Expect New, More Populist Tactics From President Obama

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 17:00


Elitist (as in, only accountable to large donors), false (as in, doesn't describe any actual problems we face), non-transparent (as in not offering clear choices to the electorate), and right-wing (as in consistently thwarting progressive governance) are only some of the ways we have described "bi-partisanship" here at Open Left.  Now, we can add "strategy shelved by the Obama administration" to that list:

White House aides say they have concluded that Obama too frequently lost control of the debate and his own image during the stimulus battle. By this reckoning, the story became too much about failed efforts at bipartisanship and Washington deal-making, and not enough about the president's public salesmanship.

For Obama's next act, the program is the same as he has been planning for months: New Deal-style plans to rescue struggling homeowners and rewrite regulations on the financial markets, plus a budget proposal that lays the groundwork for sweeping health care reform.

But the strategy to promote these items is getting an emergency overhaul. Obama plans to travel more and campaign more in an effort to pressure lawmakers with public support, rather than worrying about whether he can win over Republican votes in Congress.

Awesome. I am excited about this shift in focus, and eager to engage in the legislative battles that will take place over the coming months. What we need now is a populist, progressive President who offers a clear choice to Americans, and allows his activist supporters to place pressure on fence-sitters. President Obama seems prepared to move in that direction.

Chris Bowers :: Expect New, More Populist Tactics From President Obama

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Expect New, More Populist Tactics From President Obama | 42 comments
It is good news. (4.00 / 7)
He tried to reach out to Pepublicans in an economic emergency and they told him to pound sand.

Now, we use popular pressure for progressive causes.    

It's no news at all. (2.67 / 3)
It's just spin.

News isn't designated leakers bullshitting about what Obama will do, or would do, or could do, or should do...

$9.7 trillion is pouring out of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury into the pockets of Obama's friends in the banking industry, like...

Obama's main financial backer, the Queen of Sub-Prime Lending, Penny Pritzker, and we're supposed to be overjoyed because of whatever "White House aides say?"

Who cares?

Every time somebody estimates the bleeding from the Fed and Treasury, it's another trillion dollars!

"White House aides say..."

Who would even bother to finish reading that sentence?

What else could it possible be, except more bullshit from the bullshitter in chief?

[ Parent ]
A Few Phone Calls Would Not Hurt, Either (4.00 / 10)

say, to Claire McCaskill to ask her not to refer to Democratic initiatives as "silly", even if she disagrees with them;

to Ben Nelson, asking him if would consider a quick Econ 101 review;

to Jim Cooper, pointing out how well Tennesse did in the bailout bill and asking him if his voters like job stimulation measures.

Obama might make good use of the phone while on Air Force One making those campaign-style stops.  He has the persuasive power of Lyndon Johnson.  He just needs to use it.  The voters are way ahead of some of the slow learners in Congress.

Thanks for making me laugh my ass of (0.00 / 0)
to Jim Cooper, pointing out how well Tennesse did in the bailout bill and asking him if his voters like job stimulation measures.
[ Parent ]
should be .. off (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Rahm is saying this???? (4.00 / 7)

 That explains the airborne porcines outside my window.

 Nonetheless, good news, if followed up.

 If Obama sticks to a populist agenda and blows off the beltway, David Broder will HATE him... and America will love him.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

I think what is often missed about Obama's BiPart Fetish... (4.00 / 2)
is how incredibly transformative it would have been if he could have pulled it off. I think most of us agree that trying to engage republicans was a lost cause- but at the end of the day i cant blame him for hoping he could realign the debate with getting 80+ votes for the stimulus package. I think it needs to be acknowledged that if that could have really happened, the reward would have been tremendous, we could have the majority of the republican party signing on to massive infrastructure spending. I'm glad he learned his lesson and is moving on- but i dont blame him for trying.

the funk can move and the funk can remove- dig?
It made sense... (4.00 / 3)
Listen, the Republicans had been battered in the election, had lost their footing... McCain was openly talking about creating a Republican version of the DLC... It made sense to try and get that reverse Reagan coalition and realignment...  I agree with Chuck Todd when he said that maybe Obama got too much into his own hype, thinking that charisma and mandate alone would be able to push republicans like Bush pushed Democrats around during his tenure.

There was a brief window, though, where the Repbulicans were a bit punch drunk and apologetic to the new president...  Had the stimulus bill been completed on time (i.e. the inauguration), we might have gotten a better bill passed quickly WITH bipartisan support...

