I'm wondering if Obama isn't a fox in the GOP's henhouse...

[Christian30]

Admittedly, I'm torn about many of Obama's appointments and, in particular, the Warren invocation drama. However, in looking over an article about his appointment of Tim Kaine as DNC chair, I'm beginning to think that he has a strategy in mind. Basically, the strategy that I suspect is an attempt to reverse the "Reagan Democrat" shift that destroyed the left majority. Work with me here. Obama has chosen largely centrist folks for the Cabinet and on its face it seems that the double whammy of Rick Warren and Tim Kaine is making many queer people freak out. The article tells how Kaine is expected to greatly expand Dean's faith outreach strategy to peel away evangelical voters.

Here's a link: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/1/5/why-tim-kaine-is-likely-to-expand-democratic-faith-outreach-as-dnc-chair.html


I've been one of them in the last couple of weeks, but having paid such attention to this race, I have a hard time believing that a) Obama is at all anti-gay, and b) too smart to really piss of a significant portion of his base to appease Pat Robertson. Finally, I know personally a number of people who are involved with the transition and I don't see them backing these seemingly anti-gay choices UNLESS there is a larger strategy at play.

So, does anyone else think it's possible that Obama is using the Warren/Kaine appointments to disrupt the GOP's coalition for the long-term. e.g. getting evangelicals to vote for environment and economics so they overcome their social conservatism to join a more liberal coalition?

(Or, I could just be tired and unusually optimistic.)

[margotb822]

1. I agree with you

One thing that killed Rove's idea of a "permanent Republican majority" was the fact that Bush acted as if he had a mandate, enacting very far right policies, without the popular support of the public.

As much as we'd like to swing back to the left, that is a recipe for GOP takeover in 12 or 16. By taking small steps, first to the center and then to the left, Obama can gradually effect the leanings of the majority.

[leftstreet]

2. "small steps, first to the center, then to the left" wtf? That's a strange hokey-pokey

The Republicans LOST because the country IS to the left.

[margotb822]

11. I think that

The Republicans lost because they suck. They're hypocrites and they're terrible at governing. That being said, I believe that the country is shifting to the left, but our current policies are right. By not shifting too drastically, Obama can solidify support over the long term, which is what this country needs.

[4_TN_TITANS]

30. Worked for Phil Bredesen in Tennessee!

Very popular DEM governor, but he's had to take it nice and easy.

[Still Sensible]

3. I certainly believe you can

read between the lines and conclude that thoughts along that line are somewhat driving his actions, but what is unclear is how successful that can be. At the end of the day, you probably can't overcome irrational intolerance.

On the other hand, time is an ally. Look at the difference in the last four decades on black civil rights. We know that younger people are more tolerant than older people, so the US political point of view will likely be a lot different in a couple decades.

It seems to me you will likely have a perpetual 20-30% that will always be unreachable for one reason or another. Heck, there's 15% that to this day think the 1969 moon landing was faked on a movie set.

[Christian30]

5. I love when anyone brings up the moon landing doubters

It always makes me smile.

Seriously, I don't know if it would work either, but many times in the primaries pundits et al would question why he was doing something or saying that he was offending his base (FISA, etc. and I was offended). But, Obama would always seem to thought to the next move. I recently heard Pat Robertson praising Obama's cabinet picks (which, admittedly, scared me) and saying he supported him. Ultimately, he will need LGBT money and votes to win reelection, so I can't imagine he's going to throw us under the bus without a long-term strategy that helps us.

[Still Sensible]

14. I think most of us

hope you are right. I just think he is being pragmatic and hope it pays off.

[Merlot]

21. I doubt if the hard core right are the same group that think the moon landing

was faked.

And some people think we really did land on the moon, but what we saw on TeeVee was faked.

[sandnsea]

4. That's what all of DU said should be done

four years ago. Now when they see it being done, they freak out.

:crazy:

[bvar22]

32. All of DU?

I think not.
There have always been a majority of real Democrats here, more back in '04 than now.
I only recall a hand full of Status Quo "Centrists" 4 years ago.
There WAS the quiet period during the election season, but not too many here were happy with a Democratic Platform of More War and More Free Trade.

