|
Edited on Tue Jan-26-10 07:03 AM by CTLawGuy
I think there's a difference between "pushing to the left" and what I often see here.
I see lots of talk about Obama listening to corporations over the people or being in the pocket of Wall Street. These are dubious characterizations. This is a man who rejected wall street to work as a community organizer and a civil rights attorney. He did what he thought was best to keep our financial system from falling into total collapse. (And yes, we need a mechanism to prevent too big to fail companies. It is possible to ask that of him without calling him a wimp or a corporate sellout.)
I see people expecting Obama to be like Bush, as in governing like Bush did. Obama is not going to have the same legislative success as Bush. Bush is from an ideologically narrower party that is easier to keep unified, the democrats weren't in unified filibuster mode, and 9/11 did a lot to silence Bush's critics. If you want Obama to ignore the law and the constitution for liberal ends as Bush did for conservative ends, you're going to be disappointed. You can whine all you want about 41 > 59 and the like, but it won't do any good. We are not going to use the ethically reprehensible and disingenuous nuclear option. The rules allow the filibuster, and if you don't like it, you have to punish the republicans who are abusing it, not reward them by getting mad at Democrats.
The republicans' strategy is to make Obama fail as hard as possible. Guess who benefits if Obama fails? The Republicans. When you push Obama to the left, keep this in mind. Spreading disillusionment among the democratic base is exactly what Republicans want. Why is there no public option, for example? The republican filibuster is EXACTLY why there is no public option. They REFUSE to let Obama and the dems govern, and some here want to reward them for that?
|