, in an ABC News interview.
— Barack Obama has been told he must give up his BlackBerry on Inauguration Day, when he is brought under the Presidential Records Act, which puts his correspondence on official records and ultimately up for public review (Catherine Philp writes). Will he be able to let go?
In an interview with Barbara Walters last night, he joked that he was “still negotiating” the issue with the Secret Service and White House staff. “One of the things that I’m going to have to work through is how to break through the isolation, the bubble that exists around the president,” he said.
My question is: where does the president-elect fit into the matrix of 'fresh thinking' and 'experience'?
The Reaper
11-27-2008, 09:11
Easy.
He has the fresh thinking of Rev. Wright, Saul Alinski, and Bill Ayers, combined with the staff of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
He has virtually no experience or history of bipartisan efforts.
TR
Dozer523
11-27-2008, 12:04
OH GOODIE! More politics. Even better -- a thread where we wait for, hope for; anticipate and celebrate ANYthing that might look like a misstep on the part of the new civilian leadership. When did QP start to mean Quintesential Politcal whiner? The last six months had just sucked with politics nearly taking overthis forum. . . So let's just keep it going . . . Thanks, no.
Dozer,
Although your point is well made, I don't think it is unreasonable to track how a president-elect is going to hold together a coalition of perspectives, especially when some of those perspectives are diametrically opposed to each other.
If I may add to Sigaba's point...at least, I would like to think of it as an addition and not a subtraction....
The POTUS is a significant factor in the American system of governance. As such his choices and actions are likely to have large affects on the domestic and global economy, as well as the geopolitical environment.
Now...in my opinion...we have a dangerous economic situation. There are some possibilities floating out there that suggest it may get a great deal worse (Yes, seriously.). Will the POTUS use the printing press to attempt to stimulate the economy? If that doesn't work, what does he do next?
We've just seen a terrorist attack in India. It may be the current President who handles that situation, but the President-elect will handle what comes next. How will he deal with the frictions between India and Pakistan - especially if the global economy destabilizes both nations?
Cantarell, the big Mexican oil field is in decline. How will he handle border issues?
The IEA suggests we are on the verge of large-scale, persistent declines in oil production world-wide. There is some research that concludes global GDP will enter into permanent and irreversible decline. How will the POTUS deal with the implied social friction around the world and in the U.S.?
There are those who suggest that the POTUS has appointed a centrist cabinet. This may disappoint many leftist supporters of the new President. How does he handle that situation?
Some suggest that grain production is inadequate to feed the global population. The present credit crises may reduce the ability of farmers world-wide to purchase fertilizer and seeds. Thus, we could have more expensive food. This has the potential to destabilize nations. What does the POTUS do?
And so on, and so forth.
This choices will determine how people make (or lose) money. How they eat, the amount of crime they fear, and whether the existing social schisms within our society remain the same, improve - or get worse. The choices will determine war or peace - and whether we experience the pain of terrorist acts on our own soil or not.
From the perspective of planning our own lives, it seems to me that consideration of policy decisions by the POTUS is worthwhile. Indeed, it is essential.
Failure to do so seems akin to closing one's eyes while running full-tilt into a mine field.
As for politics, we all participate all the time. The only choice is whether we do so consciously or otherwise. For myself, I prefer to try to keep my eyes open.
The Reaper
11-27-2008, 18:16
I find the political discussion of interest, but as a political scientist, perhaps I am just sick like that.
If politics are not your cup of tea, perhaps you might want to avoid "The Soapbox" ("The Political Discussions Forum") and just read/respond to the forums here that you do find of interest.
I think that the nation faces significant challenges and would like to know what our leadership is going to do about them.
As an American who has served, I do believe that I have the right to discuss my government, correspond with my leadership, and state my position publicly.
TR
My question is: where does the president-elect fit into the matrix of 'fresh thinking' and 'experience'?
He is Milli Vanilli.
Has the looks, the moves, and is "global". Has rocketed from obscurity to the center stage. Is the talk of the world.... an overnight sensation.
...and is lip-synching.
When will the recording skip?
Blitzzz (RIP)
11-28-2008, 07:15
Reaper is correct, this is a soapbox, so spout you views. The views here are presently predominantly not impressed with the "new civilian leadership". The alledged "misstep" has already occurred, ie. the kool-aid drinking crowd voting in the "new civilian leadership". The "missteps" will not be mistakes but more malicious left stepping away from the Constitution. Some folks appear to prefer boot licking to intelligent analysis. So raise your white flags and paint your Stars and Stripes the appropriate...Red.
"I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC". Blitz
Dozer523
11-29-2008, 10:40
okay, okay, you're right it is the soapbox. I can skip it but. . . a day without checking all the "new posts" is like a day without a a ton of bitchin' and moanin' in the team room waiting for the coffee to perk before PT.;) Oh well. God help us if he does anything right. (Yeah, yeah . . you don't have to say the obvious . . .):p did someone mention Kool-aid? YuM! Cherry, I love this stuff.
okay, okay, you're right it is the soapbox. I can skip it but. . . a day without checking all the "new posts" is like a day without a a ton of bitchin' and moanin' in the team room waiting for the coffee to perk before PT.;) Oh well. God help us if he does anything right. (Yeah, yeah . . you don't have to say the obvious . . .):p did someone mention Kool-aid? YuM! Cherry, I love this stuff.
If the president-elect ends up being a successful president, I'll say so, no matter how painful such an admission would be.
I do hope that the president-elect will be mindful of the consequences alienating his base.
God help us if he does anything right.
Sir...quite seriously...how will any of us know if he does anything right - or, for that matter, wrong? Granted, there are policy issues we are each attached to; but in this instance, I refer to the good of the nation and its people.
If the economy improves - or gets worse - how can we say that what he did helped it or hindered it? The same pattern applies to most areas.
It's the same situation with President Bush. The polls indicate he is deeply unpopular; but there is a dearth of information to show what, precisely, he should have done differently.
In the end, I think his degree of success will be nothing more than the totality of opinion - and that will not develop due to rational reasons, but rather because of emotional reactions.
My expectation is that he will be wildly unpopular in 2012; ironically, it will have little to do with him. John McCain would have faced the same outcome.
Dozer523
11-29-2008, 20:01
Jeeze! I said I was sorry! you want it in Latin? I'm catholic so I can if you insist!
Jeeze! I said I was sorry! you want it in Latin? I'm catholic so I can if you insist!
No, Sir, I didn't mean to insist on anything.
I like to explore ideas and concepts. That's one reason I originally came here - because I can read fresh perspectives that are markedly different from what I usually come across.
One thing that triggered my interest was a paper that I've seen mentioned elsewhere. It says:
The social mood theory suggests that the mood of society is reflected in the performance of the stock market. As related to political cycles, the misattribution bias causes people to attribute their mood (measured by stock market performance) to the incumbent president. In this way, stock market return is a predictor of presidential elections. Alternatively, political policy theory suggests that the policies of the Democratic and Republican parties influence the performance of the stock market. In empirical tests, I find that stock market returns are more likely to predict presidential elections then elections are to predict the stock market.
(I added the bolding)
So, in this case, I am simply seeking information about your perspective. I haven't considered what goes into approval of a President before. Why is one popular and approved of? Why is another not? I know that I have my various biases - but is personal bias all it boils down to?
However, I do not wish to stir up arguments, nor do I wish to offend. So, if you think it best, I will simply drop it.
Source is http://tinyurl.com/59xm4v.
Anxiety among Democrats as Pelosi tightens her grip
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 12/02/08 08:13 PM [ET]
Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) moves since the November elections have shaken up some of her colleagues, with some looking over their shoulders and others worried about how the Speaker will lead her expanded majority in 2009.
Next year is regarded as the biggest legislative opportunity for Democrats since 1993, the last time they controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress.
But not all Democrats are celebrating. Liberals are worried about Pelosi’s vow to govern “from the middle” and centrists are concerned that the make-up of the House leadership team has shifted noticeably to the left.
Contrary to the jubilation of House Democrats after they regained control of the lower chamber after the 2006 elections, there is some unease among members heading into the 111th Congress.
“Everybody I talk to, everybody’s worried about something,” said a Democratic staffer.
Pelosi’s effort to make some Democrats anxious could be a calculated maneuver as she seeks to maximize the effectiveness of her caucus heading into 2009. Pelosi’s hard-charging tone and decisions over the past month have sent a message to her colleagues: Don’t get too comfortable.
The seniority system that tempers the power of the Speaker is teetering, having received a body blow from Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) coup at the Energy and Commerce Committee.
