Democrats and their childish ways
It’s fair to say that Democrats have been disappointed with Obama. The fairy tail campaign gave progressives hope that he was the second coming, the best thing since sliced bread. I mean, who knew Superman was actually black?
I don’t blame Liberals for this assumption. After all, Obama was (*thumbing through 2008’s Republican talking points*) “the most liberal senator.” So who would have guessed what Obama would become? Who knew that Obama was actually a political pragmatist?
If Democrats were honest, they would admit some sort of admiration for George W Bush. His legislative record is phenomenal; even at the stage when his poll numbers were laughable, he knew how to get what he wanted from both chambers.
With that said, George W. Bush was also very partisan. He was unashamedly conservative and unashamedly Texan (even though he was born in Connecticut). I would have no problem indexing the genesis of America’s divisions on his and Mr Clinton’s terms in office.
So with that said, I have a theory: Democrats are disappointed because they wanted their own liberal version of George W. Bush. They wanted someone who was unashamedly progressive, unashamedly black and from the ‘hood (even though he’s mixed race and from Hawaii). They thought that B was their own W.
How wrong they were.
I have said this before and I’ll say it again: Obama is probably the most talented politician my generation has ever seen. I came to this conclusion after he managed to shimmy past the Rev. Wright controversy with his race speech; that to me was on par with walking blindfolded through a minefield set up by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Joe Wilson. It was that impressive. Let’s not forget that he managed to beat Hillary Clinton and the Clinton machine to get to the Democratic nomination. So this is a man that knows a thing or two about politics.
What the Democrats want is for Obama to be as divisive as Bush was, while ignoring the fact that America as a country has been divided for far too long. Democrats see Obama trying to find consensus on issues as a sign of weakness, because it has been a long time since America has united for something that didn’t involve going to war.
Both sides want Obama to put immigration and gay rights on the table because these are issues that can divide the country further. So it frustrates both sides when Obama wants to find common ground on issues such as health care, energy, and education. It frustrates both sides when they see a president who honestly wants to find bipartisan solutions.
So I find these threats to Obama, from Democrats … funny. The fact that he is only six months into his term and the Republicans are united against him shows how deep the divisions sit; and how on message the Republicans are. But the fact that Democrats have begun to revolt shows how undisciplined they are and shows their childish nature. Are they truly going to sink a presidency because he wants to hear ideas from the other side? Are all the best ideas from one end of the ideological spectrum?
This is where the problem lies: Obama knows that America needs to get out of this rut where you’re either batting from the red or the blue side. This may or may not cost him his presidency, but one way or another, it will not see him become the next Jimmy Carter. His presidency already shows that he has more to him than that.
If he fails, America fails. If he fails, it shows that the leaders sent to the Capitol to behave like statesmen, behaved like children instead.
24 Responses to “Democrats and their childish ways”
Nice article. Obama needs to reign in the Progressive wing of the party and take over the reigns of leadership from Nancy Pelosi. He has for too long relied on her to run the show. Why? inexperience? maybe. Is he more liberal than he pretends to be and actually approves of much of what shes doing? maybe. A bit of both? perhaps. The second and third year of his Presidency should tell, the honeymoon is over and the people expect leadership, he can't delay any longer one way or the other.
I agree with everything you stated here, its why I like Obama. He plunges ahead to get liberal things done in the most vanilla free market style that the liberal idea will allow. Once he runs out of those do not be surprised if he also tries to fix classic conservative things as liberally as possible. The man has talent and may just have a nice backlog of decent legislation and ideas to show come election time, all while the liberals kicked and cried. The funny thing is that he may just be helping to head off a Repub wave in 10 and dull it into a mini wave but to hear liberals talk they are a bit disappointed. He is smart to get the big stuff out of the way fast. Let Americans think things are in competent hands and then he can pass anything they want within reason. I think it will stay tough until health care passes but after that the 10 field will have partisans of both sides pretty excited about voting. Currently I think he is saving the Dems from themselves but I also think some Repubs at some point will begin to cross the aisle for ideas or to help and he will possibly help save their image as well if he can comfortably straddle near the center and make deals, they may even pull some minority voters back over time.
