Political Animal
Blog
When it comes to advancing a jobs agenda, the White House seemed to be doing nearly everything right. President Obama delivered a very effective speech to a joint session of Congress; the DNC got involved with a coordinated message; and the president hit the road and was well received in key battleground states. Polls show the American Jobs Act is off to a fairly strong start and congressional Republicans have not yet formed an opposition strategy.
So what’s the problem? Near the top of the list, apparently, is congressional Democrats.
President Obama anticipated Republican resistance to his jobs program, but he is now meeting increasing pushback from his own party. Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.
Some Democratic lawmakers think the bill is too big; some think it’s too small. Some don’t like the financing; some don’t like the spending. Some are afraid of the word “stimulus,” and some are upset the plan includes tax cuts.
I don’t want to overstate the intensity of the Democratic hand-wringing. At a certain level, this is just what Democrats do whenever any idea is put on the table — they start complaining. This has happened before, even under this president, as something akin to a throat-clearing exercise. Democratic lawmakers responded quite well to Obama’s speech last week, and it’d be a mistake to assume Dems “oppose” the Americans Jobs Act.
That said, there are three things congressional Democrats should keep in mind.
First, party unity matters. Obama is tackling the single most important issue on the minds of the American mainstream, and Republicans are feeling a little antsy. For Dems on the Hill to give the GOP cover by whining about an ambitious White House jobs bill, undermining the president on the issue voters care about most, is political suicide.
Second, Republican lawmakers hardly ever treat Republican presidents this way.
And third, whether congressional Dems realize this or not, their fate is tied to Obama’s fate. He remains the most popular elected official in Washington — by a wide margin — and the better he does, the better his party will do. The more Obama falters, the more congressional Democrats will suffer, too.
Especially after this week’s special elections in New York and Nevada, plenty of Dems are feeling nervous. That’s understandable. But undermining their own leader and helping defeat a popular jobs bill in the midst of a jobs crisis will not improve their odds of electoral survival.
As for the left in general, let this be the latest in a series of reminders — it’s easy to get frustrated with President Obama at times, but he’d be in a far better position if he had more reliable congressional allies to partner with.
Facebook
Twitter
Neil B on September 15, 2011 8:11 AM:
I'm wary of tax cuts too, but given them being there Obama and other Democrats need to flaunt that and dare Republicans to be opposed. If they still obstruct, it will be all the more clear to whatever rational observers are left that Republicans are just out to make Obama fail.
PS: disloyalty, that would be jackass Ed Koch (heh, that name) supporting the Republican contender in Weiner's district because the Democrat didn't have enough pro-Israel zeal. The LGBT community also considers Koch a traitor for their own reasons. So we went from a good enough weiner to having a rotten koch pull us under.
Hey, is this a new scheme? - craptcha shows mix of black and outline letters! - with the significant omen of "fumigator."
c u n d gulag on September 15, 2011 8:12 AM:
AAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!
Just GREAT!
The WH finally finds the instructions to the "Politics" boardgame, but then forgot to hand them out to the rest of the players on their side.
Democrats could f*ck-up a two-car funeral procession.
And in this case, if they DON'T follow, they'll be in the hearse.
Ay-yai-yai!
bleh on September 15, 2011 8:14 AM:
Republicans are bullies and Democrats are cowards.
I really hope the WH is gearing up to run against the "Do-Nothing Congress." They deserve it.
Give 'em hell, Barry!
chi res on September 15, 2011 8:14 AM:
This is why we can't have nice things.
Now let's see if all the so-called "progressive" Democrats rally to Obama's side and defend him from the Blue Dogs. (Don't hold your breath.)
Anonymous on September 15, 2011 8:17 AM:
Obama should have sat the blue dogs down at the beginning and said his way or they could switch parties and get crushed in the primaries. I was thinking more about what PA is trying to do with its electoral votes. It reminded me of the Bush vs Gore, the Delay redistricting power play, the government shutdowns, the USSC decision on campaign finance, the FAA shutdown, the debt ceiling vote, and now the voter ID laws. These actions would be the equivalent to dropping a nuclear weapon. Don’t the Democrats have nuclear weapons too? And why don’t they use them. Many people here criticize Obama, but the whole Democratic Party seems risk averse. Republicans will walk right up to the line and sometimes cross it, in muscularly pushing their agenda. They do not care what the polls say, or what the MSM will say.