When chairmen aren’t flinching at the possibility of a challenge from a junior member, they can look forward to being bounced by term limits in four years. That’s a change that Pelosi quietly endorsed in the 2007 House rules package.
Throughout the past four years, there has been a palpable strain in the Democratic Caucus between the older members who extol the seniority system and younger legislators who believe they deserve a more significant role in decisionmaking.
Pelosi, the unquestioned leader in the House whose enormous power seems to grow by the day, has sought to placate both factions. And to this point, she has succeeded.
Few members clash publicly with Pelosi. Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who were at odds with Pelosi over the last few years, were stripped of their top committee posts.
Centrists are grumbling that their growing ranks aren’t represented in the leadership team that Pelosi shaped through back-room arm-twisting. The so-called Blue Dogs, while publicly celebrating President-elect Obama’s commitment to “pay-go,” are wondering when the stimulus balloon stops expanding.
There is also growing speculation that pay-go will be waived for healthcare legislation, which is expected to cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Meanwhile, Congress has swept in and out of town since the election with little to show except for a deposed chairman and a tongue-lashing for auto executives. And to the extent that any decisions are being announced, they’re coming from Obama’s headquarters in Chicago.
Most leadership aides, for their part, say any talk of tension is exaggerated. The word out of Pelosi’s office is not to worry.
“Everyone had and will continue to have a seat at the table,” said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami. “Her record has been that she’s a pragmatist who gets things done.”
On the day after the election, Pelosi assured that “the country must be governed from the middle.”
But as she spoke, Waxman was seeking to move things to the left. He spent the day making calls to fellow members asking them for the gavel of Energy and Commerce, where the heart of the Obama agenda will be hammered out. About two weeks later, the environmental left prevailed over the business-minded centrists when Dingell, the champion of the auto industry, was ousted.
“We’ll work with the new leadership,” Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), incoming leader of the conservative Blue Dogs, said after the Dingell vote. “But to deny a man who defines the modern Congress ... is a mistake.”
Pelosi insists she had nothing to do with it. Her aides claim that she stayed strictly neutral even though Waxman hails from her state and Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.), a Pelosi confidant, lobbied heavily for Waxman.
Pelosi did intervene when Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) indicated he would run against Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) for caucus chairman. Van Hollen reconsidered, announcing he would stay on at the DCCC, and a Larson-Van Hollen showdown was averted.
In the Dingell-Waxman race, Pelosi’s silence was viewed as an endorsement of Waxman.
“I assume that not playing a role is playing a role,” said House Ways and Means panel Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) last month.
Rangel, in particular, has reason to pay attention to Pelosi’s attention to the seniority system. He is perceived as one of Pelosi’s most loyal lieutenants, but is under increasing pressure to give up his gavel because of mounting ethics charges against him.
Last week, Pelosi took the unusual step of issuing a statement about the ethics committee investigation of Rangel, indicating it had been accelerated.
Yet Pelosi this week reiterated her support for Rangel. Asked at a New York event whether Rangel might lose his chairmanship, she said, “I don’t foresee that.”
Still, there are signs that Republicans might challenge Rangel’s chairmanship by way of a floor vote that will further test Rangel’s standing and popularity.
The ripples of the Dingell vote are still being felt, as the discussion turns to whether Waxman loyalists will try to unseat Dingell allies who chair the panel’s subcommittees, and who will assume Waxman’s Oversight role.
But there’s more uncertainty than that. Some say it was the seniority system, not just Dingell, under attack.
And the old rules, like Dingell, will play more of a ceremonial rule in the future.
“It’s a reed in the wind that there are other forces working the system,” said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who lost her leadership race last month against Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) for vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus. “The seniority system is a neutral method of promotion, as opposed to [raising] money, which is becoming increasingly important.”
Democrats are embracing at least some aspects of how House Republicans promoted from within when they controlled the chamber from 1995 to 2006. Fundraising, loyalty to leadership and voting records were major factors in the selection of committee chairmen and deciding who would fill coveted seats on “A” committees.
Seniority was a major factor for the GOP, but not the dominant determinant.
Moreover, the six-year limit for committee chairmen that Pelosi has embraced was implemented by Republicans when they were in the majority.
For worried Democratic centrists, the unlikely source of salvation is Obama, derided in the campaign as the most liberal member of the Senate, who sounds more conservative with each new Cabinet appointment.