Oh well... that ship has sailed... now, it's time to be like FDR.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
completely agree. (4.00 / 2)
initially there seemed to be a window for realignment- of course for a second there we forgot who we were dealing with. My point is just that the reward of the strategy if it could be successfully executed would have be massive.
It's over and done with- lets get our A game on and do what we can until 2010 when we got 63.

the funk can move and the funk can remove- dig?
[ Parent ]
You are leaving your mind so far open that your brain is falling out (4.00 / 1)
I mean that in the kindest possible way. The idea that this could have worked is incredibly wishful thinking. Obama's bipartisanship fetish made no sense from the start. The GOP platform is fundamentally opposed to good government and sound science. There are no GOP moderates left. Snowe, Collins, and Spector are fossils and even they are beholden to the far right.

I mean, it would be great if Sen. Cornhole, Maverick McCain and the rest of the GOP "NO" gang would be willing to actively participate in making the federal government work more effectively. It would also be great to have a live, feisty pegasus at my command. And a zillion dollars.

GOPs don't get money for reelection unless they trash the place. That's all they know how to do -- it's how Newt the Asshole taught them to behave in 1994. And the traditional media have been trained to go along with it.

Obama surely knew all of this. He's no dummy. He must have actually thought that he, by offering some carrots and by the sheer force of his personality, could persuade them to back him. Happily, judging by how well his campaign was able to learn from mistakes, he probably won't do it this way ever again. Gotta hope.

[ Parent ]
100% agree. (0.00 / 0)


the funk can move and the funk can remove- dig?
[ Parent ]
GOP death spasm (4.00 / 4)
I think this this renewed GOP resistance is just a death spasm. It looks like Obama may have played them perfectly, assuming this populism is real. Their incapacity to go part of the way toward bipartisanship frees him of that obligation.  
[ Parent ]
Very promising. One caveat. (4.00 / 5)

 This will only work if the Democrats become MUCH more media-savvy than they've been displaying.

 Obama can't do this all by himself. He needs Dem leaders in the House and Senate and at the local levels to back him up with a coordinated message. And DEMAND that the media give the Dems equal time -- a few anti-media-monopoly legislative threats should suffice in persuasion.

 When the Dems stop letting the goopers walk all over them in the media, then we'll finally get some traction.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

TV time (4.00 / 3)
Media Matters often points out the bias towards Republicans in TV time, but I've never been sure how to spread the blame.  Is it 100% the network's fault, or are Republicans just better at getting their mugs on TV?  Are Democrats trying to get on TV as much as Republicans?
[ Parent ]
It's been a long-running problem (4.00 / 3)

 The media's been in Republican-framing mode since at least the Clinton years. And yet I've seen very little recognition on the part of Democrats that there's even a problem.

 Meanwhile, the Republicans whine about the media ALL THE TIME. They're ALWAYS making the media their enemy, even when it's so obviously not so. They work the refs, and it works for them.

 If the Democrats made the media an issue, then maybe we can place the blame for unbalanced coverage on the media itself. But I don't think I can count on the fingers of one hand how often the Dems have raised the alarm on the media.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 3)
I just saw the movie "Gonzo" about Hunter Thompson, and the part about McGovern being kneecapped by the media over Eagleton really rang some bells for me.

Have they been doing this all along? It was not mentioned in the movie, but it had to be Republican dirty ops that uncovered Eagleton's medical history, and fed it to the press. No one else had the means and the motive.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
At this moment in time (0.00 / 0)
a slap up-side the head would go a long way in getting better balance. The Democratic leadership in Congress could simply point out the MM facts. The media would be embarrassed - to the extent they can be. I think things might improve noticeably.
[ Parent ]
It's a media problem (4.00 / 2)
At least ever since cable has been the dominant mode.  When Republicans were in power, there were more Republican becasue they were in power.  That's what they said under Reagan and Bush.  

Then Bill Clinton was president and there were more R's becasue the media said you needed balance and someone to represent the opposition. In addition when the R's took over the House and Senate in 94 the excuse was that they needed to hear from people who actually controlled the levers of power.

Under George Bush, there were more Republicans because once more they represented those who actually governed. Oh after all there were some Democrats on.  In the 90's it was conservative Democrat Bob Kerrey (of Nebraska where else!) and Joe Lieberman. After Kerrey retired it was just Joe Lieberman.

Now once again under a Democratic president we have more Republicans because we need that chimerical, false god, balance and bipartisanship.

Remember these series of comments from NFR83.  It was just confirmation of what is evident from what we see and hear on the airwaves.

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

I railed agaisnt media coverage for decades. It was one of the best thing about discovering blogs, it confirmed you weren't nuts. The media is biased.

Now if Obama wants to pursue a more populist tack (and I am not as sanguine as Chris that the Politico article says that Obama has given up fruitlessly pursuing Republicans) it is absolutely crucial that the media gets lots of pressure from us.  

We must keep making fun of Broderism. If we talk about bipartisanship it shoud have a real definition. The meaning of bipartisanship should be, since America is danger and facing a potential major crisis, bipartisanship is demands that Republicans pull together with Democrats and the President to enact measures that make the country better.  If they don't vote for these bills then THEY HAVE BROKEN THE COMPACT, not Obama or the Democrats.