And Santa Claus will go around the world down every chimney and give every deserving child a present.
Assuming that the time period you have in mind is measured in decades…
Well Obama made a good move today to act in a more bipartisan fashion, he now admits there were loopholes for illegals and will institute safeguards of some sort and listed SAVE provisions as one possible option.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/…
Good to see he took Joe Wilson's point to heart, and didn't return Wilson'd rudeness, but considered the underlying point and fixed that. He was also classy in his acceptance of Wilson'd apology unlike his more partisan and hysterical fellow democrats who are trying to raise a fit. Obama is starting to show some promise on the issue. Overdue but still welcome.
“It’s fair to say that Democrats have been disappointed with Obama.”
No it's not.
It may be fair to say that some Democrats are disappointed with Obama, or many Democrats, but not Democrats as a whole.
Democrats are a far more diverse group than you seem to realize. Indeed our diversity – both demographically and ideologically – is one of the distinguishing features of the party. The ability of Republican leaders to control their party and provide a united front on a whole range of issues is often spoken of with great pride by conservative commentators and grudging admiration by liberals.
It may seem that I am nit-picking over the lack of an adjective, but when you begin your argument with a statement that indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, I think it needs to be pointed out.
You'd be more convincing if you gave examples of which Democrats you claim are trying to “sink” the President. Pelosi? Reid? Haven't seen them doing much “revolting.” Or are you making the common mistake of confusing some prominent but essentially powerless liberal bloggers with “all Democrats”?
[...] President Obama used rhetoric as only he knows to do, but those who love America were not swayed. Democrats and their childish ways – themoderatevoice.com 09/12/2009 It’s fair to say that Democrats have been disappointed [...]
“The clear sky and its blue color in daylight” …
* * *
“Obama needs to reign in the Progressive wing of the party and take over the reigns of leadership from Nancy Pelosi.”
It's especially important given that he has acted most recently as one of them, being divisive himself.
The small part of his address that was presumably truthful and direct at least clarifies where he stands on the health care reform and hopefully he will go back to muzzling Pelosi and the loonies in the House, work more with the Senate and the Blue Dogs (the adults among the Dems) than he led us to suspect.
“It’s fair to say that Democrats have been disappointed with Obama. The fairy tail campaign gave progressives hope that he was the second coming… I don’t blame Liberals for this assumption, after all Obama was (*thumbing though 2008’s Republican talking points*) the most liberal senator in the House – so who could have guessed what Obama would become to be? Who knew that Obama was actually a political pragmatist?”
Minor correction to the post, probably just a typo since you do know better…. Obama was a senator in the Senate (not the House).
At any rate, any “fairy tale campaign” was entirely due to voters' beliefs. Obama has been a pragmatist all along. A simple look at Obama's actions and his website would have shown anyone what kind of man Obama is.
Any “fairy tale” imaginings were created by the people (and media), not by Obama. Though to be fair, it's hard not to like Obama and be caught up with his aura. His life has been difficult but he studied hard, is a true family man and Christian is now the President of the United States. He accomplished this despite the huge problems with race this country is still facing.
Obama even sets limits on the type of politics he engages in. During the 2008 campaign Obama stood up and told everyone that he thought Palin's family was off limits and not to attack them. This he did at the same time Republicans were viciously attacking his own family. There is much to admire about Obama, even if you don't like his policies.
As far as both sides wanting Obama to put immigration and gay rights on the table to further divide the country…. That's not true. The gay rights and immigrant groups do want their issues to be front and center, but that's because they are fighting for civil rights and protection for themselves. They are not asking Obama to put immigration and gay rights on the table to divide the country. Our country was founded with the fundamental value that all men are created equal and have the same rights. The immigrant and gay rights groups want to address the severe inequality in this country. Too bad Republicans only want people who are like themselves to live in the US. But we're all Americans, as Obama knows, and he wants to fight for equal rights for all Americans.
“What the Democrats want is for Obama to be a divisive as Bush was by ignoring the fact that America as a country has been divided for far too long.”