“While people are disappointed, what’s coming out of the top office in the land is good news,” said an aide to a top centrist lawmaker. Obama has also embraced pay-go principles, delighting Blue Dogs.
Some aides say what tension there is stems from the Democrats’ figuring out how to act as a majority party that controls all levers of lawmaking and policy in the federal government. It was one thing to defy a Speaker. It will be another to defy a president. And Pelosi and Obama were generally on the same page throughout the 2008 campaign season.
“It’s adjusting to a Democrat, and a Democrat with a mandate, in the White House,” said a Democratic leadership aide. “When Obama walks in to the Blue Dogs and says, ‘I need your support for getting out of Iraq in 16 months,’ it gets tough to say no.”
More evidence of growing pains here (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=49BA8365-18FE-70B2-A847289E39B4C5AA).
Critics blast foreign policy transition
By: Ben Smith
February 6, 2009 04:28 AM EST
Democratic foreign policy hands say that a senior Marine general's public frustration with Obama's top aides is a symptom of a national security transition that has been historically speedy — and at times opaque, chaotic and deeply frustrating for some of Obama's supporters and would-be aides.
Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni told Foreign Policy that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Adviser James Jones had both indicated to him that he would be ambassador to Iraq, and that Vice President Joe Biden "called and congratulated me" on getting the job.
Then, after days of silence, Zinni learned that he was instead being offered the post of ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
"I said, 'You can stick that with whatever other offers,'" he recalled saying. Zinni's account roiled foreign policy circles Thursday, and drew rare public criticism of Obama from leading Democratic voices outside the administration.
"They handled this in an extremely amateurish way and then they compound this by letting the world know that they don't really care who's ambassador to Saudi Arabia," said Flynt Leverett, a foreign policy official under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who said the transition had been characterized by such "stumbles."
"It is astounding to me," he said. "It does appear like there are some real struggles going on."
Obama's senior aides defend the foreign policy transition, which they point out is taking place amid two wars and a climate of crisis. Obama has filled top jobs with unprecedented speed. The transition occurred without — as had been feared — any foreign attempt to take advantage of an interregnum. The actual choices to fill the most senior positions — Secretaries Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton, National Security Adviser James Jones, Special Envoys George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke — are large figures who have drawn loud bipartisan acclaim, and Obama sent an envoy to the Middle East with unexpected speed, and is deep into consideration of a new policy in Afghanistan.
Yet on the lower levels of the transition, many among the army of Democratic foreign policy hands who labored for Obama's campaign say they have heard little since election day. Lawrence Korb, a top Reagan Defense Department official and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who headed Obama's defense policy team during the campaign, sent his aides a memo soon after the election.
"I said, 'These are the people who really work and they should be involved in the transition and the administration,'" he recalled. "I never heard anything and neither did they."
"I don't know who's doing what, who's in charge," Korb said.
"There's a climate of uncertainty and lack of clarity," said Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. "There are a lot of people who were under the impression that they would hear things and didn't — and it's almost impossible to pursue a job, to even talk about a job." The climate of uncertainty has led prominent Obama advisers, including former Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, to return to private life, people who have spoken to him said. Kurtzer declined to comment for this story.
The defining feature of Obama's administration is the number of appointees accustomed to making decisions and wielding power in their own right, and many observers read the Zinni flap — notably, his impression that Biden and Clinton had congratulated him — as a result of something less than a clear chain of command. In fact, White House aides say, jobs like Zinni's are being filled by a small circle led by Jones and advisors like National Security Council Chief of Staff Mark Lippert and NSC Director of Strategic Communications Denis McDonough.
Obama's aides disputed the printed account of the interaction between Zinni and the administration, without offering further details. And Obama has the "highest regard" for Zinni and is "hopeful" that there's a role for him in the administration, a senior administration official said.
Still, the predominance of big personalities is, some observers think, at the root of the frustration expressed by Zinni and other, lower-ranking appointment-seekers.
"What was done to Zinni was wrong," said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. who worked under Zinni in the Middle East. "The question is whether it says anything broader about any of the dysfunction that is being created in this unprecedented system."
"There's a lot of chiefs and not a whole lot of Indians," said Miller. "You've just got to make sure that when chiefs interact, the casualty of this interaction isn't an effectively and seamlessly organized American policy."