We must make it clear that they have the definiton upside down. This is one task we can undertake. And I think the administration will be glad of it.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Hope, but verify (4.00 / 2)
After all, we endured a solid year of the bipartisan schtick, and, so far as I can tell, the proclivities of the Republicans were well known before the campaign began.

So, if it was just a campaign schtick, now shed, good, but how do we know this isn't a new schtick?

What are some concrete actions we'd like to see from this change in focus?

How about, say, solidifying a 21st Century FDR coalition with single payer?

And solidifying the 20th Century's FDR coalition by including corporate welfare under the heading of entitlement reform?

Both projects would afford ample opportunity for putting the boot into the Republicans in the fashion they so richly deserve.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Are you the Lambert at Corrente? (0.00 / 0)
I like that Lambert.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Well, thank you (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad you like me, though as I'm sure you've realized, there are people who don't. But I'm really a teddy bear!

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
You are. (4.00 / 1)
I heard you on a conference call during the primary with Hillary Clinton.  You sounded like a teddy bear.  


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Off topic: AMT adjustment (4.00 / 3)
This is off topic, but I had a realization on the AMT adjustment I've been bitching about so much in the stimulus bill.  I hate the fact that $70b of real stimulus has been pushed aside to make room for this.  But now I'm wondering if that is the right way to look at it.  The ratio of tax cuts to spending is basically the same as it started in Obama's bill, so one can argue the AMT adjustment pushed out bad tax cuts, not real stimulus.

Now here is the good part; the AMT adjustment was coming down pike no matter what.  By having it in the stimulus, that is $70b extra available in the main budget for any given deficit.  If those tax breaks were for business, that would not be the case.

I'm not willing to call Nelson a genius (I've seen him on TV, that much is clear) or claim anyone was playing three dimensional chess or anything, but in hind sight, I think this is pretty good news.

Democratic Presidents should not be putting nor allowing any taxcuts (0.00 / 1)
in what's supposed to be a job-creation bill. We have all been terribly harmed by taxcuts from Republican Presidents since Reagan. And they reduce the amount of good the Government can do.

Never in my life would it even have occurred to me that anyone who called himself a Democrat would want hundreds of billions of dollars of taxcuts in it in the first place -- and also agree to reducing and removing good job-creating items for giant cuts like AMT -- that would have passed on their own anyway.

beyond sad -- tragic.

[ Parent ]
Tax Cuts (4.00 / 1)
Again, tax cuts (or tax refunds) for the poorest is actually pretty good stimulus.  Across the board tax cuts aren't very good and tax cuts for business and the wealthy do almost nothing at all.  

I agree completely with the AMT adjustment, of course, and have complained a lot about it.  But I thought it worth mentioning that this means the adjustment will not be in the main budget, which frees up room for more spending.

In other words, there is good reason to believe our overall spending will increase by $70b due to this adjustment being in the stimulus instead of other tax breaks.


[ Parent ]
the problem is not people on payrolls tho -- rich or poor -- (0.00 / 0)
it's that millions (and more and more each day) are not working at all and need to be.

[ Parent ]
Do you get how a stimulus works? (4.00 / 2)
It doesn't all have to be direct.  The key is not all tax cuts are supply side.

It is like comparing new hires to pay raises.  The labor movement and liberals in general like both.  Both help the economy.

[ Parent ]
when they're forecasting 10 % + unemployment by 2010 even w/stimulus, (4.00 / 1)
payroll-only things like this are not a help or solution.

It does not save or create a single job. It does not prevent any low-income person from being laid off -- or give them or allow them to afford benefits. It's not enough to pay rent or mortgage. It's not enough to even cover mass transit commuting for a week. It's only temporary, too. ...

It's simply a campaign promise that -- like the AMT -- should not have been in there.

Again -- It's not people currently working who need 10 more a week.

[ Parent ]
They have to have the gumption to make that argument (4.00 / 1)
I am not sure of their gumption quotient.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
I had the same realization this morning (0.00 / 0)
Under PAYGO they would have had to offset something for the Patch.  By including it in the Stimulus, they did not have to find an offset.

It is right I think of it as stimulus, and its inclusion didn't really effect the spending v. tax cut balance.


[ Parent ]
it would have passed as a standalone bill -- and been "bipartisan" too - (4.00 / 1)
it wouldn't have had to be in the budget at all -- Bush passed trillions in taxcuts without putting them in the budget.
[ Parent ]
That is true (4.00 / 1)
I agree that this could have been a completely separate bill; that would have been better, still.  But this is better than putting it in the budget.
[ Parent ]
every year recently, too, Congress has passed it as a standalone bill tho -- (0.00 / 0)
covering that year.

it's never been a budget item -- nor would it be.

