NYT: "Obama Is Planning to Govern from the Center-Right"

by: David Sirota

Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:58


Don't blame the messenger (me) - blame reality:

Obama Tilts to Center, Inviting a Clash of Ideas

By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination with the enthusiastic support of the left wing of his party, fueled by his vehement opposition to the decision to invade Iraq and by one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

Now, his reported selections for two of the major positions in his cabinet - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and Timothy F. Geithner as secretary of the Treasury - suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party.

Please, don't try to claim that because the Democratic Party is supposedly "the left," that means its "center-right" is actually the "center" of American public opinion. Votes on Iraq, the bailout, FISA, deregulation, free trade, etc. etc. have shown us that the "center-right" of the Democratic Party is at least the "center-right" of America - if not the full-on right.

In terms of the New York Times story, at least we know the undeniable (if unsurprising) reality now, and can strategize around it and use the far more progressive election mandate as momentum - rather than simply pretending to live in an alternate reality.

David Sirota :: NYT: "Obama Is Planning to Govern from the Center-Right"

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
NYT: "Obama Is Planning to Govern from the Center-Right" | 86 comments
READ THE ARTICLE DAVID (4.00 / 6)
It says from the 'center-right of his PARTY'.  Did you leave this out intentionally or did you comment on something before you actually read it?  By the way, it also states that he has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.  Any comment on that?
Center-right in the Democratic Party (4.00 / 2)
is, at best, the center on the political spectrum.

Either way, disappointing.

Netroots for Gore

[ Parent ]
So you would completely dismiss (4.00 / 1)
his Senate voting record?  To be honest, I never put a lot of credence in the idea that he was a super-liberal based on his voting record, but it does seem to be a forgotten point.
[ Parent ]
Of course not (0.00 / 0)
We'll have to wait and see how he governs upon taking office, but there have been a number of concerning cabinet choices in addition to things like refusing to campaign/send an email on behalf of Jim Martin.  Not that he's keeping track (thank goodness), but doing the latter would score a lot of points with me.

Netroots for Gore
[ Parent ]
What? (0.00 / 0)
He did cut adds for him. so he is clearly supporting him except a visit. That is understandable because he has to deal with much more important things right now in this economy.
[ Parent ]
OK-ing an email would take ten seconds (4.00 / 1)
heck, he wouldn't even have to write it himself.  Ten seconds of his time would result in multiple millions of MUCH needed dollars for Martin.

A visit would be nice, but I'll take an email.

And yes, he did cut a radio ad and send some staff there, which is good on him...an email to his national list would be of incredible help (Kos and others agree).

Netroots for Gore

[ Parent ]
Why should we wait and see how he governs? (0.00 / 0)
the writing's on the wall. First he put his thumb on the scale for lieberman, then he keeps Gates, then appoints a "pragmatic" as treasury sec. who just can't seem to escape praise from every major right wing economist, and now he wants to appoint a conservative marine general as national security adviser. This is Clintonism on steroids.
[ Parent ]
I believe he did record a radio ad for Martin. (4.00 / 3)
I will be interested to see how much more effort he puts in for Martin over the next 10 days.  I would guess that he doesn't want to put a bunch of effort into that race and end up losing.  Can't say I would like that excuse, but I would understand it.  
[ Parent ]
Such headlines should have no place here, David! (3.20 / 5)
Imho the OpenLeft doesn't stand for "the end justifies all means" in the political discourse. Deliberately shortening a quote in order to make it fit better into one's world view is more typical of right wing blogs, and I'm embarassed that a frontpage blogger here would sink so low.

Populism, shmopulism, this isn't a license to distort the truth!

[ Parent ]
Center Right Media (4.00 / 1)
The "most liberal" voting record means absolutely nothing. First, this is as tired of a meme as "Barack Obama has a problem with working class whites" Does anyone in this country understand what sampling and statistics mean? Does anyone remember where the "most liberal" tag came from, and what their agenda was?

Our media is deeply center-right, that is all that is evident now, and I think the revolution should start with smashing every midtown cable news station.

[ Parent ]
Yes! (0.00 / 0)
When the Revoution comes . . . !
[ Parent ]
Of course (4.00 / 7)
Because I believe everything the NYT writes, just like they reported the Obama campaign was broke.
seriously (0.00 / 0)
i'm like, what? NY Times == Reality? since when?

i am happy to be contributing my mostly-pointless comment to this mostly-pointless post.  