Most Democrats remain hopeful, however, that the process's frustrations are largely products of the speed and of the administration's early days, and that ruffled feathers will soon be smoothed. "Part of it of it is the normal bumps in the road," said Korb. "And you've also got two wars going on and a lot of international crises." Other tensions, though, may not be resolved until the internal pecking order among the administration's major players becomes clear. "In any administration you get somebody who dominates," Korb added. "Nobody had ever heard of Kissinger before he went in there, and pretty soon he was running things."
Bill Harsey
02-06-2009, 19:48
Jeeze! I said I was sorry! you want it in Latin? I'm catholic so I can if you insist!
Not to cause stuff but in this area we are studying a leader who is practicing the latest form of an old craft, Ad captandum vulgas
Commodo facio tu. :D
Source is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/obamasbattlewiththeliberalwingofthedemocraticparty/print).
Obama's Battle With the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party
By Kenneth T. Walsh Kenneth T. Walsh Fri May 29, 11:32 am ET
Four decades ago, the liberal, antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped to force President Lyndon B. Johnson from office. Specifically, Johnson decided not to run for re-election in 1968 in large part because of rising primary challenges and increasingly vitriolic demonstrations against him. One chant that was heard often at anti-Vietnam War rallies was "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
The level of anger now is nowhere close to that level, but there are warning signs that President Obama is starting to generate serious opposition on the fiery left. There is increasing unease about his sending 21,000 more troops into Afghanistan, which some compare to the early escalations in Vietnam.
There is disquiet that Obama has abandoned his promise to release photos showing brutal interrogations of suspected terrorists.
There is consternation that he is moving toward using military tribunals to prosecute some terrorists, that he has not banned assault weapons, and that he has not acted aggressively enough to protect a woman's right to have an abortion.
Many liberals are also unhappy that Obama shows no interest in a "single payer" healthcare system in which the government would take the lead in guaranteeing adequate medical treatment.
Among the groups that have been ratcheting up their criticism of Obama are the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Public Citizen, and members of the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus.
But despite the disappointment in some quarters, most liberal Democrats have been giving President Obama a pass on his centrist policies, and he still enjoys high approval ratings from the public. The question is whether the overall patience of leaders and voters on the left will last much longer.
White House strategists express confidence that they can keep most liberals in line for the foreseeable future. One reason is that Americans on the left have such lengthy wish lists on issues ranging from healthcare reform to legalizing gay marriage. They don't want to create any permanent break with Obama.
And White House officials say this core of the Democratic Party, with some exceptions, will continue to give its president the benefit of the doubt. They point to a meeting that Obama held with the Progressive Caucus in late April. "It was very cordial," recalls one attendee. "The sense I got from that meeting was that there was a clear desire to work through their differences and try to find compromises. There were no flash points."
It appears that after eight years of a Republican in the White House, liberals are willing to muffle their dissent. "There is such an overriding sense of relief that it's Obama and not George W. Bush in the White House," says Geoff Garin, a veteran Democratic pollster. "There is a pretty strong inclination to cut him a lot of slack." Garin also says that liberals "may say he is not tough enough on the banks or that he's keeping the troops in [Iraq] too long and not delivering quickly enough on 'don't ask, don't tell' [to change policy and allow gays to serve openly in the military]. But they are still delighted and thrilled that he is president of the United States." It also helps in muting opposition that Obama and White House officials are reaching out regularly to inform liberal leaders of what Obama is doing and to get feedback. The president's speech Thursday defending his plans to close the Guantánamo Bay prison--a move that is widely supported on the left--was part of that outreach.
White House advisers add that Obama will be pushed only so far to the left, and with good reason. Only 19 percent of Americans, after all, identify themselves as liberal, compared with 36 percent who say they are moderate and 41 percent who say they are conservative, according to the latest poll by Democracy Corps, a Democratic think tank.
Still, the next few months will be a time of testing. How many compromises will Obama accept on healthcare and on legislation designed to limit global warming and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil? How far will he go in courting conservatives on issues ranging from national security to abortion? Is he sliding ever deeper into a morass in Afghanistan, as LBJ did in Vietnam early in his presidency?
The looming fight over Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court should ingratiate him to some critics for the time being, since she has strong support among liberals. But the overall uneasiness on the left is real and will remain a serious long-term problem for the new president.
Community organizer Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association is becoming increasingly vocal in her criticism of the president's unwillingness to consider seriously her group's vision of American health care. A transcript and video of her appearance on Bill Moyers Journal are available here (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/profile.html).