[sandnsea]

34. Yes all of DU

said we should reclaim Christianity and focus on poverty and the environment as a means of fighting the religious right's hold on the religious vote. You're going to deny that?

[rwheeler31]

6. You put your right foot in, you put your left foot , you do the hokey

pokey,and you shake it all about.

[Christian30]

7. that's what it's all about... ;)

[Wapsie B]

8. Thank you Hayden Fry.

;-)

[Skittles]

20. the pretzel-twisting apologists are getting on my last nerve

[K Gardner]

9. Oh my.. could it be LOGIC on DU? It amazes me that after what we have

seen Obama do over the past 2 years, his absolutely precise choices and timing (how many people screamed and yelled and then a month later.. "oh.. I SEE what he was doing now..").

Now that he is elected, all of his insight just vanished? I don't think so.

Some of what he does may be painful, even disappointing, but I agree with you, he has a long range plan. The best gratification is often delayed.

K&R.

[Christian30]

10. I understand the emotional reactions

to Warren, Kaine, hell, Summers, but now that I've blown most of it off, I can't shake the feeling that Obama can't be dumb enough to make these gaffes without an endgame in mind.

[Kaleko]

13. Anyone who has studied the psychological tactics Obama employed during his campaign

knows that he's pursuing the "all-inclusive" strategy. It's the opposite of the BuschCo team's MO, and it certainly is a dangerous tightrope to walk.

But when it works and gets results, boy, does it ever look elegant and bloodless and... well, masterful! Many Republicans agree that he already looks impressively statesman-like - in stark contrast to you-know-who.

:hi:

[Poll_Blind]

17. +1 Indeed!

PB

[bvar22]

33. Logic???? LOL

No.
THIS is Logic:
Obama appoints right leaning "Centrists" because he IS a right leaning Centrist.

The formulation of a "secret" plan to move the country Left by shifting to the Right in not only illogical, it is absurd.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

12. He's smart

I think it's hard for a lot of people to grasp how smart he is. And, lest we forget, he's first and foremost a Chicago pol. You don't survive - and thrive - in that world unless you're smart.

Some of what Obama's done has left me furious. Then I remember what matters: we won.

He'll be three steps ahead of all of us, but I know we'll catch up. For now, as much as it pains me to say this, inviting Rick Warren was a good move. Obama promised inclusion, and it's got to start somewhere. The invocation is an innocuous enough slot to appease that huge Xtian loony bunch out there. At least for a while.

Tim Kaine, who is my Governor, is also a very smart guy. He's stated flat out that he is a devout Catholic but that will never get in the way of his supporting the law first, which put the Right To Choose people such as I in a comfortable spot with him. He's got a very conservative constituency, but he respects the law and grasps very well the separation of Church and State concept, for which I am grateful.

We won.

That's the big one, and we mustn't lose sight of that. Obama's vision might not conform completely to mine - for instance, I can't see him machine-gunning Chimpy Fucknuts when they meet at the White House before the inauguration - but I am going to trust him to do what is right - what he thinks is right and what I think is right.

And what is necessary.

Because we have to keep on winning. It did not end on November 4, 2008. It began.

[SoCalDem]

15. He's a pragmatist, and he knows that to succeed, he HAS

to do certain things, and he's going to doi what it takes to get POLICIES in place.. Once that's done,he can afford a bit of fence-mending if necessary.

He has a VISION of what needs to happen, and yes, I think it's an unwinding of the past 8-20 years.. It won't be easy, but he has to do it incrementally, and all along the waym he must make his foes feel as if THEY won something too..

He's a clever one..

[WaukeshaDem]

16. The whole.....

Making your enemy your friend to neutralize your enemy theory is in play.

[cbc5g]

18. Yes, Obama is creating a majority and has to piss people off in order to do it

He says and does some things differently then what he truly believes in order to create a super majority because if you govern from the extreme you are going to end up like Bush, a failure and a disgrace with a 20% approval rating. Some here call doing or saying something other than what you believe lying and being insincere but I call it smart politicking. Change comes slowly and nothing will change without a good majority. The question is, when will Obama start moving to the left where he truly belongs? Or am I completely wrong and he is just another DLC stooge that tricked us in the primaries into believing he was a progressive liberal?