Democrats on the other hand do not do this. They are concerned with looking reasonable. I think that one of the main reasons why there is a major disconnect between Obama and his supporters is that the expectation are realistic on both sides. Democrats after seeing Bush/Cheney ram down everything that they wanted except for SS, after seeing how the media were cowed and after seeing Bush go over the line without paying any consequences, are frustrated to see Obama so confined. They see how Bush was able to get Ben Nelson’s and Mary Landrieu’s vote time and time again, while Obama struggles to get Collin, Snowe and even Nelson’s vote and don’t understand why. Obama, on the other hand, saw how the conservative media cheerleaded Bush’s every effort even if it went slightly against their orthodoxy and conservative Democrats voting with Bush, and don’t understand why the same dynamic is not present when he came into office with the liberal media and liberal Republicans. Obama expected us to cheerlead him regardless of what he did.
What Obama and his liberal detractors have to understand is that liberals process information differently than conservatives. Conservatives are more like lemmings, while liberals are more like stray cats. This is why a liberal counterpart to FOX is very difficult. Liberals do not like to be brainwashed; they are critical thinkers. They just can’t take marching orders. The only way elected Democrats have a chance is to fight back and not worry about the media.
Reid controls the Senate. He should drop a nuclear weapon. Obama controls the White House. He should drop a nuclear weapon. There are all sorts of trouble that the Executive branch can create unilaterally. There are many statehouses controlled by Democrats. They should drop nuclear weapons. Being nice is not working for the Democrats. Beat up on the media too. That works well for the GOP. The next 14 months are going to be bloody. Its take no prisoner’s time.
Live Free or Die on September 15, 2011 8:18 AM:
Anonymous=LFoD
jayne dough on September 15, 2011 8:18 AM:
Oh, unity, that's right unity. How about if the WH remember unity? Maybe if Obama had remembered unity at least a half a dozen times in the past couple of years, then the congressional dems may show unity.
rea on September 15, 2011 8:24 AM:
I don't understand Congresssional Democrats.
If your a Democrat in Congress:
(1) If you do nothing, and the economy continues as it is, you're in trouble.
(2) If you support Obama's plan, and it doesn't work, you're in trouble--but, but you're in trouble anyway: see No. 1.
(3) If you support Obama's plan, and it works, then you win.
Which option do you choose?
martin on September 15, 2011 8:34 AM:
First, party unity matters.
We're screwed.
Jem Rammers says Captcha. Oh yeah.
chi res on September 15, 2011 8:36 AM:
How about if the WH remember unity? (sic)
Seems like you're confusing "unity" with "my way."
Obama's jobs bill is an intentional effort to represent the middle ground of Democratic responses to the economy, something for everyone, much like other legislattion he has been able to push through a recalcitrant congress.
Whining from so-called "progressives" over the past two years is because they didn't get everything exactly their way. Passing a comprehensive health care bill wasn't good enough because it wasn't the "progressives" healthcare bill. Eight hundred billion in stimulus wasn't enough; "progressives" wanted a trillion. And on and on...
I've decided that those at the further reaches of the political spectrum (these days that includes so-called "progressives" and about 95% of republicans) must of been held out of kindergarten... they never learned to play well with other.
jhm on September 15, 2011 8:41 AM:
LFoD almost makes the point that occurred to me: to what degree dis the WH preempt any of the Dems need for kvetching? If not much, then what was their reasoning?
DisgustedWithItAll on September 15, 2011 8:43 AM:
For once, I'd like to see the Democratic Party act like it had some fu king sense about how to get things done. Could there be a more perilous time for the country where the idiocy of not sticking together could be more pronounced. Sometimes it might be good for some people to just get slapped upside the head. Good grief.
It really becomes hard to keep supporting a self-destructive clutch of idiots.
DisgustedWithItAll on September 15, 2011 8:46 AM:
Just who are the problem children? We need to get a list and pound them with unflattering e-messages.
chi res on September 15, 2011 8:49 AM:
to what degree dis the WH preempt any of the Dems need for kvetching?
Yeah, every time I meet an asshole, my first thought is why somebody didn't simply tell them not to be an asshole. Certainly that would have worked.
atlliberal on September 15, 2011 8:52 AM:
"Democratic hand-wringing"
This phrase is the main problem with the Democratic Party. Even when all the facts are on their side, and the people are on their side, they spend more time worried about what the Republicans will say than they do on getting the policy right. Find your spines, stand up, do the right thing and forget what the republicans will say! They are wrong more often than not. The hand wringing and spinelessness in Democrats is the main reason Republicans still get elected, even though people hate their policies. Strong and wrong unfortunately beats weak and right in politics.
SW on September 15, 2011 8:53 AM:
The left isn't Obama's problem. Never has been. It has always been the blue dogs. The left will bitch and complain scream bloody murder but in the end come home. Not so the blue dogs. Hell, they will switch parties if you look that them cross-eyed. These are the Dinos. And it is in trying to satisfy them that the President risks failure. Because you don't just have to see your policies enacted to be successful, they have to be inherently successful policies. And these fuckers have done everything they could from the start to make sure that this would not be the case.
rikyrah on September 15, 2011 8:55 AM:
And third, whether congressional Dems realize this or not, their fate is tied to Obama’s fate. He remains the most popular elected official in Washington — by a wide margin — and the better he does, the better his party will do. The more Obama falters, the more congressional Democrats will suffer, too.
say it over and over and over and over.
what do these morons think...that someone is going to come out and vote Republican at the top of the ticket, and then, say, ' oh, I'll vote for the Democrat down ticket'
G-T-F-O-H
for 2 years, all we heard was bitching and whining about the WH not taking charge and sending stuff to Congress - thus doign their job.
now, the WH sends stuff to Congress, doing their damn job, and they're still bitching and whining.
walt on September 15, 2011 9:01 AM:
It's odd that there are some who want to blame progressives for Obama's predicament here. Exactly what did progressives do that made Obama eager to compromise with Republicans? How did progressives get Obama to agree to GOP tax cuts, validate their framing of deficits as our primary economic threat, and choose their regulatory meme as his own?
Blue-dogs are vermin but they're hardly worse than Obama himself.
T2 on September 15, 2011 9:03 AM:
the truth is that a high % of Obama's "failures" can be traced back to Blue Dog House Dems and guys like Nelson in the Senate who are more worried about keeping their government paycheck rolling in than promoting the public welfare.
massappeal on September 15, 2011 9:09 AM:
Congressional offices just opened for business today. Especially if they represent you, but even if they don't, the most effective thing most of us can do today on this issue is call one or more of the following Democrats quoted in the article and politely but firmly express the view that:
*you support the American Jobs Act;
*as elected officials, they should support the American Jobs Act;
*as Democrats, they should not be undermining President Obama on this issue.
Let's do it:
Sen. Bob Casey (PA) 202-224-6324
Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA) 202-224-5824
Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) 202-224-3954
Sen. Kay Hagan (NC) 202-224-6342
Rep. Heath Shuler (NC) 202-225-6401
chi res on September 15, 2011 9:15 AM:
Exactly what did progressives do that made Obama eager to compromise with Republicans?
Wrong question. Obama compromised with Repubs/BlueDogs in order to get legislation passed.
The right question is why did so-called "progressives" whine about every move he made and then stay home in Nov2010 and let republicans win the day?
Josef K on September 15, 2011 9:24 AM:
So what’s the problem? Near the top of the list, apparently, is congressional Democrats.
You'd have to have been blind not to see this coming. The Democratic caucus is not and never has been as unified as the Republicans; its carried the 'big tent' strategy surprisingly well for the last generation, but has done so more honestly than their counterparts on the right, trying to please too many constituencies at the same time. The Republicans are focused, on admittedly very negative but simple visions, and thus tend to carry the day more often.
That all said, let's see just how intense this 'opposition' is before crying defeat. If nothing else, we should at least start calling our local Congresscritter's office and tell them to support the damned bill. And email them. And fax them.
Get our voices heard, whether they listen or not.