(FYI, Mr. Moyers is exactly how you remember him but only more so. That being said, Ms. Smith makes him look modest.:p)
Over at Facebook, a social networking site, a group has been started to pressure the president to repeal DADT and to change his position on DOMA.
The group is located here (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=97997751331&ref=nf).
Hopefully, the nature of facebook will prevent too much trolling and the group's conversation can run its course on its own.
If the president-elect ends up being a successful president ...
I would be interested to know how you would define success for him? And do you believe that is how he would define success?
"I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC". Blitz
Interesting. I wrote a similar comment on a gun board for a state carry organization and one of the more "progressive" members indicated he was going to take my "threat" to the FBI. Members of this forum must have a thicker skin or a better understanding of this nation's current political situation (or both). It has made me painfully aware that half this nation is, indeed, my enemy. It's just like being a German Jew in 1933.
I would be interested to know how you would define success for him? And do you believe that is how he would define success?
KClapp--
My thoughts on the president's agenda are detailed here <<LINK (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23101)>>. As the policy preferences stated at whitehouse.gov have changed, I do not know if it is a reliable source for information on the president's goals.
I think that the president will continue to define his administration's success by the catch-phrases of his campaign: "hope," "change," and getting America "back on track." He has thus far benefited by being deliberately vague and allowing both his supporters and his opponents to define him in their own terms rather than his.
As the 2010 and 2012 elections near, he and his supporters will argue that his masterpiece:rolleyes: is a work in progress. He will argue that because of the problems he "inherited," he and the Democrats should be allowed more time.
Can the president achieve his agenda? I think so. IMHO, I think we're gravitating towards a strategy of opposition characterized by the kind of strident rhetoric that does not and will not resonate with moderates in both parties. Nor are we articulating enough viable alternatives to those presented by the current administration. My $0.02, YMMV.
KClapp--
My thoughts on the president's agenda are detailed here <<LINK (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23101)>>.
Interesting. Thanks.
Can the president achieve his agenda? I think so.
I would tend to agree. Although, I believe he will be relegated to accomplishing it through the use of force, for our own good, of course.
IMHO, I think we're gravitating towards a strategy of opposition characterized by the kind of strident rhetoric that does not and will not resonate with moderates in both parties. Nor are we articulating enough viable alternatives to those presented by the current administration.
Ahh, yes ... I agree. Although, I don't necessarily see those folks, for whom the rhetoric does not resonate, gravitating to Obi-Wan, either. But then, I'm an ardent listener of Glenn Beck. :cool:
greenberetTFS
06-23-2009, 09:46
Jeeze! I said I was sorry! you want it in Latin? I'm catholic so I can if you insist!
Dozer,
Yes, you need to apologize in Latin.........:p When I was an alter boy I knew enough to respond to the Priest...........;) This was of course when the Mass was in Latin........:D
So go ahead, Let's hear it............
Big Teddy :munchin
Dozer523
06-23-2009, 12:11
Dozer,
Yes, you need to apologize in Latin.........:p When I was an alter boy I knew enough to respond to the Priest........... This was of course when the Mass was in Latin........So go ahead, Let's hear it............
Big Teddy :munchin
Teddy! That was the 29th of NOVEMBER! Nobody reads That slow!:D
You didn't notice I forgot to capitalize 'Catholic':p
Here goes (For the record: I had just passed my Latin test when Vatican 2 came out, I was serving at the Old Chapel, FT Leavenworth. -- Did you know it burned to the ground?!?? ) Ready, cue the incense . . . Mea Culpa, mea culpa, mea MAXIMA culpa. So there!
Do you remember the phone number to Heaven? Ec Cum Spirte - Two Two OHH (Call just before you go!)
Go now, to love and serve . . .
Source is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_en_ce/us_pelosi_michael_jackson/print).
Pelosi shuts down resolution on Michael Jackson
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writers Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press Writers Thu Jul 9, 2:20 pm ET
WASHINGTON – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shut the door Thursday to a resolution honoring Michael Jackson because debate on the symbolic measure could raise "contrary views" about the pop star's life.
Lawmakers are free to use House speeches "to express their sympathy or their praise any time that they wish," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "I don't think it's necessary for us to have a resolution."
A resolution sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, cites some of the singer's charitable acts and proclaims him an American legend, musical icon and world humanitarian.
