Why Aren't Democrats Supporting Obama?

Imagine this scenario: president-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt is weeks away from entering office. He's indicated that he will offer a sweeping plan to revive the economy, but leading Democratic Senators are already sniping that he's being too cautious or not bold enough. Meanwhile, liberal columnists are piling on to criticize him.

Sound crazy? It's exactly what's happening to Barack Obama. Obama hasn't even set foot in the Oval Office and already windbags such as John Kerry and Tom Harkin are fulminating about his economic plan. Has it eluded Kerry's attention that Obama accomplished something he failed to do four years ago, namely, win the presidency, and not by a small margin?

The GOP must be chortling. Republicans don't have to attack Obama; the Democrats are already doing it for them.

This is nuts. No doubt Democrats have a tradition of tearing down their own presidents -- recall Joseph Lieberman, among others, sanctimoniously denouncing Bill Clinton from the well of the Senate -- but usually it takes a few years. Not now.

This is nuts. Obama won a historic victory that Democrats could only dream about a a few months ago. Eight years of Bush-Cheney, you might think, would be enough to unite the party. During that time, the Republicans displayed tremendous unity, allowing George W. Bush to wreak havoc upon the country, driving it into an economic and foreign policy ditch.

Obama promises to do the opposite. No, his economic plan isn't perfect. But what plan ever is? The fact is that Obama is in the process of laying out a program that forms an excellent starting point, a mixture of tax cuts, including cutting the payroll tax which will immediately help stimulate the economy, and public works and investments that can help to rebuild an infrastructure that has been gutted by the Bush-Cheney regime.

Obama, you might think, deserves praise, not condemnation. And you'd be right. Obama is the best thing that's happened to the party in decades. It seemed like Democrats began to realize that after he thrashed John McCain.

But no. The posturing and preening taking place in Washington isn't alarming. It's nauseating. Who would have thought that Democrats would try to destroy Obama's presidency before it's even begun?

Comments

[upbeatdem]

These are very good points. What amazes me is the fact that the Democrats have been completely ineffective in going after Bush throughout his presidency, even after they won Congress in 2006, yet they are already saying they are not going to blindly follow Obama! He has not even taken the oath of office yet! These people are behaving idiotically and shamefully. Thanks for the post. I think I will now send some pointed e-mails to Democratic members of Congress.

[suzc]

Obama appears to be a gentleman as well as a leader. I have seen neither attribute in Congress or the White House for YEARS! Not in either party! He is a uniter. And he is clearly confident enough to allow dissension in the ranks without getting all squirmy and whiney about it! Finally! Thank heavens! Cling to that, in the face of all the nonsense from the far right and far left ideologues who prefer to destroy the country than give an inch on a meaningless point... or even an important one.

[MBryant]

The better question is why did the Dems not oppose Bush! They've had a majority for two years and they've just rolled over for BUsh and Cheney again and again. I'm not disappointed at all to see a congress that will stand up for itself and actually do it's job - Obama should and can deal with that.

But where they have been?

[SailFree]

They don't necessarily believe a man who is in his 40s, who has almost no government experience (having spent most of his career RUNNING FOR OFFICE rather than exercising the offices he's acquired, voting PRESENT much of the time rather than taking HARD STANDS ON TOUGH ISSUES) really knows enough to take seriously.

[Geranium]

That is why he looks like a scared rabbit most of the time. He himself cannot even believe he got this far, and is stupefied.

[cheforacle]

I see in Obama a man of great confidence who is willing to listen to others. And in Sail Free and Geranium I see two individuals who are sore that their candidate lost and have reached conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. I'm glad Kerry and Harkin spoke up. Obama is removing the part of the plan they objected to. Finally a President not so insecure or close-minded to reject good advice.

[dukeitout]

I'm not aware of Democratic Senators or Representatives that are diametrically opposed to Obama's policies. They may have opinions that differ somewhat from Obama's and they should. They weren't elected to be rubber stamps for the presidents' policy as was the case in the years 2001-2007.

[zipper56]

Has Howard Dean been tapped for a position with the Obama team?

[RJPI]

Dean has no place in any party. He can always go back to dentistry in Vermont.

[Lisa-G]

I'm not a big fan of Dean, but your comment is stupid. Howard Dean is responsible for the internet campaign donations blueprint, and the 50-state strategy blueprint. If there is no room for him in the democratic party, then shame on all you democrats. This is the type of thinking that makes me loathe to join a political party in this country.

[MBryant]

Dean was a famliy physician in Vermont, not a dentist. Dean began a career on Wall Street in the family business as a stock broker. But he decided he wanted a career helping people and went back for the many years of schooling necessary to become a family physician. He continued to see patients as Lieutenant Governor and only gave up his active medical practice when he became Governor.

One of the refreshing things about Dean is that he seems motivated by the desire to serve and he has served individuals one-on-one with their intimate medical problems. His career is not one of being a dealer-wonk.

[rickey56]

I wonder if the Democrats are giving Obama a hard time because he hasn't released his 11million base list to them or the rest of his campaign funds?

[ProudLiberalDan]

We don't have a parliamentary system where a Prime Minister leads a cabinet and the executive and legislature are fused, and the Prime Minister's position requires he passes major government bills or resign. There are good arguments for Parliamentary government and we should ask ourselves why most new democracies adopt that model and if there is anything we can learn from that.

However, we are merely witnessing Congress reasserting itself as a co-equal branch. I didn't want to exchange one blank check President for another, even one I largely agree with.

It is shameful that Congress abdicated its responsibilities over the last eight years, but that doesn't mean Congress should continue to abdicate.

It's easier to "oppose" things in unity than to form a consensus in government. That's just the nature of Democracy. The Legislative branch is listed in the US Constitution BEFORE the Executive branch.

However, I wouldn't worry about Obama. With stratospheric approval ratings, he will largely get what he wants. Politics is the art of the possible, and he will not doubt show an amazing ability to herd cats.

[sfmama]

Dems will always get in each others' way because the Democratic tent IS bigger than the Republican one. Different ideas, opinions, etc are actually accepted. It makes Dems strategically weaker in many situations, but a more real representation of our diverse population.
Republicans have narrowed their party, and they go in lock-step with each other--almost without exception. Hence the mess of the last eight years.
If you like the simplistic explanations and thinking, Republican rule looks pretty good. And it has been successful--they successfully wrecked the economy, embroiled us in a stupid war, and avoided doing anything to save our environment.
Dem rule isn't as pretty, as it works in shades of gray, but it at least allows for discussion, dissent and will hopefully lead to oversight. I just hope all the in-fighting produces better legislation for all of us, not an opportunity for Republicans to claim Obama is a failure before he has a chance.

[Pyrum]

How is questioning someone on an issue an "attack?" Are you saying if someone doesn't agree with Obama 100% they should keep it to themselves and "praise" the president-elect? That's exactly what the republicans did when it came to Bush, and look where it got us.

[JoeSausage]

Constructive criticism and petty backstabbing are not the same thing.

[cheforacle]

Exactly. I'm a big fan of Obama but that doesn't mean the Democrats should stand silent when they disagree with him. The first question should always be "What is right for the country?" If the Democrats ask that and then proceed, we should be fine. If only Congress did that before Iraq, we might not be in such bad shape right now.

[VikingKing]

There are two essentially reasons Democrats are already turning on Obama: his lack of executive experience is now being revealed as he nominates a collection of misfits, and his far left radical agenda puts members of his party at political risk.

There is a price to pay when you put the fox in the chicken coup when you believe you must in order to grab power.

http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/barack-obama-and-the-culture-of-death/

http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/bring-in-the-clowns/

[cheforacle]

Next week this country will celebrate the inauguration of a great leader and you will be spewing misinformation. Lots of people, Dems and Repubs, have praised Obama for the caliber of his picks. You're just living in an alternate universe of your own making.

[PatrickWalker]

Kerry actually won in 2004.

[Lisa-G]

HUH?

[lokywoky]

Read John Cornyn's book on what happened in Ohio iin 2004. The actual criminal malfeasance that took place during that election by Kenneth Blackwell and the rest of his Republican cohorts including manipulation of electronic voting results, disenfranchisement of voters by the tens of thousands, missing ballots, overcounted ballots for Bush, the list goes on and on. It was so bad it almost made Florida 2000 look like a clean election.

Under Ohio law, Ken Blackwell should be in jail, but the State Attorney General (another Bush Rethug) refused to prosecute. If that election had been gone over with a fine-toothed comb the way the Florida one was done (after the fact of course) you would know as well as those of us who actually have looked at it that in fact, Kerry won.

And that also answers the perennial question "if Bush was so bad then why was he re-elected?" The answer was quite succinctly, he was not.

[Poboy]

I disagree.

Democrats should speak out on this and all issues.

Once consensus has been achieved, then the discipline must be enforced.

When discipline is enforced BEFORE consensus is achieved, then you have a top down approach antithetical to a democracy, which always seems to benefit the status quo.

[MacQ]

It's easy to be united when your job is opposition. Just complain about everything the people in charge do. Find something wrong with everything.
Now having the power, dems will find out that they had quite different "visions" of what "change" really meant. All that was left purposely nebulous, allowing people to write their own visions on the blank slate as Mr. Obama himself said. He (or really his speechwroiters) mastered the art of packing enough things into one paragraph that everyone heard what they wanted to hear.
It will be most entertaining when the rubber meets the road..

[LoRiseAntlers]

well,when you have spineless idiots like Reid and Pelosi leading the party in Congress,what would you expect?The Rethugs have McConnell and Boehner,who make life absolutely miserable for any of their people if they dare step outside the box.

[upbeatdem]

Reid is the one who said he "did not work for Obama" last week. He is being unsupportive of Obama even has he has a history of caving to Republicans. Pitiful.

[Savanna]

Barack Obama spent a great deal of time in the election talking about special interest. Well, here we have it. Special Interest are already working hard with Congress, both Democrats and Republicans to make sure that we don't interfere with the special interest of healthcare, defense care, and the care of large multinational corporations.such as Exon, Shell, and many other groups. They are the ones who have benefited from the last eight years, and they are the ones who have probably benefited from the first 350 billion of the bailout package. Our Congress has supported these folks for a very long time, and one would suppose that they think that they own us. We have signed many trade agreements that if one would take the time to look at the fine print one might think that we have given up many rights to many groups outside our country. We are walking down a slipper slope and so many ways.
We have to watch all this with objectivity and support President Obama with as much pressure on
everyone in Congress to do the right thing and not continue to sell out our country for 30 pieces of gold.

[mmorningstar]

I agree! I cannot believe how quickly and consistently the Democratic Congress has fought Obama. He isn't even in office yet. What hubris! Obama won on a positive platform of inclusion. Perhaps the Congress would do well to follow suit. Leave it to the Democrats to self-destruct. . .