Obama’s New Problem: Some Democrats Won’t Back Him
If you thought that only Herman Cain and Rick Perry have bad news, think again: President Barack Obama is now facing the prospect that some Democrats are refusing to back him. The Politico reports:
Sen. Joe Lieberman was treated like an outcast back in 2008 when he broke from the Senate Democratic Caucus and openly opposed Barack Obama’s bid for the White House.
Asked last week if he’d back Obama in 2012, the Connecticut independent said, “I don’t know what I’m going to do.
I was back in CT a few weeks ago. Lieberman is not hugely popular there. (My 90 year old mother met him years ago and to this day says he seemed to be “a sourpuss,” although others who’ve met Lieberman had a more favorable reaction). And it has been clear now that>Lieberman isn’t from the old Kennedy Democrat school or any other specific school except the school of Joe Lieberman — which left him open to being unfairly demonized by the Democratic Party’s far left and solidified a mutual disdain that continues today.
This time around, there may be more Liebermans.
A number of moderate Democrats like Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar and liberals like Sen. Bernie Sanders are declining to give their unqualified support for the president, saying they’re either too focused on their own races or are calling on the White House to cater to their agendas before they will offer an endorsement. Some up for reelection in red states or in swing districts fear that even showing up on stage with Obama will give their opponents an image to seize upon — much as Democrats did in 2008 when they repeatedly flashed shots of Sen. John McCain hugging President George W. Bush.
So as the president faces the dual challenges of energizing his base while wooing moderates, some Democrats in Congress are keeping their distance, with the president’s approval rating hovering in the mid-40s — and even lower in states like West Virginia, where moderate Sen. Joe Manchin is up for reelection.
“I’m supporting the state of West Virginia and the people of West Virginia,” the freshman Democrat said, when asked if he backed the president’s reelection bid.
Informed that West Virginia won’t be on the ballot next year, Manchin chuckled and said: “You don’t know that. You know something I don’t know?”
What we do know is that this story is most assuredly accurate. But, also most assuredly, when the time comes and it is Barack Obama running against Mitt Romney or the Anti-Romney, some of these Democrats will be out there campaigning with Obama. And those that don’t may wish they did if he wins re-election.
6 Responses to “Obama’s New Problem: Some Democrats Won’t Back Him”
New problem?
Correction, Sir. This has been a festering problem for many months. It’s most egregious manifestation are the baleful OWS outbursts in many metropolitan areas across the nation.
Democrats can make a show of ‘buyer’s remorse’ right now-we’re in the pre-election run up when everyone is angling to try and show off how much like their voters they are, or looking for free publicity by saying relatively outrageous things.
When it comes to the main event, when the election becomes not a horse-race, but a boxing match, they’ll fall right into line with the Party, and vote as they have been told to do by their organizers.
Because in the end, that’s what Democrats DO in elections. The “Reagan Democrat” is an extinct species, or more likely, a myth from the mind of some madison-avenue mythmaker in the 1980′s.
Dems do, what the PARTY tells them to do. Period.
@Cannonshop – Nice try but you seem to have accidentally written “Democrat” where “Republican” belongs. I’ve fixed your rant and added some examples too.
* * *
[Republicans] can make a show of ‘buyer’s remorse’ right now-we’re in the pre-election run up when everyone is angling to try and show off how much like their voters they are, or looking for free publicity by saying relatively outrageous things. (i.e. Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, etc.) The only “Reagan Republican” in the race is Jon Huntsman and he’s at the bottom of the list and not even mentioned in polite republican society.
When it comes to the main event, when the election becomes not a horse-race, but a boxing match, they’ll fall right into line with the Party, and vote as they have been told to do by their organizers. (Koch Bros., Power & Money, Inc. etc.)
Because in the end, that’s what [Republicans] DO in elections. The “Reagan [Republican]” is an extinct species, or more likely, a myth from the mind of some Madison-avenue myth-maker in the [2000]?s.
[Reps] do, what the PARTY tells them to do. Period. (Limbaugh, Beck, Rove, Fox News, etc.)
Righto Steve! Democrats are notoriously disparate and individualistic. The party of lockstep has long been the GOP, although this time around they seem to be herding cats.
As for Lieberman.. is that silly wanker still around? He needs to retire, fade away, get lost, etc. Then again, maybe he could join the Newt campaign.
Steve, you don’t watch Republicans very much since…what, the 1930′s?
if there is a party whose members will stab, claw, and bite one another to the benefit of their ostensible opponents, it’s the Republicans…
ESPECIALLY when it comes down to the two-choice-final-ballot.
As for your outrage about the Koch Bros. I’ll raise you a George Soros-International Financier, backer for a number of leftist ’causes’, who spends more on his mistresses than the Koch Brothers MAKE.
Cannonshop is trying to play the GOP strawman that Soros does it too… Well lets put the Koch kids and George Soros side-by-side and see who’s outspending who in politics.
From opensecrets.org – Capital Rivals: Koch Brothers vs. George Soros
It seems that the Koch’s have outspend Soros by about 4.5 to 1 ($57,500,000 to $13,000,000)
Regarding your other words… They were read.