Even before Pelosi's comments, some Democrats said privately they did not support the resolution and a divisive debate would hurt House efforts to muster the votes for priorities such as health care and climate change.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who posted a video on YouTube calling Michael Jackson a "pervert" and a "pedophile," has pledged to do all he could to block the resolution.
Michael Jackson was acquitted in 2005 of charges that he molested a 13-year-old boy. Those allegations, and his admission that children slept in his bed at his home but nothing sexual occurred, have led some members of Congress to put distance between themselves and any formal honor for the entertainer.
"A resolution, I think, would open up to contrary views to — that are not necessary at this time to be expressed in association with a resolution whose purpose is quite different," Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill news conference where she discussed various legislative matters.¿:confused:?
Unbowed, Jackson Lee said she will seek support from colleagues who thanked her when she introduced the measure June 26, one day after Michael Jackson died. She said honorary resolutions don't often "pass the next day."
"On this floor we elevate people and doing that we have to work to tell your story," she said after a House vote. But she would need support from Democratic leadership for the resolution to advance to the full House from the committee where it is now.
When members of the Congressional Black Caucus held a moment of silence in the House after Jackson died June 25, some lawmakers walked out of the chamber.
Jackson Lee has pledged that the resolution, now before the House Foreign Affairs Committee where she is a member, would come to the full House for debate. Such honorary measures normally move quickly from committee to the full House and pass on a voice vote.
But Jackson Lee's resolution was in trouble early. It drew only one co-sponsor, Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., and was not endorsed by other black caucus members.
From the stage at Jackson's memorial Tuesday at the Staples Center^ in Los Angeles, Jackson Lee hoisted a framed copy of the resolution.
Given the controversy surrounding Mr. Jackson, Rep. Jackson Lee's commitment to secure a congressional resolution honoring him was, at best, ill considered.
The fact that Ms. Jackson Lee defiantly affirmed her commitment in front of a global audience was down right foolish. But then, what does one expect from Ms. Jackson Lee?
The political fall out from this collision of intellectual giants (i.e. Pelosi and Jackson Lee) may prove costly.*
(MOO, the GOP should tread lightly. Other than repeatedly asking "Why not debate the resolution?" Republican members of congress should remain silent, sit back, watch the fireworks, and then vote their conscience.;))
______________________________
^ The MSM cannot even get a basic fact right. It is Staples Center, not "the" Staples Center. (Bitter, no. Lakers fan, yes.)
* At stake is not simply how admirers of Mr. Jackson will interpret the discussion, but also the reaction of Mr. Jackson's peer group. Many entertainers who support the Democratic party may not appreciate hearing unfavorable comments about their profession--regardless of their views of Mr. Jackson.
Given the controversy surrounding Mr. Jackson, Rep. Jackson Lee's commitment to secure a congressional resolution honoring him was, at best, ill considered.
Not based on her pattern of behavior - seems as if she's a funeral junky drama queen or - as one political blogger claimed - a professional eulogist.
Where will Sheila Jackson Lee show up next?
Michael Jackson's memorial service the latest stop for Houston Democrat known for making her way into the picture
Corilyn Shropshire, Houston Chronicle, 9 Jul 2009
Shocked to see Texas U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee join the star-studded memorial tribute to Michael Jackson earlier this week? Probably not if you’re from Houston.
The congresswoman, who represents the 18th District, has a reputation in her hometown for, let’s say, making herself available to speak at events, occasions, funerals — particularly when cameras are nearby.
Just a few days earlier, in her signature braid, Jackson Lee stood alongside Beyoncé at her pre-concert press-conference to address hunger —both women grinning for the cameras while holding boxes of Hamburger Helper.
And around here, Jackson Lee is known for her frequent appearances at the farewell services of those well-known or made famous by the manner of their deaths.
When Judge Andrew Jefferson died in December 2008, Jackson Lee spoke at funeral even though it was well known they weren’t fond of each other.
Politicalwire blogger Taegan Goddard wondered aloud if Jackson was a “professional eulogist.”
“Apparently the congresswoman has a history of making cameo appearances at funerals” and even has staffers “cull the obituaries” to find funerals at which she then requested to speak,” Goddard wrote yesterday.
(cont'd) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6521774.html
Our tax dollars at work. :mad:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
She is a POS but her public deserves her. They keep electing her so they get to deal with her....
Watch her she will keep pushing this resolution and they will finally give in down the road.....:munchin