I disagree with this. Any talk about dividing the country is coming solely from the Republicans who are doing everything to discredit Obama and ensure that he, and our country, fails. Obama has said all along that he is the president of all Americans. The Democratic Party is made up of a coalition of very different people. That means the Dems have worked with various groups of people to come together. In fact the Dems and Obama are reaching out to Republicans, even allowing the Republicans to make amendments to legislation. This is something the Republicans never allowed the Dems to do when the GOP was in control.
During the national crisis we had after 9/11/01 it was the Democrats who (after being robbed of the WH by Bush and his FL shenanigans) supported the Republicans and we all brought the country together to make us all safer. Bush, as you pointed out, was able to get much of his legislative agenda accomplished, and this was done even in the Democratic congress because the Dems, for all their misgivings about Bush did not want to work divisively or against the president. But even then it was Bush who called the Democrats unpatriotic and obstructionists. Yet the Dems came through for the sake of the country.
Now that we are in another national crisis just as bad, if not worse, than the 9/11 attacks (because this crisis directly affects the lives of millions of people who are losing jobs, homes, health insurance, etc.) the Republicans just throw up one roadblock after another. And they disrespect the president and they lie. They want division in the country and have stated numerous times that the want Obama to fail.
I voted for Obama because he believes in America and all Americans, not just his one political party. His background is in community service (and not big corporations) and he does want to help all Americans. Why do you think he's pushing healthcare so hard? Americans having health insurance is a huge issue and we all benefit. Even the people without health insurance now receive medical treatment and we as taxpayers are already paying for those who can't pay. Whereas Bush gave away the country (through his tax cuts which in turn ballooned the nation's debt to $11 trillion) to the wealthy and corporations. And Bush may have unashamedly been conservative, but he also supported the people in the “haves and haves more” groups and his policies show that. Obama wants to help all Americans. The GOP, so intent on regaining their power so they can ram their beliefs on others and polarize America as they did under Bush will do and say whatever it takes to destroy Obama.
“fairy tales” — basking in the Messiah's radiance [chuckle]
Now he and the adult Dems have real work to do. This is their health care legislation, and it ought to earn the acceptance of the majority of the public.
“Any talk about dividing the country is coming solely from the Republicans who are doing everything to discredit Obama”
The liberal Dems have been the divisive people, choosing extremism (such as with the climate bill in the House, destructive utter nonense) and joined by Obama (who insulted the intelligent with his remarks at the time of the Gates affair, including hints at the public that this was a rad-lib “teachable moment”).
Obama's speech featured numerous misstatements and portions nobody would seriously believe, but he did also include a small number of essential details outlining (what he says is) his position on health care, something much higher quality in directness and explanation than any of the other Dems' efforts to date. At this point I'm still waiting to learn if the legislation will be a modified HR 3200 or if it will be the Baucus (Senate) bill that the House gets to tweak to appeal more to the House lib Dems. Overall public view of the health care effort prior to Obama's address was slight overall opposition. The public option's most numerous position was strong opposition to it, but overall support (at 55 per cent) with strong support in the twenties per cent, and the public option is the core of what the lib Dems want, so it can't simply be discarded, provocative as it is to so many; I wouldn't be surprised if it were retained, especially with the “trigger” gimmick which would be an easy matter to circumvent soon.
” another national crisis”
There is no health care “crisis,” nor climate “crisis” or other misuse of that word, and no excuse for unintelligent Urgency that to date has left a record of bad legislation and predictably making things worse. That there is vast dissatisfaction with the current health care state of affairs is obvious, as is the desire for change. Rushing for more bad legislation and more bad changes is worse than doing nothing.
It's a shame that Obama misspoke, and did not seek Medicare reform (and Social Security reform) first, though this is not surprising. I'm also disappointed the Dems haven't had the smarts to begin, even with “reforming” Medicare in the area of ending the Plan D (drug benefit) “doughnut hole” that has made so many despaired, as well as “reforming” Medicare by increasing benefits in other ways (after all, that there is “Medigap” insurance and a concept of “Medigap” indicates benefits could be augmented, by the Dems in the name of “reform”).