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

[ Parent ]
I don't need the NYT to see the trend. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Center rigth of "his party" (4.00 / 4)
which is center basically, and I disagree with their label he is center left on most of his policies but not by much. As long as he delivers on his campaign promises (Tax cuts, Health care, Iraq, Green spending) I don't care which side of the party he delivers it from. The only choice for his cabinet that I find slightly objectionable is Hillary, I very much like the Tres choice and so does the markets apparently. He is a fresh face with lots of credentials in many admins (Reagan, bush, Clinton). I like Jim jones as national sec adviser since he is bipartisan and he and Obama were close for a long time. I like bill as commerce, since he has to fit somewhere anyways. I LOVE his choice of Axelrod, Valory jarret as senior advisers (Higher post than SoS I believe) and Janet as DHS. Like Rham Manual and his aggressive apporch to counter balance obama's cool approach. Might have missed some in the  mix.

So far so good as far as I am concerned. I consider most of these choices center-left (except Clinton). maybe not far left but that is fine too.

I have an idea (4.00 / 5)
I have an idea that may be unacceptable to a lot of people here. How about we take a deep breath and let him take the Oath of Office in two months.
Why? (4.00 / 7)
What is the value in that? Staffing of the Executive Branch matters, as does various signals from the transition about what the priorities will be.  So the reason for waiting before commenting on these decisions is...what exactly?

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
The value is that if you are going to start (2.00 / 2)
manipulating quotes (I am putting it nicely) to fit your world view, then may you need to take a step back to look at yourself rather than the other guy.
[ Parent ]
Of course... (0.00 / 0)
The NYT may be just the messenger too... maybe a mistaken messenger.

Yeah, I wish Obama had some better selections in his cabinet, but it also looks like has a pretty big agenda.  If he starts actually implementing his agenda I'll be less disappointed in his cabinet picks.

Unfortunately, there's not too much we can do until we start seeing what he's doing.

WTF????????????? (4.00 / 6)
President-elect Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination with the enthusiastic support of the left wing of his party, fueled by his vehement opposition to the decision to invade Iraq and by one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

Seems like the Old Gray Lady takes after the stupid National Journal.  His voting record was middle of the road at best.  No wonder the NY Times is sliding into oblivion.  They can't even get his voting record straight.

With the exception of a couple of issues (4.00 / 1)
he did indeed have a liberal voting record...to try and paint him as a conservative or moderate while he was senator simply is not true.

Netroots for Gore
[ Parent ]
Really? .. (4.00 / 3)
He had the same voting record as Clinton .. is she one of the most liberal members? ... is he more liberal than Feingold?  Sanders?  Pat Leahy?  Ted Kennedy?  Did you ever check stuff like his Progressive Punch score?
[ Parent ]
Calm down... (4.00 / 1)
first of all, where did I say he was one of the MOST liberal senators?  I didn't.

Second, Progressive Punch is an incredibly unreliable measure of a legislator's ideology - things like housing votes are weighted just as much as votes on Iraq.  Sanders, a self-described socialist, barely cracks the top 10.  Feingold, who you clearly consider one of the most liberal senators, was ranked the 22nd most progressive senator in the last session.

Obama was ranked 16th, 10th, and 1st in the National Review's Most Liberal list from 2005-2007.  I'm not saying their ranking is perfect (it isn't), but you're going to have to come up with something much more legitimate that Progressive Punch to make your absurd claim that Obama had a centrist voting record.

Netroots for Gore

[ Parent ]
National Journal (4.00 / 4)
National Journal's ranking system is notorious for its rigged methodology. They did the same thing to John Kerry. It is their deliberate intent to peg the Democratic candidate as the "most liberal" because they consider such a thing to be a poisoned chalice. Isn't it peculiar how Kerry rose in their rankings along with Edwards right on time for the 2004 election?

2003. Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002. Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0)
2001. Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2)
2000. Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8)
1999. Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)

This time around - of course - they rank Obama 1st and Biden 3rd. Obama jumped up from 16th to 10th and then to 1st as his candidacy progressed. Do you really think Joe Biden is the 3rd most liberal senator?

And besides, we don't even need elaborate ranking systems to judge someone's voting record. How can you say the claim that Obama had a centrist voting record is absurd, when it is manifestly true? Obama voted for the Republican Class Action Reform Bill, he has voted in favor of expanding the death penalty, he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act, he voted for the FISA bill and he voted for the $700b Wall Street bailout. By any measure, that is not a progressive voting record.

[ Parent ]
His Progressive Punch Score is 46/100 !! (4.00 / 5)
Considering that Joey McCain (aka Lieberman) is 45/100, Olympia Snowe (R) is 51/100, and Norm Coleman is 56/100, that puts Obama right at the center-right wing of the Democratic party, to the right of pretty much everyone in the Senate. (Hillary is 30/100 by the way.)

Again, as I stated in another post, didn't Chomsky say so many times that Obama is a centrist Democrat, and to justify your vote for him as the "lesser of two evils" is perfectly fine, but to expect him to morph into a progressive and make serious changes to the way the establishment functions (i.e. govern like a progressive) is "delusional".  He said it from 2007, and says it still.  

[ Parent ]
"Did you ever check stuff like his Progressive Punch score?" (4.00 / 1)
Calvin, the question is:  Do YOU?

You state:

"He had the same voting record as Clinton .. is she one of the most liberal members?"

Well, if you check Progressive Punch, you get a score of 90.83% and a ranking of 20th out of 100.  I would say that is pretty liberal.   If you are a Progressive Punch watcher, as you proclaim to be here, you certainly have to disagree with the premise in this NYT piece:

"Now, his reported selections for two of the major positions in his cabinet - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and Timothy F. Geithner as secretary of the Treasury - suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party.

Given Clinton's progressive score to the LEFT of Obama it is downright stupid to use HER selection to make the case that Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party.   That piece seems very ill informed.  

[ Parent ]
well (4.00 / 6)
I don't see why David E. Sanger's opinion is worth anything more than David Sirota's or anyone else's.  

For me, I find the professed surprise by Sanger that Obama is not into ideologues pretty dishonest.  I don't see how anyone could read his books or listen to many of his early speeches in primary and think he's into ideology.  And it's a little embarrassing to emphasize the big personalities and then find out one of the two main people discussed is not a big personality.

All that said, I don't see much else to object to.  Obama is valuing experience and does seem to be pretty centrist here. I don't see how it can be disputed.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

I don't know what you mean by ideology. (0.00 / 0)
"Change happens from the bottom up"
"Middle-class relief is the key to a healthy economy."

These are ideological slogans. What do you consider "ideology"?

[ Parent ]
people are not policies (4.00 / 4)
The other thing is that we really don't know what Obama is planning to do with these people.

Some are reacting as if picking Hillary means a policy of confrontation with Iran, talking about keeping Gates is seeking more wars in the Middle East, taking a guy who worked for Rubin means deregulation and putting Wall Street first.

But it could just as easily be a major push for an Israel-Palestine settlement [which you'll see many of the Atlantic centrist blogs think is what's going on with this nomination], talks with Iran, withdrawal from Iraq, and major government intervention in the economy.  If you were planning these things, many of which Obama campaigned on, you'd still want experienced people.  And why else would Clinton want a 2-4 year gig unless she has reason to hope something really major will result?  She may have run as a moderate Democratic hawk, but does she dream of settling Middle Eastern problems by wars or re-igniting the Cold War?  I doubt it very much.  

Again, we don't really know.
 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Historical Equivalences (4.00 / 1)
For all you really old Democrats, here's something to wince at:

Obama/Hillary = Eisenhower/John Foster Dulles

Yes, I'd agree that Obama is center-right, even considering that the center remains exactly where Nixon and Reagan left it. If you're from the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, I'm afraid it's four more years of crying in your beer and greeting friends who still keep the faith with Next Year in Jerusalem.

Where Nixon AND Reagan left the center? (4.00 / 4)
I don't understand what you mean by that. The country moved quite a bit to the right between Nixon and Reagan: our recent regressive era began with Reagan. Liberalism was still the dominant ideology when Nixon was president, and he had to deal with that. He famously said that "We are all Keynesians now", and created the EPA.

One of the problems with Obama is that he doesn't understand that the country has moved back to where the center is more or less where it was under Nixon. He, like the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic establishment, thinks that we are still living in Reagan's, if not Bush 2's, America. We are not.

[ Parent ]
IMO, he understands and just doesn't care... (4.00 / 1)
He is no different than Bill Clinton.  He campaigned from the center left, and immediately flipped to the corporate right after the election ~ just like Bill Clinton.  

This country's political system is a waste of time.  If we need to regulate anything it is bait and switch tactics of campaigns.  If they promote it, they should be required to vote it.

Bottom line is that our political system is corrupt and will do as it pleases. If anyone objects, they will run you over with a tank just as quick as China. OT? OK, shoot you.  

The only satisfaction I get out of any of this is that I never game Obama a penny.  I never trusted him because he reminded me of Elmer Gantry from day one.  

[ Parent ]
Nixon begat Reagan (0.00 / 0)
What I intended was not quite so perniciously anti-historical as you understood it to be. Briefly, Nixon -- to use a phrase so beloved of our neocon spooks -- prepared the battlefield. Reagan exploited it, and drove liberalism from the field. In the process, the center was shifted significantly to the right, the goal of every Republican since Goldwater. (Before that, from FDR's time to LBJ's, it was more a dream than a goal.)

I should also point out that much of my argument is grounded in domestic policy differences. The policy of containment was a Democratic one, and the Cold War was originally a Democratic war. All the Republicans added to it was a large dose of batshit craziness.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the clarification (0.00 / 0)
But I think you are still conflating Nixon's and Reagan's projects a bit. Nixon of course wanted to have recurring Republican majorities, but the idea of "driving liberalism [itself] from the field" would not have occurred to him. Nixon was more liberal than Clinton or Obama. The new regressive ideology, with the agenda of dismantling FDR's and LBJ's welfare state etc., only became formulated during the Carter presidency. Before then, it only existed in the minds of market fundamentalist economists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, whose ideas were unfamiliar to American conservatives at large.
[ Parent ]
Wait a second... (4.00 / 4)
When the PUMAs threatened to defect from the party, everyone was saying that this was ridiculous because Obama and Clinton are sooooooo close in terms of policy.  Now, however, Clinton is a sign of Obama being center-right.  Clarify.  
Thanks for making my decisiona boutg this site easier (0.00 / 0)

Has anyone considered... (4.00 / 4)
...that perhaps he's not choosing people for their ideology, but for their experience and knowledge of the system?  Have you considered that perhaps he's a strong enough leader to pick the people who can most efficiently put HIS ideology in motion...that perhaps this country doesn't have TIME to wait for an inexperienced Cabinet to get up to speed?

Barack Obama had absolute vision and control of his campaign, proving what kind of leader he would be by defeating the Clinton machine, a much more formidable task than defeating McCain.  He's shown that he never does ANYTHING without a great deal of thought and consideration and while he is good at listening to sage advice, in the end you WILL do it his way once he's made his decision!  Ask anyone who worked on his campaign!  

Do you think that guy disappeared once the votes were counted?

but many experienced people (0.00 / 0)
have experience with corruption.

Campaigns are about putting up appearances.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
It's That OTHER Guy I'm Worried About (4.00 / 4)
Obama the competent and self-confident isn't the problem; I'd even grant you Obama the well-meaning. It's the Obama who can't seem to grasp the nature of what he -- and we -- are facing who worries me.

He hasn't picked these folks in his inner circle for no reason. They're the smartest and most experienced people he could find, right enough. The difficulty is that they're experienced in the status quo ante, and quite convinced that it can be restored once they get rid of the idiot son now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

They are wrong, and by implication, so is Obama. The United States need far more than a good wash, a shave and its suit sent out to the presser. No one who still says things like The Most Powerful Nation on Earth and means it should be allowed anywhere near the control room in these perilous times.

[ Parent ]
A Voice of Reason (4.00 / 2)
Obama wants smart, competent people who can put his agenda in motion.  I worked in govt and three quarters of the battle to getting things done is having a team that understands how to make the wheels of govt move.  As opposed to the Clinton Admin which didn't get that for the first 2 years, Obama gets it and is putting people in place who can make things happen.  You can have all the "movement progressives" you want in the cabinet but if they don't get how govt works they will fail.  
[ Parent ]
I worked as a Fed for 15 years (4.00 / 3)
You are absolutely correct, jmnyc.  

[ Parent ]
Or maybe Obama just wants headlines like David's (0.00 / 0)
Though I've been irritated by the way that the front page people here have jumped to conclusions about what every discrete appointment means - indeed, I am more irritated by the premature analysis than the merits of the analysis - I want to raise a different point:

I suspect that Obama is quite content by the headlines suggesting that he will govern from the middle, or from the middle-right of his party, for a couple of reasons:

(1) My hunch is that he accepts the Village wisdom that the political center is still the safest place;
(2) My hunch is that the perception that he is governing from the middle will actually enable him to act more boldly from the left, at least in certain areas.

Personally, I am comfortable with Obama choosing a "moderate" cabinet, if it is a means to accomplish moderate-left or moderately progressive goals.  And I think it's worth acknowledging that this is really the long-term plan.

One might object that this analysis requires a leap of faith.  But I'll just observe that it's less of a leap when one considers that Obama does not appear to be the type who will simply delegate the important decisions to his staff.

did you support the war? (4.00 / 1)
and be honest about it.

What I have noticed is that uber war hawks.  The guys that told us to fall in line behind Bush, Iraq and Gitmo, people like David Brooks, Krauthammer, and Christopher Hitchens, threw their support behind Obama in last few weeks of the campaign.  Now we are getting told to shut up by these people again only to shut up about Obama's neocon appointments.  Also Kos has been overrun with herds of their apologists.  I can't even read it anymore.

I wonder what kind of deal Obama made with them.

If Obama won't dance with the one that brung him, the progressives have every right to feel pissed, used and spat on.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
wtf? (4.00 / 2)
He hasn't appointed not a one neocon. If someone is telling you to shut up, it's because you don't know what you're talking about.
[ Parent ]
Rahm is a democratic neocon (4.00 / 2)
He is a war hawk and fairly unrepentant about it.

He voted for the resolution and suppressed every attempt to stop the war.

He is also being advised by Dennis Ross, who works for a neocon thinktank.

Larry Summers is one of the people that went on jihad against Jimmy Carter over his book in Israel/Palestine.

People preferred Obama over Clinton because she was more belicose and neocon friendly, now she is being appointed to the state department.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
Rahm is not a neocon. (4.00 / 1)
Neocons want to invade muslim countries, turn them into democracies because of their belief that these revamped democracies won't be threats to Isreal. That's from the Bill Kristol family. Obama has not appointed anyone like that at all. And, since Obama on more than one occasion has said that "he wants to not only end the Iraq war, but the mindset that got us into that war" your angst seems HEAVILY misplaced. But get all up in arms about nothing if you wish.
[ Parent ]
His record speaks for itself (2.00 / 2)
read down with tyranny, which is what I linked to.

He is a war hawk who supported the war, picked candidates that supported and undermined those who didn't.

I believe that Obama defended Lieberman at his request.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
wow... (0.00 / 0)
I believe that Obama defended Lieberman at his request.

check yourself on this one.  

[ Parent ]
No, I was strongly opposed to the war (0.00 / 0)
And honestly, I don't even understand the logic of your question.

I'm not telling anyone to "shut up." At most, I'm hoping that people simply stop hyperventilating over these appointments, because I don't believe that they necessarily are all that revealing about the policies that will be pursued.

(And I feel the same way about those few appointment-announcements that have been greeted here with remarks like, "this is a good sign."

[ Parent ]
well I believe they are (0.00 / 0)
and by the time you are proven wrong it will be to late to do anything.

We are trying to get Obama to hire more progressive choices.

Lieberman is what set me off.

There are many more people that would be better than him and wouldn't defend the criminality of the people who lied us into the war.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
do you want Obama to live up to what he campaigned on? (0.00 / 0)
Because all of the things said by Emmanuel are VERY good signs that Obama does indeed plan on championing the programs he promised. Isn't that what this is about? It seems like you're attacking a symptom (his appointments) because they might lead to a disease (right wing policies?) that those symptoms do not even necessarily point to. Perhaps he is putting experienced people in government to follow through on his promises. Perhaps he is getting cover from the right to champion progressive policies. You seem to think that Obama is going to just flip out and become a Centrist and it seems to me that Obama is putting a team together that can implement his campaign promises. That's what I want. Have you ever thought that if he put very progressive people in there, they wouldn't be experienced enough, or the right could make them boogeymen, that in the end, Obama couldn't get his change through Congress? This is chess not checkers. You're playing checkers.
[ Parent ]
I don't think Obama is terribly progressive (0.00 / 0)
he voted for the bankruptcy bill, and fisa.  While he opposed the war, he still kept it going by funding it.  Why can't he appoint any progressives?

