Obama Gets Flack From Liberal Democrats

While Obama was receiving the Nobel Peace Prize he was running into trouble at home with his liberal constituency for inactivity on major issues and too much courting of Republicans. In Congress, Alan Grayson, a young lawyer from Florida, in an impassioned speech, mesmerized Congress in true Jimmy Stewart "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" movie style: first he dismissed the Republicans' ugly response to Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. "If Obama brought peace to the world, the Republicans would accuse him of ruining the defense industry; if Obama ate a bacon and tomato sandwich they would ban bacon." Then he went at his fellow Democrats for their ineffective handling of health reform: he lambasted them for spending over six months pursuing a possible lone Republican vote from Maine's Olympia Snowe, pointing out that Snowe had not been elected president, that she had no veto power, and represented a state with a mere 0.5% of the national population, and as this crew of Republicans are a no saying bunch, the Democrats could, and should, pass a good health care bill without them.

He was voicing what the majority of Americans really want -- real health reform, not a mere rubberstamping of an ineffectual bill. At this dire time, many Americans have no jobs and have lost their homes and medical bills are a major source of debt. According to a Harvard report, over forty four thousand Americans are dying each year for lack of health care.

Grayson supports Obama, but his speech pointed to the president's Achilles heel: his need to present an image always above the fray, and to be too conciliatory with Republicans and financial interests. His policies thus far have rewarded the banks, Wall Street, and the private health insurance companies. He has not done what Roosevelt in the Depression 1930s immediately did -- which was to create jobs, jobs, jobs. Nor has he showed the boldness of a Lyndon Johnson, who told his own South to take a walk, and shoved into law the Civil Rights legislature. Conciliatory is what you do when negotiating a peace in the Middle East. It is not what you do when the Republican Party is jeopardizing the national well being. I, too, support Obama, but I recognize he is over concerned with his above-it-all image. Bill loved the ladies too much, George W. loved his inner god too much, and now, as we are learning, our brilliant Obama loves his self image too much.

Meanwhile Obama has wandered into messy waters in New York by making available in all sorts of ways his quasi support of billionaire Mayor Bloomberg in New York's upcoming mayoral election, while ignoring the Democrat's candidate on the ticket. Bloomberg, who on some days is a Republican, and other days, vaguely an Independent, despite the pleading of the Democrats, supported the John McCain/Palin ticket. Thus Obama commits a double heresy: don't throw your own party under the bus, and don't, as president, interfere in local politics. It always backfires, a lesson even Roosevelt in the 1930's had to learn. The New York Times could barely contain itself, its fulminating headline ran: "Obama, Democrat in Chief, Isn't Much Help to Party in Mayor's Race." The city and state's democrats, power house Democratic leader Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Kirsten Gilibrand, Governor Patterson and the unions immediately started campaigning for the democratic contender Bill Thompson, who is, by the way, the city's first black controller and who was a dedicated campaigner for Obama. Are Bloomberg's power, and his ability to force a change in the two term limit for mayor, and thus buy this upcoming election, now blinding Obama? This comes on the heels of a series of gaffes: he ruffled New Yorkers when he attempted (and failed) to push an unprepared Caroline Kennedy into Hillary's vacated senate seat, and ruffled them again when he asked Governor Patterson to step down on grounds that Patterson might not win an election against a robust Republican.

Chicago is a city of amazing architecture, brilliant intellectuals, crooks, abysmal poverty and crime, and God awful entrenched machine politics. But New York is different; we are not Chicago, which gives its incipient politicians all the wrong lessons about political behavior, and certainly not Washington. As depicted in Martin Scorcese's graphic movie "Gangs of New York", we have had our corrupt brutal past. In the early 20th century the Tammany machine, made up of Irish with a small scattering of Italians and Jews dominated our politics. The clean up, bringing about the weakening of Tammany, was helped by the emergence of a liberal, business dominated Republican Party. Big financial institutions and small businesses, hedging their bets, routinely make campaign contributions to Democrats and Republicans, but Obama doesn't understand the political limits of this co-existence.

The country is in a peculiar situation. Obviously the current nationwide positions of the present Republican Party, which has disintegrated into a leaderless Sarah Palin populist chaos, are unpopular. And if we morph into a single party country of only Democrats, we risk becoming morally weak. But such a transformation of the Republican Party, if it eventually happens - and I certainly hope it does - is the Republican, not the Democrats problem to solve. On the East Coast the Republicans are almost a vanished breed, existing mainly in the south and southwest with a bunch of lunatics who lack the power to win elections but who make their prejudices, ignorance and hatreds known in the vast terrain of internet, and TV talk shows.

Clearly Bloomberg isn't that brand of Republican -- yes, he has done good things for the city. But his money has also enabled him to make dictatorial changes. When, on the day of the Nobel Prize, a New York Daily News reporter asked Obama's spokesperson to clarify who Obama was supporting for mayor, Gibbs first rather meanly retorted: "you New York-centric reporters." Then, when pressed, and aware of the negative attention the incident is receiving, allowed that the president would support "the democratic candidate for mayor" in New York, but didn't mention Thompson by name (with friends like these who needs enemies?) He immediately followed this lukewarm endorsement with warm remarks about Bloomberg. Obama wasn't elected to be the representative of big financial interests or the Republicans. And you don't knock down your own constituency. Ted Kennedy could have told him that.

 

 

Comments

[wheresthetruth]

Well-written and insightful.

I think a lot of people are not ready to hear something like this.

[wheresthetruth]

Well-written and insightful article.

Get ready for a lot of flack.

[wheresthetruth]

Well written and insightful.

In many ways Obama is not living up to his promises to change business as usual and to take government away from special interests and give it back to the people. Many of his actions have done the opposite.

Don't be surprised if a lot of flack gets hurled your way.

[vinny]

Obama will have his Kanye West moment once he is able to calculate the outcome.

[JusdaTruth]

Obama is extremely interesting. I agree with this post completely. I support Obama. However his views on education are too cheerleader like and are not scientifically based as are Mayor Bloomberg's. Bloomberg's real mission in my opinion is to break the Teachers Union in NYC., while claiming to be a reformer. Obama needs to stop playing politics soon and stand up for the American people who are screaming for fairness in Health Care as well as better conditions in public schools.

Bloomberg wants education on the cheap and still will not reduce class sizes which will definately help students learn. Both Obama and Bloomberg should support smaller class sizes. I understand why Bloomberg won't. Why Obama doesn't support small class sizes is a mystery to me.

[Manx]

Obama remains so high above the fray, the lack of oxygen has interfered with his thinking processes. But he is a legend in his own time. His lack of leadership is already legendary.

[robbyJ]

Hahaha Keep on watching Fox and you won't ever know the truth.

His leadership in peace is legendary, he did win the Nobel peace prize.

You have a selective memory. Bush has gone down in infamy and the cry baby republicans can't understand why. Wake up to reality, Fox controls you.

[blizb]

I am tired of liberals and conservatives taking an obstructionist point of view before adequate time has been given to solve these problems.

Jack Cafferty on CNN asked if it was still appropriate for the Obama administration to blame the Bush Administration.

Blame isn't the correct term, it is "CAUSE".

The Bush administration "CAUSED" the problems.

The Obama administration should never stop reminding people who CAUSED this mess.

It is also unrealistic to believe that this many problems could be resolved in less than a year.
Bush had 8 years to trash the country with his policies and decisions with the people he chose to run the country.

Obama is held to an IMPOSSIBLE standard with unrealisitic expectations of solving the mess within 8 months, not 8 years.

You can't have an international quagmire of wars, a nearly complete economic collapse of the greatest nation on earth, solve a national healthcare disaster, rebuild Katrina, and build up the morale of our people in a few months time.

It took 8 years to dismantle and will probably take no less than 10 to 15 years to solve.

If Obama isn't re-elected the next guy will have all the same problems because 4 years won't do it all.

No one should want to run for President next time and you better believe if someone else sits in the seat they will blame Bush too, regardless of the party that gets elected or whether or not they are liberal, conservative, or independent.

[samjer]

What does that have to do with Obama supporting Bloomberg? The point of the article is that Obama should butt out of NY politics since he doesnt know what hes doing and has repeatedly screwed things up. Bush has nothing to do with this.