[ Parent ]
GOP is more compact (4.00 / 4)
It is easier for the Republican leadership to pull this off than in 1993 against Bill Clinton because a large number of House GOP moderates have either retired or have been defeated.

The career Progressive Punch scores for Republican House members range from 0 to 23.33 (Chris Smith).  The spread for Democrats is from 100 to 45.95 (Walt Minnick) more than twice the spread.  If Ron Paul had not missed so many votes campaigning for President he'd be the most "liberal" Republican in the House.  As it is, he's second.

To give an example of the range, 44 Democrats score below 80% while 9 Republicans score over 20%.  Half of those Democrats score 75% or below; not a single Republican hits 25%.

The three Senators who voted for the stimulus all score 34% or higher.  There is no one like that in the House, not a one.  And they voted like it.  The Leaches and Shays and Boehlerts have packed their bags and we are left with the Pences, the Lewises, and the Boehners.  Lots of boners if you ask me.

There really is no one to reach out to in the House other than for specific legislation.    

Very edifying post (0.00 / 0)
I have suspected that something like this must be true but you put the numbers on it.  Viewed another way the Republicans were actively purging their "RINOs" - and it worked, for all the good it did them.  

What needs to happen now is for the House Dems (with no fanfare at all) make these guys pay for their obstinacy.  They must be made to know they are in the wilderness now and the price for that decision.  No pork at all for them, unless it's part of a general national program.  The nastier they are, the tighter the chain.

As for Ron Paul, except for the Iraq war, he's basically a John Bircher.  Actually, scrub that exception.  I remember going to a public meeting about the war before it started, and making some remarks in opposition to going to war.  As I was leaving, some guy came up to me, praising me for my remarks and trying to win me as a convert - to the John Birch Society!  Who knew they still existed, but even THEY were against the war.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
they didn't purge anyone (0.00 / 0)
they just got so out of touch with the market's (mainstream's) needs and so drunk off their own power that they fractured and people who would have otherwise run as republicans started running as republicans or voting frequently with the democrats.  that's why you had so many obama supporting peggy noonans and the richard clarkes of the world decrying the bush administration.  they're not progressives - they're just, like obama, anti-dumb (well, i can't speak for noonan).

on an aside, this is what makes lieberman a particularly egregious dipshit - for moving in the opposite direction of everyone else in the united states.  I don't know if that makes him principled or just a complete political moron as well as the regular style.

[ Parent ]
The GOP (0.00 / 0)
is much more conservative than it once was.  The moderate repugs are gone.  Jeffords left the party, Chaffee was beaten, the old GOP northern moderates have been replaced Democrats.

What is left is southern or western and conservative as hell.    

[ Parent ]
Thank goodness! (4.00 / 2)
No, really. I mean that in the most literal sense. Thank g-o-o-d-n-e-s-s -- goodness (i.e., the rational self-interest, sanity and goodwill of most of the citizens in this country).

If there is one thing that strikes terror into the heart of any politician, Republican or Democrat, it is fear that a mob of angry VOTERS will 1) ring their phones off the hook, 2) pummel them with angry emails, snail mails and letters to the editor and 3) get revenge on them by voting for anyone but them in the next election. Vitter is a good example. I am sure that there are thousands and thousands of eligible voters who would rather vote for a porn star (especially if she hands out t-shirts and such) than someone who is willing to put half the people in his home state below the poverty line just to spite a democratic president.

Obama should take it to the people each and every time. It worked for FDR, Kennedy, Regan and Clinton. It will work for Obama.

Populist, shmopulist. (0.00 / 0)
I don't care how Obama sells his policies, as long as they are good ones. And healthcare reform isn't only good for the citizen, it's very important for economic recovery, too. So the sooner it is implemented, the better!
Healthcare Reform (0.00 / 0)
"a budget proposal that lays the groundwork for sweeping health care reform."

Does this mean that they will attack healthcare through budget bills that cannot be filibustered (there was this implication on the Gwen Ifill show last night)?  They cannot go forward if they have the three "responsible" Republican Senators extracting a pound of flesh.

I confess I do not understand the rules about which kinds of bills can be filibustered, etc., and wish we could have a discussion of it.

it looks like they moved many budget items into the stimulus -- (0.00 / 0)
i guess they'll put that money into new health-related budget lines/programs?
[ Parent ]
The only good thing about Obama's Bipartisan Experiment (4.00 / 2)
is that it failed.

I don't think this was Obama's intention, but it does inoculate him from ever having to go there again.  If nothing else, it renders all the "Unity '08" beltway chatter null and void.

Sure, Barack, keep up the smiling bipartisan facade as necessary, but keep a shiv in your back pocket.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Expect New, More Populist Tactics From President Obama | 42 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox