What was most interesting about Obama’s town hall in Belgrade Montana on Friday was the body language of the state’s three democratic honchos who sat together just behind the president:
Gov. Brian Schweitzer, freshman Sen. Jon Tester and main man Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, who is determined to tease out republican votes on health reform.
In a state where Bush beat Kerry in 2004 by 20 points - Obama lost to McCain by less than two and a half percent - it’s encouraging to have three democrats at the top (the sole House member is republican). And although Montana is not a pivotal swing state, winning here could help us in the future become competitive in, for example, the adjacent Dakotas.
So as much as progressive democrats may disagree with or dislike Sen. Baucus, he is, at least by some indicators - 80 percent on the Americans for Democratic Action’s 2008 scorecard - a reliable moderate democrat.
As the three of them watched the prez answer their constituent’s questions (Gov. Schweitzer is in the middle with the string tie, Max to his left), the impression I got was of three elders, sitting in critical judgment of their out-of-town visitor. It was an audition. The 67-year-old Baucus, a U.S. senator for 30 years, faces reelection in 2014. The 53-year-old Tester, who won three years ago by less than 3000 votes, would run again in 2012.
On stage in shirtsleeves and no tie, Obama responds. As always, there are a few too many hesitations and “uhms”. But as the q & a continues, he seems to find his way through his complicated and nuanced message, that of building what he calls a “uniquely American system of providing care.”
Much of what the president said was in deference to Baucus (currently being lobbied nonstop by a slew of former aids in the pockets of anti-reform forces) who may be the single most important figure in determining if a bill passes and what’s in it.
Brian, Jon and Max shift slightly in their seats and there were even some small changes in their facial expressions. They were stoic and watchful. What were they thinking?
My guess is that with Obama’s popularity slipping, top-ticket democrats, like these dudes from Montana, are worried. They want to make sure that this president has what it takes.
In that respect, Obama’s August showdown with republicans is not just about health care. He has to demonstrate, one way or another, that he can outsmart or outmaneuver opponents, appease and pull in business democrats and hold his base.
If he does this, and delivers meaningful reform, he will be perceived as a pragmatic problem-solver. That’s what top-ticket democrats - and many anxious activists - want to see.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
The New Backlash?
Wouldn’t it be ironic if current right-wing extremist behavior triggers a response by mainstream Americans similar to the reaction 40 years ago to the antics of the New Left?
The “political theatre” of 60s radicals was, after all, intent on taking down “the system,” oftentimes showing utter disrespect and disgust for settled values. Decades of conservative governance which followed were based, in part, on this perception (and its manipulation) of an arrogant class of self-appointed elitists.
Now Americans get to witness an internet-era movement of angry right wing nudniks taking marching orders from media madmen like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Abbey Hoffman they’re not, but there is a paradoxical similarity between the Yippies and this current incarnation of dissidents with their contrived indignation and outrage.
Very different times, conditions and issues. We’re much more accustomed to obnoxious spectacles. But this uncivil behavior has a lot of Americans of diverse political values shaking their heads.
Right now, conservative strategists are doing a pretty good job using their troops and true believers to shape the political environment. But this advantage may not last much longer.
Making a mockery of the system during the later phase of the protest movement gave young radicals a rush. But then the reaction set in.
Let’s see if Obama and the dems are clever enough to stir an instant backlash against these creepy anti-reform loudmouths.
The “political theatre” of 60s radicals was, after all, intent on taking down “the system,” oftentimes showing utter disrespect and disgust for settled values. Decades of conservative governance which followed were based, in part, on this perception (and its manipulation) of an arrogant class of self-appointed elitists.
Now Americans get to witness an internet-era movement of angry right wing nudniks taking marching orders from media madmen like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Abbey Hoffman they’re not, but there is a paradoxical similarity between the Yippies and this current incarnation of dissidents with their contrived indignation and outrage.
Very different times, conditions and issues. We’re much more accustomed to obnoxious spectacles. But this uncivil behavior has a lot of Americans of diverse political values shaking their heads.
Right now, conservative strategists are doing a pretty good job using their troops and true believers to shape the political environment. But this advantage may not last much longer.
Making a mockery of the system during the later phase of the protest movement gave young radicals a rush. But then the reaction set in.
Let’s see if Obama and the dems are clever enough to stir an instant backlash against these creepy anti-reform loudmouths.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The Right Wing is Having Fun and We're Not
Congressional Republicans are enjoying themselves these days.
During TV interviews they seem to betray a smug, almost naughty smirk when they talk about “birthers” and health reform opponents who have uncovered the proposed plan to euthanize the aged.
Anti-Obama Republicans (are there any other kind) cleverly maintain a degree of ambiguity about the president’s origin and those insidious government control measures hiding out in the thousand-page health care bill.
Our side is always off guard when preposterous notions gain traction. Now that it’s becoming evident that this insurgent behavior is orchestrated, we’re particularly outraged.
Why are they so good at tricking us and why does the public keep falling for it?
It was almost a year ago when we were in a panic because of the enormous post-convention bump that McCain got over the Sarah Palin pick.
I almost dropped dead when I saw a front page photo of a Palin rally with Rosie the Riveter banners.
Sure we all felt better when the Palin fraud was exposed. But I think that experience is useful now.
The republican are good at snookering us and provoking reactions which make us look bad. So I think we’d better take a breath and close ranks (like we did around Obama last fall) and remember that although the stakes are high, you never want to let them see you sweat.
During TV interviews they seem to betray a smug, almost naughty smirk when they talk about “birthers” and health reform opponents who have uncovered the proposed plan to euthanize the aged.
Anti-Obama Republicans (are there any other kind) cleverly maintain a degree of ambiguity about the president’s origin and those insidious government control measures hiding out in the thousand-page health care bill.
Our side is always off guard when preposterous notions gain traction. Now that it’s becoming evident that this insurgent behavior is orchestrated, we’re particularly outraged.
Why are they so good at tricking us and why does the public keep falling for it?
It was almost a year ago when we were in a panic because of the enormous post-convention bump that McCain got over the Sarah Palin pick.
I almost dropped dead when I saw a front page photo of a Palin rally with Rosie the Riveter banners.
Sure we all felt better when the Palin fraud was exposed. But I think that experience is useful now.
The republican are good at snookering us and provoking reactions which make us look bad. So I think we’d better take a breath and close ranks (like we did around Obama last fall) and remember that although the stakes are high, you never want to let them see you sweat.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
How Obama Stumbled
Anyone who presumes to understand what happened to our prez this week must tread carefully. His long-winded answers on health care reform at his press conference followed by his off-message remarks on the Gates arrest left the impression that the Obama persona is fracturing.
He was so tightly wound and obsessed with getting his health reform talking points across, is it any wonder that his improvised reflections on Gates spun in the other direction?
Am I the only one to speculate that his blurt about the Cambridge police behaving stupidly was a projection of his feelings about himself at the moment?
Anyway, it’s easy to point out what he did wrong and insist he behave differently. Here are my two cents:
Stop acting like a control freak at press conferences. Forget the scripted opening statement, answer the reporter’s question quickly and move on to the next one.
At the health reform town hall in Cleveland the following day, he was charming, comfortable and relatable, which says something about his capacity to recover. So let’s give the guy a chance to regain his balance. He’s under some pressure. You think?
And finally, to my friends who regularly advise me to pay more attention to substance than style, this post will probably confirm my enduring lack of depth and analysis. Frankly, I prefer leaving the most complicated policy questions to those serious thinkers on my left and right.
I’m with many Americans who have an enormous emotional stake in Obama. For them and me, this was a painful week.
Let’s hope we’ve all learned a thing or two.
He was so tightly wound and obsessed with getting his health reform talking points across, is it any wonder that his improvised reflections on Gates spun in the other direction?
Am I the only one to speculate that his blurt about the Cambridge police behaving stupidly was a projection of his feelings about himself at the moment?
Anyway, it’s easy to point out what he did wrong and insist he behave differently. Here are my two cents:
Stop acting like a control freak at press conferences. Forget the scripted opening statement, answer the reporter’s question quickly and move on to the next one.
At the health reform town hall in Cleveland the following day, he was charming, comfortable and relatable, which says something about his capacity to recover. So let’s give the guy a chance to regain his balance. He’s under some pressure. You think?
And finally, to my friends who regularly advise me to pay more attention to substance than style, this post will probably confirm my enduring lack of depth and analysis. Frankly, I prefer leaving the most complicated policy questions to those serious thinkers on my left and right.
I’m with many Americans who have an enormous emotional stake in Obama. For them and me, this was a painful week.
Let’s hope we’ve all learned a thing or two.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Senate Majority - A New Problem for Progressives
Much more important than the so-called filibuster-proof majority for Senate Democrats is the fact that 24 states now have two Democratic Senators (or independents who caucus with Democrats).
Beside the usual suspects, these states include Arkansas, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico and Virginia.
Democrats have at least one U.S. Senator in an additional 12 states, including Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, Nebraska and South Dakota.
This is spectacular news for those of us who want to build and maintain Democratic majorities and would have been fantasy just five years ago.
But this new configuration is a problem for progressives as key Democratic Senators in recently conservative states are reluctant to risk their political future by moving too far beyond their constituents.
Like it or not, health care, global warming, financial reform, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are going to be brokered by Senate Democrats such as Max Baucus of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
And President Obama will have his hands full with this crowd. (In the House, “Blue Dog” Democrats can be more easily appeased or in some cases ignored).
Since 2004, in just two national elections, we’ve picked up 15 Senate seats. We’ve expanded the base dramatically. Now the question is: How do we move the agenda?
Beside the usual suspects, these states include Arkansas, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico and Virginia.
Democrats have at least one U.S. Senator in an additional 12 states, including Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, Nebraska and South Dakota.
This is spectacular news for those of us who want to build and maintain Democratic majorities and would have been fantasy just five years ago.
But this new configuration is a problem for progressives as key Democratic Senators in recently conservative states are reluctant to risk their political future by moving too far beyond their constituents.
Like it or not, health care, global warming, financial reform, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are going to be brokered by Senate Democrats such as Max Baucus of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
And President Obama will have his hands full with this crowd. (In the House, “Blue Dog” Democrats can be more easily appeased or in some cases ignored).
Since 2004, in just two national elections, we’ve picked up 15 Senate seats. We’ve expanded the base dramatically. Now the question is: How do we move the agenda?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Timing Not Timidity Drives Obama on Gay Rights
To understand how Barack Obama will overturn the ban on gays in the military, look at the administration’s strategy on achieving health care reform.
Obama’s style is to carefully assemble coalitions which include buy-in from groups traditionally opposed to reform.
Just as the President recruited business and medical industry elites into his health care strategy and proposals, he has begun that same process with military and defense department officials, who will be critically important in dismantling “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Progressive democrats are understandably impatient with this process. Daily Beast’s Matthew Yglesias accuses the president of being timid for allowing the military to continue to dismiss gay service men and women.
While progressives may disagree with Obama’s approach, it is not driven by timidity but timing.
We know what it will look like: the President at the White House podium (or, better yet, at a military base) flanked by the Defense Secretary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and key members of Congress, the Pentagon and the services.
If done right, the end of legal discrimination against gays in the military will signify a spectacular leap for the gay rights movement. It will appeal to many social moderates who oppose or are ambivalent on gay marriage.
Imagine the enormous transformation for this nation when the patriotic and brave gay men and women of the military - who sacrifice and serve their country - receive the respect they deserve.
And that moment is coming.
Obama’s style is to carefully assemble coalitions which include buy-in from groups traditionally opposed to reform.
Just as the President recruited business and medical industry elites into his health care strategy and proposals, he has begun that same process with military and defense department officials, who will be critically important in dismantling “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Progressive democrats are understandably impatient with this process. Daily Beast’s Matthew Yglesias accuses the president of being timid for allowing the military to continue to dismiss gay service men and women.
While progressives may disagree with Obama’s approach, it is not driven by timidity but timing.
We know what it will look like: the President at the White House podium (or, better yet, at a military base) flanked by the Defense Secretary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and key members of Congress, the Pentagon and the services.
If done right, the end of legal discrimination against gays in the military will signify a spectacular leap for the gay rights movement. It will appeal to many social moderates who oppose or are ambivalent on gay marriage.
Imagine the enormous transformation for this nation when the patriotic and brave gay men and women of the military - who sacrifice and serve their country - receive the respect they deserve.
And that moment is coming.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Obama's War
Seven American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan Monday, marking a spike in U.S. and NATO fatalities. There was little uproar over this tragic news, which was accompanied by military official predictions that the death toll will rise as the conflict intensifies
Opposition to the troop buildup has been muted. Progressive democrats, generally disinclined toward American military action, are reluctant to attack Obama. Supporters of aggressive military intervention, usually conservative, tend to agree with this escalation.
This gives the president some latitude to carry out his risky Afghanistan strategy.
During the Bush Era, the American public’s disgust with the war in Iraq deepened as the number of American troops killed passed 2,000, than 3,000, than 4,000.
Barack Obama knows that there is limited patience for American casualties. But this is not simply a political calculation.
This is his Afghan policy. Soldiers will be suffering and dying based on his decisions and his orders. If the Obama plan in Afghanistan isn’t working, at what point does he withdraw? How will this president tolerate the enormous burden of war?
Opposition to the troop buildup has been muted. Progressive democrats, generally disinclined toward American military action, are reluctant to attack Obama. Supporters of aggressive military intervention, usually conservative, tend to agree with this escalation.
This gives the president some latitude to carry out his risky Afghanistan strategy.
During the Bush Era, the American public’s disgust with the war in Iraq deepened as the number of American troops killed passed 2,000, than 3,000, than 4,000.
Barack Obama knows that there is limited patience for American casualties. But this is not simply a political calculation.
This is his Afghan policy. Soldiers will be suffering and dying based on his decisions and his orders. If the Obama plan in Afghanistan isn’t working, at what point does he withdraw? How will this president tolerate the enormous burden of war?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