[mikehiggins]

19. Saul Alinsky

Read his writings

Watch Obama

There will be a quiz

[Radical Activist]

22. Of course.

He's dismantling the conservative coalition and building a new Democratic one. The FDR Democratic coalition lasted a long time but we need to replace it with a new one. That's what being a politically transformative President means.

[WilliamPitt]

23. Hm.

I wrote this waaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2003.

===

Many people believe the statement that "Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had." There are a great many facts to back this assertion, but it begs the question: If Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had, why did the Republicans work every night and every day for eight years, why do they continue to work to this day, to destroy him and the economic legacy he left behind?

The answer is complex. Clinton is labeled 'Republican' by the Left because of the passage of NAFTA, of GATT, of the Welfare Reform Act, of the Telecommunications Act, and for a variety of other reasons. In many ways, however, this does not tell the entire story. The passage of these rightist packages came, in no small part, because Clinton had no hard-core activated base pushing him in the proper direction. After twelve years of warfare against Reagan and Bush, a massive swath of the progressive community saw Clinton's victory in 1992 and felt like they had at last won the fight. They threw their activism into neutral, leaving Clinton with no army to back him up. One can hardly blame them for doing so after such a protracted struggle.

But this left Clinton exposed. The onslaughts of the right pushed him inexorably in their direction, because there was no powerful progressive network there to push back. Only after the impeachment mayhem broke loose did the tattered threads of progressive activism come back together again, but by then the damage had been done. Certainly, there were many progressives in America who fought the good fight every step of the way, but there were not enough of them. Progressives in 2003 who label Clinton as 'Republican' should take a long look in the mirror, and remember what they were not doing from 1993 to 1998, before casting final judgment. I am, sadly, one who has trouble facing that mirror.

An analysis of the facts, and the record, reveals Clinton to have been one of the most effective progressive Presidents in American history. By 1998 he had managed to create an economic system that filled the Federal treasury with unprecedented amounts of available money, and he had also managed to pass a variety of progressive social programs that benefited vast numbers of middle-class Americans. When Clinton stood up in 1998, with a massive budget surplus waiting in the wings, and cried, "Save Social Security first!" he was roaring a battle cry across the trenches that had been there since 1932. Such a surplus would fund social programs all across the country. Such a surplus would, at long last, settle the argument: An activist Federal government can be a force for good within the American populace, and once more, can be paid for with extra left over. The New Deal/Great Society wars seemed to be coming to an end.

This was why he had to be destroyed.

http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/000185.php

===

Clinton beat them at their own game, in the face of an opposition congress that tried to impeach them.

Obama has no such burden at present, but has the same smart people on board.

:toast:

[stray cat]

24. McCain and Palin would have been soo much less republican?

[graywarrior]

25. After reading both his books, I tend to agree with you

He seems to do nothing without strategy.

[Romulox]

26. Becoming the enemy is still a loss for everyone but those directly in power...

Making the Democratic Party the new home of evangelicals will be a loss for the traditional Party base. Putting more center/right "New" Democrats in office will just insure more center/right legislation is passed, and more center/right policies enacted.

It sure doesn't help Michigan and Ohio, for example, that the free trade deals that are destroying our communities were signed by a "New" Democrat, in other words.

[the other one]

27. Dream On. nt.

[Astrad]

28. I wonder sometimes

if when Obama and his transition team meet and someone says, 'hey we're getting alot of flack from the left' about such and such appointment, do they chuckle among themselves, or do they look concerned?

[tblue37]

29. My hope--and it IS just desperate hope, I realize--

is that Obama is feinting right in order to lull the RW critics and clear up enough space to govern left.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. I Think Obama's Intentions Are Good And Motives Pure. I Think As Always, He's Doing What He

sincerely and genuinely believes to be the best things all around for progress and our future. Really doesn't come down to any more than that in my opinion.