Legitimate Doubts about Obama
David Brooks of the New York Times raises legitimate questions about Obama’s trans-partisanship:
Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?
Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?
If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.
How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation’s 261,000 lobbyists don’t see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?
The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?
I still favor Obama for his ability to persuade and inspire as a global leader of a left-of-center administration. But I would like to know more about how he rationalizes his choices about when to play by the old rules. This is what the Clinton Campaign should be bringing up rather than trivialities about a few lines in a speech. And certainly the McCain campaign will be bringing this up to influence independent voters.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Legitimate Doubts about Obama”
He did not vow to abide by public financing. Here is what he said, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
<a href=”http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=would_you_make_a_pledge_with_t”>http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archi…
Like the previous commenter, I'm not certain how much faith to put in the way David Brooks characterizes any positions of Obama.
And as somebody who remembers the Swift-Boaters, I wonder about the usefulness of public financing. People who have money will still have influence. And they aren't necessarily going to be fastidious about how they exercise it.
There seems to be a mix of questions here from Brooks, some of which are good questions and others of which seem to be either general worries for the next President or mysteriously asked of Obama when they could equally well be asked of all the candidates. But I think we know that Obama's bipartisanship is roughly being happy to work with people of both parties on things he believes in in a practical manner. It's not so much crossing the aisle all the time because he doesn't believe in most Democratic positions.
A couple points. First of all, the whispering is that Obama refuses to say anything about public financing because he wants to have set rules about how the campaigns will be run (discussing the role of “third party” ads, etc.) and it would be a bit presumptuous to do that before he's even won.
Also, the quotes about bipartisanship show the worst of the current mindset both about compromise and who Obama is. To me there are two kinds of compromise. One works where all sides state what they want, and then cut deals to get some aspects of what they want while allowing the other sides to have things that they find distasteful, i.e. “you rub my back, I'll rub yours.” The other is where the groups come in thinking they know exactly what they want, but realize that they to work together, and they come up with a new system that is agreeable but self contained. It is not just a collection of random pieces, but a different outlook on the problem that has consistency.
The first type of “compromise” makes up almost all the political landscape and really it should just be called favor trading. It's one of the reasons why there is so much pork and bloat and why every one can sit around and point fingers.
The latter is what Obama professes he goes for and what many people that have worked with him (both in academic and political settings) says he inspires. He convinces them that his vision is mostly correct, but takes key pieces of their concerns and makes the actual policy better than he could have made. Liberals are concerned that Obama will just trade favors, but that's not what he means.
The immigration deal was widely despised by nearly all major groups from all political spectrums because it did little to assuage anyone's concerns. The FISA “compromise” was about giving up oversight when there was nothing wrong with the current system. And as for the Gang of 14…well in my opinion Alito has extreme opinions about the role of the Executive and I can't believe that he wasn't vetted more. At the very least they could have gotten him to fully explain how much the Unitary Executive theory he helped craft played into his judicial views — but alas, it just turned into another abortion litmus test. He makes Scalia and Thomas look downright Liberal when it comes to certain issues.
Still, I think it is definitely fair to get Obama to state his Plan B. What will he do if Congress/Lobbyists etc. don't budge? And also the PAC questions are good and I think I'll look into it.
MIkkel,
I appreciate your informed response.
It seems that Obama should get out in front of this campaign finance issue by explaining why he seems to be equivocating.
Mikkel, good comments.
Even though I'm an Obama supporter I still find it a useful exercise when someone in a reputable publication (i.e. Brooks in the NY Times) says something about Obama- then I independently verify it (unless I already know it, but even then I may double-check).
“But I would like to know more about how he rationalizes his choices about when to play by the old rules. This is what the Clinton Campaign should be bringing up rather than trivialities about a few lines in a speech.”
What's she gonna say? “He's just as bad as me… look!”
Obama doesn't need the support of 260,000 lobbyists if he wins. He'll be the golden boy of the Democratic party and its head, the one who beat the presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton to take it all. I don't think he'll have any problem getting his parties' ducks in a row. People keep talking like Obama is a child at 47, my god he's 47 which makes him a full grown adult and politcal animal. Its not John McCain 80+ years old, but still.
Basically as far as I can tell the author of the article thinks that because Obama's not a schill for DC lobbyists he'll be unable to get anything done, and I don't see how he makes that leap.
“Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?”
LOL I just noticed thats the comparisons. Dems are teachers and old people, GOP are defense contractors and energy companies. GOP brought us war, secret energy commisions and $100/barrel oil, whats next when a Democrat runs things? Overpaid teachers, benefits for the elderly and way more trial lawyers because people sue more when democrats are around. I'll take kowtowing to Dem special interests if I have to, I just realized how much cheaper it will be for all of us.