I don't want to be walked again.

The Democrats in Congress betrayed as and it looks like Obama is going to do the same thing.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
Lieberman was the betryal? (0.00 / 0)
Please, Lieberman was strategy. They need the vote. If they had 53 Senators, he'd be gone. If they had 63, he'd be gone. Senators actually have goals and have to come up with a strategy to meet those goals.

I think Obama is progressive. Where he said he wants to take the country during the campaign is definitely a progressive posture. If he gets in there and does a 180, I'm with you. I've, however, seen no evidence of that.

[ Parent ]
I have no reason to trust any of them (0.00 / 0)
and his action are ominous.  

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Bankruptcy Bill (0.00 / 0)
Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill, so where the hell do you get that from?
[ Parent ]
This article tells us no more about Obama's plans (4.00 / 3)
than the 5 front page posts each day that do the same thing, assume Obama is going to govern from the center-right based on nothing more than some of the people he is appointing.

Obama primarily campaigned on a large scale effort to move us to renewable energy, his universal health care plan, a large investment in infrastructure, reinstating a more progressive tax plan and getting out of Iraq.

In interviews since the election, Obama and Rahm have both said they are already moving on these issues and that the economic crisis makes them even more critical.

If you consider these priorities "center-right," fine, but I'm sure as hell not going to be whining about a lack of ideological progressives in the cabinet if the administration accomplishes their goals.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

The writer of this piece is claiming that Hillary Clinton is a centrist (4.00 / 2)
and is therefore pulling Obama's expected style of governance to the right, when those who know anything at all understand that that is not true, a bogus description.  Look at the voting record, for chrissakes.  

Clinton ranked well to the left of Obama on voting ranking sites Govtrack and Progressive Punch:

http://www.progressivepunch.or...

Obama's progressive score: 86.85%   Rank: 27 out of 100

http://www.progressivepunch.or...

Clinton's progressive score: 90.83%  Rank: 20 out of 100

Govtrack:

http://www.govtrack.us/congres...

Clinton: Ideological ranking - Far left Democrat

http://www.govtrack.us/congres...

Obama: Ideological ranking - Rank and file Democrat

The voting record clearly puts Clinton to the left of Obama.  To suggest that the selection of Clinton pulls Obama to the right is plain dumb.

What this proves (4.00 / 1)
Is that people like Sirota are more invested in portraying Clinton as a neo-con than they are in supporting Obama.

[ Parent ]
Obama is going to create 2.5 million jobs in energy and infrastructure by 2011 (4.00 / 2)
That is sooooo right wing. OMG its almost as bad as Hitler. Couple that with a bunch of people who just detyermined to rightwinglike open the internet, and diversify the owners of media and you hyave total domination by rightwing..... wait wait, actual policy seems different than the "predicted policy" based on hires.

Hmmmmm

Maybe we shouldn't be making guesses, let alone angry decisions based on hires, even 'some' hires, let alone 'a couple' of hires.

Obama Proposes New Economic Stimulus Plan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11...

November 22nd weekly address.
http://www.change.gov/

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

Why is it (4.00 / 5)
"wait and see" when people criticize actual things has already done, but "I told you so" when talking about things he says he's going to do?

If he does in fact create those jobs, that will be great. It will be wonderful. But it hasn't happened yet.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Why is the announcement of personalities (4.00 / 3)
more meaningful than the announcement of policies?

Both are things Obama has done, but this site seems entirely focused on the announced personalities of the administration while largely ignoring the announced policies.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

[ Parent ]
I think (4.00 / 3)
it's pretty clear that the left blogosphere is not concerned about policy, but political strategies, people, "the movement," purity, etc. These forums are not about moving the country to the left in terms of policies, but in terms of power. That's why there was an eruption over Lieberman despite the fact that Lieberman can be used to bring in those policies. It was the classic "which is more important" dilemma. It was a test to see what the left's priorities were. And it was on enforcing loyalty, not producing concrete policies. It was telling.
[ Parent ]
You're right (4.00 / 1)
putting a full throated war supporter, who attacked Obama for being weak for not being more hawkish, who argued repeatedly that time tables were an attack on the troops, in a high profile position in charge of the Homeland Security committee is about personality, not policy.  These issues are unrelated to policy or how Obama got elected.  There is no way anyone could have any policy related motive for this. None.

Seriously, whether Lieberman will help or hurt is not a fact. It's a prediction. You're conflating of the two suggests it's not a well thought out prediction, in your case.  

Strategies impact policy. Power does as well.  We argue about thee things because policies aren't magically enacted, not because we don't care about policies.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
I think Lieberman will stab us in the back (4.00 / 3)
I don't believe that people who have a history of not supporting progressive causes will change over night.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
2 points (1.33 / 3)
I'm not sure Obama wants a 60 vote senate majority anymore.  Not having it gives him an excuse for his center-right agenda.  And if Lieberman were to somehow stab him in the back, he would clearly gain political traction from that as well.
[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 1)
the DLC doesn't want a filibuster proof majority because they themselves are ideologically center right.  It has nothing to do with the public.  If they don't get that they have an excuse to govern center right.   They have more of an excuse if Democrats are in the minority, that is why the other buzzword aside from center right is divided government.

That is why I want to focus on Congress.

The right wing press doesn't control who gets elected to congress as much as it does the Presidency and the Presidency is something beyond our control as Progressives.

We also need to emphasize committee appointments more than we have in the past.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
buzzphrase, not buzzword n/t (0.00 / 0)
n/t

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Both are things Obama has done (4.00 / 1)
but one happened during the election process and the other is happening now.  And some people fear that the choices being made now are undermining those earlier choices - that what was said during the election was about the election, and the staffing is about governing.  That's not about "personalities."  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
Not personalities, (4.00 / 3)
track records.

In general, it is a safe assumption that people will contiinue to behave in the future as they have in the past, absent a good reason to do otherwise.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
"Obama is Planning to Govern from the Center-Right" (4.00 / 1)
Well duh. What's important though, and what the NYT will never tell you, is that there are an awful lot of us planning otherwise. This is where it gets interesting.

Montani semper liberi
Wonderful. I dont think you will be as disappointed as you fear, BUT (0.00 / 0)
I fully, completely and hopefully support you efforts to drive this administration as far left as possible. Obama will be happy to find out that the spread of policy alternatives that are possible from the populations viewpoint,from congress's point of view (which Waxman's elevation has shown to be fairly progressive indeed) is wide and deep. So go for it. I think he wants to serve progressive policy on Grandma's good china. But you fear otherwise. We will find out. But either way, get organized, spread the word about pushing good policy, creating room for substantial change.

I dont know if being angry and working form there is the best route to creating motivation for action, creating angry public demand for programs, or another method might work. But either way -- please go forward creating room on the left for Obama to make policy decisions.

The other way is to create central middle American demand for real progressive policies. But if anger looks necessary, too bad, and so be it. I for one am more trustful of "policies announced" than "policies implied" by "people announced".

Roads, bridges, windmills and homes retrofitted to save on the gas bill. These are progressive, as are 2.5 million directly created jobs.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
"Anger is the first political emotion" (4.00 / 2)
I forget who said that. But anyway, yeah, I think we agree.

It all comes down to the question, what did America vote for in November? Did we vote for change, or for Obama? If we voted for Obama then he's got nothing to worry about and everything is fine. But if we voted for change, he had better deliver it or get out of the way.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
The Pendulum Swings (0.00 / 0)
If Obama had surrounded himself entirely with liberals and progressives, he would have breathed life into a dying Republican party. The GOP would be emboldened to fight and obstruct every piece of legislation, and they would attempt to paint Obama and Democrats as extremists and out of touch. We would end up with four more years of bickering in Washington with very little getting done.

In surrounding himself with very smart and open-minded people, people who are respected on both sides of the aisle, Obama is making it much more difficult for partisans and republicans to vilify him, his administration, and his policies. Rather than giving life to a modern day wannabe Newt Gingrich and losing the gains of Congress, Obama is laying the groundwork to not only increase those gains, but also strengthening the Democratic brand in the minds of the country. The obstructionists will soon show themselves to be the ones who are the extremists and out of touch, while Obama and the Democrats will solidify themselves as the party that gets things done.