MsJoanne on September 15, 2011 9:28 AM:
The only fix for this, that I can see, is term limits. I've never pushed for them before but if reelection is the biggest impediment of actually accomplishing something, then remove it. This fear for their job stopping all governing, as well as the GOP not caring if it kills the country, might improve if we limit how long they can screw things up.
Even if we refresh whole lots every two years, based on current anger, the elected officials migh give a shit about their legacies, because caring about US is non-existent.
Great, Captcha has managed to get worse.
walt on September 15, 2011 9:32 AM:
chi res, a president who has overwhelming majoriies yet can't exercise sufficient muscle to wrangle a few blue dog votes is doing something wrong. Part of the job description here is that you do what it takes.
Moreover, Blue Dogs didn't force Obama to capitulate to Republicans on the debt-ceiling fight. Obama did that entirely on his own. He validated their framing of that issue, which only served to further confuse the American voters. Now, he's switched sides again and for some odd reason he's discovered he doesn't have the full support of his party.
I'm grown-up about politics. This isn't therapy for me. I don't need Obama to make me feel good about myself. But if you have a president who undercuts his base time and time again, don't look for me for sympathy.
zandru on September 15, 2011 9:32 AM:
"he'd be in a far better position if he had more reliable congressional allies to partner with"
Here's where WE come in.
Call your Congressbeings, particularly if they're Democrats. Like massappeal sez. Tell them you support the President's plan AS IS. Tell them you expect that, as Democrats supporting their President, they support it also. Remind them that the do-nothing Republicans want to block anything that will help this country - and that, as Democrats, they can and should run on that.
Also remind them that Their President has 40+ percent approval - but theirs is about 10 percent and dropping. And don't forget - there's an election coming up.
Captcha is giving me a "tau alpha". Weird.
Anonymous on September 15, 2011 9:50 AM:
@walt
Not sure why you need to say that you're a grown up big boy and all that, unless there's some reason to question the fact...
In case you didn't notice, Obama DID "wrangle a few blue dog votes" as well as a few repub votes in order to pass a shitload of beneficial legislation over the past two-and-a-half years. You probably also didn't notice that, pragmatically speaking, "an overwhelming majority" in the Senate is now defined as at least sixty votes.
And I don't know about you, but I sort of like that fact that the president is concerned about long-term debt. Quite a few people seem to think fourteen trillion is a lot of money.
chi res on September 15, 2011 9:52 AM:
anonymous = chi res
karen marie on September 15, 2011 9:53 AM:
Reading the headline, one would think that there was a major revolt among Democrats in Congress against the president's suggested bill.
Reading the article, however, gives an entirely different impression -- it's the Blue Dogs (i.e., conservative Democrats) who are carping.
Republicans don't have this problem because they have purged anyone to the left of Attila the Hun. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has been more than willing to allow Republicans like Heath Shuler and Joe Manchin to run as Democrats. Kay Hagan is also a Republican except that unlike Shuler and Manchin she is pro-choice and not afraid of teh ghey. All three consistently vote with the Republicans.
Also, too, I thought it interesting that the NY Times referred to Manchin as "Joe Manchin III," implying elitism and inherited wealth, neither of which are true but it's a nice smear nonetheless.
Manchin became senator in a special election after the death of Senator Robert Byrd and is up for re-election in November 2012. It would make me happy if he went the way of so many other Blue Dogs voted out in 2010 but it won't be soon enough to prevent him from helping Republicans harm the country.
Too bad the DSCC and DNC can't seem to understand the problem.
walt on September 15, 2011 10:20 AM:
chi res, I'm happy you're content with the political debacle that is the Obama presidency. What's at stake here, however, isn't just Obama's biography but the future of liberalism itself. If I'm less a fan of the actor than the movement itself, it's for this reason. If Obama serves our interests well, certainly it's good to wave the flag and let rip a cheer. When the actor, however, squanders his mandate on loony post-partisan theatrics, when he triangulates against his own base, and when he muddies his message with contradictory signals, then it's time for a reality check.
By the way, if you're really worried about the long-term deficit at this moment, you're an idiot. There's absolutely no way this country will even survive long enough to face that set of risks under our current economic paradigm. Our economy is so bad that social chaos will eventually result. That's why a Democratic president would be uniquely suited to make that argument. Too bad we don't have one.
bardgal on September 15, 2011 11:06 AM:
Stop bitching here, and go contact these people and tell them TO PASS THE BILL
Sen. Bob Casey (PA) 202-224-6324
Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA) 202-224-5824
Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) 202-224-3954
Sen. Kay Hagan (NC) 202-224-6342
Rep. Heath Shuler (NC) 202-225-6401
Then call your own congresspeeps and tell them the same. Demand they PASS THE BILL - ALL OF IT.
DO IT NOW.
chi res on September 15, 2011 11:29 AM:
Oh, I didn't know I was conversing with someone paranoid enough to believe that the end of civilization is at hand. Now I understand why you insist that you're all grown up and don't need therapy.
Never mind.
Barry Clarke on September 15, 2011 12:22 PM:
Walt, or others, please state *specifically* what Obama could have done to bend Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh, etc., to his/"our" will. And state historical precedents for these tactics, and please state the size of the party's majority at that time.
Go ahead. We're all waiting.
When you need 60 votes to do anything, and at the best moment you have 55, you're screwed. Obama has done a great job playing a crappy hand. Until we have 60 *real* Democratic Senators, this is the way it will be.
CDW on September 15, 2011 12:28 PM:
I have to wonder if the blue dogs are a fifth column planted by the republicans. I simply can't understand why they call themselves Democrats otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column
Announcement: Captcha is now written in Hebrew or maybe Chinese.
bandit on September 15, 2011 12:31 PM:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-15/u-s-jobless-claims-unexpectedly-rise-to-428-000-highest-level-since-june.html
TCinLA on September 15, 2011 12:50 PM:
This spineless stupidity has always been the thing I have disliked the most about the Democratic Party.
And it's not new. Here's what Will Rogers said 80 years ago: "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
Have any of these witless twits ever heard of "suck it up and act like a you have a pair"????
Neil B on September 15, 2011 12:59 PM:
Reality check for the progressive critics of Obama versus the pragmatic realists (if you want to call them th at), coming from a sort of centrist in the matter: First, the PCs (well why not) make many cogent points about what Obama is doing wrong, that is right for them to do. We should not be afraid of *criticism* of our leaders, this helps to define what should be done, put pressure on them etc. However, the PRs (why not) are right to say: still, don't stay home, it is better for Obama to be elected than [whatever horror story] and so on. This is something both factions *must* agree on or we will tear ourselves apart at a time when Republicans are angling to ruin the nation for ordinary people and to keep themselves from being voted out too.
Oh this is too good in craptcha: "Tin-foil."
Sam on September 15, 2011 1:00 PM:
I've said this before and I'll say it again. This country is on the road to ruin because one major political party has descended into madness and the other political party is too weak and incompetent to pass the people's agenda.
SecularAnimist on September 15, 2011 2:37 PM:
Steve Benen wrote: "... he’d be in a far better position if he had more reliable congressional allies to partner with ..."
Obama has reliably chosen to partner with Congressional Republicans and to throw progressive Congressional Democrats under the bus.
Did Steve Benen ever write even one article about the "People's Budget" proposed by the House Progressive Caucus -- the single largest caucus in the House of Representatives? I don't think so.
Does Steve Benen ever pay any attention to what progressive Democrats in the House say or do, except to bash them because they won't just shut up and do whatever Obama wants them to do at any given moment?
Does Steve Benen regard Obama's corporatist technocrat "compassionate conservatism" and wholesale adoption of Republican rhetorical frames as the "leftmost" range of acceptable public discourse?
Eisbaer on September 15, 2011 11:54 PM:
Just because the Congressional Dems are crap when push comes to shove doesn't mean that the President isn't also crap when push comes to shove. As for the gratuitous smelly-hippie kicking (i.e., anyone to the left of Obama who's gotten tired of his dog-and-pony show), do I really have to list the entire litany of reasons why those of us in that category are a bit leery of embracing anything he proposes again? Can the well-worn saying from Star Trek -- "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" -- suffice?
Cue the lackeys shouting "Romneycare! Weak-tea financial regulation! Lily Ledbetter!" and so on.