I'm also surprised they haven't been bright enough to avoid widespread public “single-payer” “Medicare for All overnight” concerns (which is why they're seeking incrementalism) but to expand federal health care to children at the same time, by changing S-CHIP to possibly reduce the age to 21-25 maximum but end all income limits, too. Not that this wouldn't be spotted (or anticipated) by some of us, but …
“Why do you think he's pushing healthcare so hard?”
The essence of why he is falling in popularity is related to this. He is siding with the lib Dems (and other Dems) who have been rushing bad legislation to passage all this year, and increasingly bad legislation, on behalf of which he has been more openly and strongly agitating. He emerged in particular to press for passage of the awful climate legislation in the House that the public opposed so strongly and rightly.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1333/obama-approval…
“criticisms of the government’s economic policies are mounting … many of the health care proposals being debated in Congress are sparking negative reactions, especially from those following the debate most closely … Obama’s comments on the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. appear to have played some role in his ratings decline”
http://people-press.org/report/532/obamas-ratin…
He and the Dems have actually stumbled and rushed and pushed too far, too fast, and this address (not a normal kind of address, but one dedicated to health care) was a damage control and recovery decision.
He did it; I view it as a success overall and it's time for the Dems to get moving. (The GOP has simply been pathetic and along with being sidelined by the Dems, the GOPers themselves are self-destructing.)
You've gotta give it to good old DLS. He prolific! If a bit inane.
Hey, DLS, speaking as a friend, in the broadest sense of the term, do you understand that when you do your serial posting of comments it is a common reaction to read the first, then skip the others because they are serial posted? When you “serial post” you lose at least part of your intended audience. I know I'm not alone in this reaction. It's the same as with those who post comments in all caps…many of us just scroll past them.
Sometimes you and I agree, sometimes not. Mostly not, but sometimes we make each other laugh or share a common experience. Please consider collecting your thoughts & doing a single post, with follow-up later, instead of the serial posting.
Since I am a committed “freedom fighter”, I of course respect that it is your choice.
Much of that liberal angst over Obama disappeared after his speech the other night. Progressives are now as engaged in this debate as conservatives are. That was not the case before Wednesday.
Here's a bit of history to get us where we are. During the Reagan years, Democrats began clamoring that they needed to be more liberal to oppose the Great Satan. So conservative Democrats left in droves – folks like Phill Gramm and Kent Hance. Oh, they held onto their offices – as Republicans. So we have to understand that a large part of the Republican Revolution, as it is called, came from Democrats switching parties (and I mean voters as well as office-holders).
As long as the conservatives tolerated the existence of the Rockefeller Republicans – moderates from the northeast – they held a majority. But then they began targeting “RINOs” for primary challenges. This left the moderate Republicans weak enough to be picked off in the general election. For proof, you only have to note that there are no Republican Congresspersons in New England, and very few in the Mid-Atlantic region.
In addition, Dr. Howard Dean's “50 state strategy” meant that candidates who would have been ignored in conservative districts got enough money to compete. And win. This brought in conservative politicians and voters.
In other words, Republicans are now left with only rank-and-file conservatives – and a handful of actual moderates. Democrats hold onto their Congressional majorities only because they have all of the liberals, 90% of the moderates, and enough conservatives to matter. So Republicans find it easy to toe the line – they really have no one would would disagree much anyway. But Democrats not only differ on details, but in fundamental viewpoints.
So, it isn't childishness that pushes Democrats apart. It is sincere disagreements. Nor is it childishness that holds Republicans together. It is a lack of disagreement. The problem for Democrats is to find a way to make enough of their coalition happy enough to get a few things done. The problem with Republicans is that no one stands out in a choir – unless you scream things at inopportune times.
This brings up the point: Are Democrats disappointed with Obama? Well, I'm sure that some are. I would lump these in as “politically naive.” Some thought he would be the anti-Bush and push through a liberal agenda with no thought as to the consequences. All these people had to do was to actually listen to Obama's speeches. Never once did he say anything other than his desire was to bring unity back to America. Not once did he say he would ram his agenda up, or down, any part of someone else's anatomy.
There are also some who are disappointed with Obama for not actually being able to “change the tone in Washington” overnight. Again, these people are naive. No one can change Washington overnight. We'll be lucky if it can be done in a generation, much less a single term in office. He can begin to do so, but as long as there are people like Joe Wilson in office, it won't change (and I expect Wilson will be returned by a large margin). It needs to be understood that it isn't what Wilson said that is problematic – it's his entire mindset (not ideology).
Now, let me say this, as a means of finishing – America doesn't need a healthcare bill now. It doesn't need one by the end of the year. It does need one, though. When “the bill” drops, it will most likely be a series of small and incremental steps, because that is generally the way that policy changes. Until then, what we get will be Kabuki – a series of actors overstating their position for dramatic effect.
You're giving too much blame to Obama and too much credit to Bush. Bush wasn't a master of leadership, his party fell in line. The Democrats have never been a party of Rubber Stamps and no amount of leadership can ever change that. The fact of the matter is that while the Republican Party has always claimed to be a big tent with many different factions in reality it is not. It is a predominantly male, white, southern, conservative party with no dissenting voices. The Democrats on the other hand run the entire spectrum from the Dennis Kucinich left to the Joe Lieberman right and everything in between.
In fact, if you look at who is holding up Health Care reform it is not the left (who are united and working together toward the Presidents goals) it is the Conservative Democrats like Max Baucus who are holding things up. If the party was a ideologically purified as the Republicans Obama could just as easily ram through his agenda the way Bush did. But sadly the political reality is that the Democrats DO have a big tent party and all the clowns that come with it.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Abe Day and Personal Wealth Guru. Personal Wealth Guru said: Democrats and their childish ways http://bit.ly/33R1Fh [...]
ThurmanHart, “Here's a bit of history….”
Good points and I particularly like, “…it isn't what Wilson said that is problematic – it's his entire mindset (not ideology).” Your observation of the problems being a “mindset” is absolutely dead on right. Though I don't agree with much of his ideology, but it's his (and others, in both parties, though I think more Republicans) attitude, his mindset that is the largest problem. Knowing that where do we go from here? (That's a rhetorical question and I understand it will take a long time, as you pointed out, to change the ways of Washington. But parents are now teaching their kids that it's OK to not listen to others and be bull headed, which only exacerbates and prolongs the problem.)
I think that is correct, he preached to the liberal choir to a large extent and shored up support in his own party. Polling indicated that he strengthened his overall support, gaining more in liberal support than he lost in independent support while Conservative numbers were unchanged. Unfortunately for him, its the independents that he needs to win over.
I just want to repeat for emphasis two things on the thread that I agreed with:
Elzagna says that no, it's not “fair to say that Democrats are disappointed with Obama”. I would agree.
Also, SFStockBoy's statment: “They are not asking Obama to put immigration and gay rights on the table to divide the country.” It's possible that the right harps on these issues because they want to talk about something divisive. That is NOT the case with those passionate about these issues on the left. Does anyone really think that gay couples want to get married just to be a stick in the craw of their political opponents? I guess I can see why someone might be opposed to their having those rights if that were the case, but sheesh! These two issues involves rights for people who don't currently have them — maybe they just want to have those rights?
I disagree with your calling these things “rights” they are privileges, just as government recognition of marriage by a straight couple is a privilege. I for one think all privileges need to be equal for everyone and subscribe therefore to extending the benefits to gays and single people or revoking them for all. Why should a married person pay a different level of income tax because they participated in a religious institution? To me this is not rational.
[...] Democrats and their childish ways (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
[...] Wealth Building Lunch & Learn Recording « The Entrepreneur CircleGuru Nanak prakash utsav | Digital WealthDavid J Salmon » Blog Archive » Meet My Prosperity GuruAdeel Chowdhry’s Personal Blog! » [FREE VIDEO] my interview with Clickbank guru Saj PA Critical Review Of MLM Guru Michael Force | PhotoshopTutorials.dkDemocrats and their childish ways | The Moderate Voice [...]