As commenter Tony has repeatedly stated, politicians will say anything to get elected, then they'll do whatever they fucking want. Although, that holds true for his Republican party, which I know is not doing the business he thinks they should be doing either. But let's not stray from my point, which is, we liberals, left-wingers and progressives worked our fucking butts off contributing, canvassing, blogging and pushing for Democrats to take over in Washington (2006 and 2008). Especially in 2008, where Democrats were voted in all over the country in city, state and federal elections. We were galvanized by a poignant speaker of color who ran for President on the theme "Change We Can Believe In."
Once done, and with unprecedented voter turnout on the Democratic side, we waited for change ... any change. Like most of us liberals, the moment Obama put Rahm Emanuel in charge, we felt the shit starting to hit the fan. ALL of us remember his famous battles with Gov. Dean over leadership of the Democratic national senate committee, and how Gov. Dean's 50-state policy was pooh-poohed by Emanuel (and we also remember how many of Emanual's candidates of choice did not get elected). "Change we can believe in" turned into "what can I do for you Republicans," who promptly told Obama to go fuck himself and that they hoped, nay rooted, for him to fail in any and all endeavors, and proceeded to take on the title of the "party of no." And proudly, I might add.
One by one, each decision Obama made was wrong, from the too small stimulus plan (which still created jobs, but it just wasn't big enough, and it was watered down to where 40% of it contained tax cuts -- again!), to the corporate giveaways of taxpayer money, to those horrible DOJ briefs in support of DOMA, to the aversion to DADT repeal, and now this piss pour health plan -- which I am glad to see is not going to ever get passed. And it won't be because the Republicans vote no, it will be because the liberal Democrats have already indicated they will not hold their noses and vote for this piece of crap.
And the cous de gras was, of course, the MA election, where a Republican took over a seat in the Senate held for nearly 50 years by one man, Ted Kennedy. Now, as we have already "told you so," this win was not because the country has suddenly turned into conservative Republicans -- it is because the Democratic and liberal base is demoralized and, as we've said before, we ain't gonna vote no more. The numbers are clear that the Republicans were charged up and on the move, and the Democrats were unenthusiastic and uninterested. Hell, Coakley couldn't even get Obama to stump for her; either she didn't care, or Obama didn't care. Either way, it is a precursor of things to come.
By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist Alain L. Sanders:
In the handling of his first major domestic priority, Barack Obama has demonstrated the kind of presidency he is erecting. It is a presidency of change, as he promised. But perhaps not of the kind one can believe in. Not for the 21st century.
Absent from the Obama construct of the presidency, it seems, is the president as director-in-chief, the chief executive model crafted by modern-era heavyweights such as Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.
Present in its place is the Obama concept of the office: The president as facilitator-in-chief, a lighter throw-back model, reminiscent of the 19th century era of congressional dominance — and largely forgotten presidents.
Directors-in-chief are the Oval Office leaders who set the agenda, present concrete proposals, knock congressional heads, strike deals, and sign legislation that bears the presidential stamp. That was the modus operandi for Roosevelt’s Social Security and sweeping economic programs, Johnson’s Medicare and landmark civil rights laws, and Reagan’s tax cuts and major defense buildup.
Facilitators-in-chief are the White House occupants who follow an agenda of consensus, offer suggestions, mediate deals that are struck by the barons of power in Congress and sign legislation (if any emerges) that bears the barons’ stamp.
Just remember, we told you so.
3 comments:
What does not make sense in what you say, is that Democrats did go out and vote in MA, and a large number, in some reports up to 25%, voted for Scott Brown. I completely disagree with your take on the election. Your progessive movement, just like my tea party movement cannot sway an election. It is and has always been who gets the independant vote. The country, despite your opinion, is still center right. They were moved, not by Obama's words, but in how he delivered his speeches. Like all politicians, not just Republicans, he would pander to the group he was speaking to. Main stream America does not like a President that makes blatant bribes to get votes on bills. Now, all of us politicos know that is how its always done, we just don't go out and announce it. I know the democratic is not left enough for you, just like the republican party is not right enough for me. In the end, I will vote GOP because that candidate will still be closer to my views. The big difference between you and I is that I'm a politcal realist, while you are a political idealist. That may come from my real experience in politics and your sideline experience.
Yes, the independent votes counted a great deal, but I challenge your statement that the Democrats came out. I cited one poll, and I can easily site a lot of other polls that have shown the Democratic base is not coming out. Funny, watching Hardball tonight, the Republican spokesperson indicated that the next election to watch will be in Delaware over Biden's seat. He said pretty much what I said, that the Democratic base is demoralized, and that independents have not seen any change that Obama has promised. So ... we shall see. And do try to cite me stats that show the Dems came out in the same numbers they came out in the 2008 election.
If nothing else, Obama was clearly empowered by his victory to accomplish more far-reaching economic reform, particularly with big banking regulation. His failure to do that undermined his "populist" appeal. If I'd wanted Hillary Clinton's Wall Street economic advisers, I'd have voted for Hillary.
Post a Comment