Surely Obama understands that the country has moved to the left. But to bring the rest of the country along, he must do it in a moderate fashion. Remember, when a pendulum swings from the right, it must pass through the middle before it gets to the left.

It didn't pass throught the middle with FDR n/t (0.00 / 0)
.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Actually That Is Not True (4.00 / 2)
FDR is now lauded by liberals and progressives but he faced many of the same criticisms Obama is now getting.  He put a number of progressive Republicans in his cabinet including Harold Ickes at the Interior Dept.   He was not seen by many as being far enough to the left including Huey Long and John L. Lewis, the head of the United Mine Workers. Huey Long was planning to challenge him for the Dem nomination in 1936 before he was assassinated.
[ Parent ]
Is Gate's a progressive republican? (0.00 / 0)
?

My blog  
[ Parent ]
actually, as far as i can tell, quite possibly. nt. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
My Point Is (4.00 / 3)
that FDR was perceived as far more of a centrist in his day than he is today largely b/c his goal was to save capitalism by regulating.  His opponents like Huey Long wanted to nationalize many industries.  FDR received a lot of criticism from the left much like Obama is getting now.

And before we hyperventilate about every cabinet choice maybe we should actually look at what Obama is proposing such as his proposal today to create 2.5 million job via federal spending on public works, green jobs, etc.

[ Parent ]
Yep (4.00 / 3)
For his time, FDR was quite centrist. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of history.
[ Parent ]
He had genuine progressives in his administration too (4.00 / 1)
.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
A pendulum is nothing but a metaphor. (4.00 / 3)
In reality, when asked about policy preferences most Americans prefer liberal policies and have for a long time.

The problem is that the ruling class prefers conservative policies.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
The way I see it (0.00 / 0)
In his heart of hearts, Obama is a pragmatic, idea-centered center-mid-leftist, with center-Marxist-faux-Libertarian leanings, who is concerned that his center-Marxist-Libertarianism will be deemed elitist by the public, so he is surrounding himself with right-center Keynesians who are not hostile to Milton Freidman, who themselves are somewhat embarrassed by their Keynesian-Friedmanism, and project an image of being center-right pragmatists who struggle with center-left leanings.

This will probably result in center-left-Fridemanesque-quasi-Marxist rhetoric to mask mid-left post-partisan policies.  

Marxist??? (0.00 / 0)
Where do you get this idea, kanzeon? Does Obama really want to overthrow capitalim and install a classless, egalitarian society? I'm flabbergasted.
[ Parent ]
Surprise? (0.00 / 1)
Not really.  His FISA vote was pretty clear.  His change on campaign finance demonstrated a comfortable level of switching positions when it benefitted him.

No surprise to me.

Fistjab, could you pls explain your troll rating for this comment??? (0.00 / 0)
Just an accidental click, I hope. There's nothing in Annin's posting that deserves this.
[ Parent ]
This is why Americans deserve anything they get. (0.00 / 0)
If there is one lesson to be learned from the weeks since Obama was elected, it's that Republicans have no monopoly on what John Dean calls "authoritarian followers." As days go by it becomes more and more obvious that Obama has no intention of following through on promises of "change" he ran on. And yet, when a anyone has the audacity to point this out, the response from the average Obama voter is "Waah wahh wahh." This is not a figure of speech- this is a literal comment I have seen several times on this site, the Huffington Post, and other so-called "progressive" blogs. Like the Republicans who stood by and supported a president who was not at all conservative, it seems that Obama voters are simply so happy that "their guy" won that they couldn't care less whether he actually does what his suppporters elected him to do.
His Attorney General choice (someone who is against independent counsel or independent investigation of the executive branch) makes it clear that Obama has no intention of relinquishing any of the extra, extra-constitutional powers that the Bush administration has claimed for the executive branch. His choices for Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State indicate that no actual "change" was intended by this administration. And yet no one who voted for him seems willing at all to question anything he does. In two years, what are progressives going to do when they can no longer blame Bush and the "idiots" who voted for them? What are you going to do when it becomes clear that you, too, are sheep? Does democratic participation really end once you've cast your vote?
NYT: "Obama Is Planning to Govern from the Center-Right" | 86 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox