Aides: Obama to prove he's a different kind of Democrat

[somone]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/13/AR2010111303260.html

'Soul-searching' Obama aides: Democrats' midterm election losses a wake-up call
By Anne E. Kornblut

After nearly two weeks of introspection, President Obama's top advisers have concluded that the "shellacking" Democrats took on Election Day was caused in large part by their own failure to live up to expectations set during the 2008 campaign, not merely the typical political cycles and poor messaging they pointed to at first...

The advisers are deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points. To do so, they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington...

Advisers also said it will probably take months, if not longer, to develop a strategy for restoring some of the early promise of the Obama presidency, particularly the notion that he was a different kind of Democrat.

In a nod to that ambition, his weekly address Saturday focused on earmark reform, one way, Obama said, of "restoring public trust." Republican leaders in the House are preparing a vote on earmark bans next week, although in their own address Saturday they made no mention of working with the president on the issue...

[Poll_Blind]

1. Dupe. Here:

HERE

PB

[Skittles]

2. they figured this out only in the last two weeks

:rofl:

[lame54]

3. Don't you mean...

:cry:

[Skittles]

10. they didn't listen to their base until after they got "shellacked"

fucking CLUELESS :cry:

[ibegurpard]

13. they're still not

didn't you notice the part about forging partnerships with Republicans?

[Skittles]

15. yup

:(

[xxqqqzme]

20. doing the same thing over and over.......

expecting different results each time?

[kath]

36. yep - "a different kind of Democrat" -- otherwise known as a REPUBLICAN, dammit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. In other words...triangulation...

Pissing in the wind indeed...

[LiberalFighter]

5. Rahm probably did all the pissing but with the wind.

[ThomCat]

44. Indeed. When is he going to decide to win his own base? We need a Democrat!

We need a democrat who will be a real Democrat, pushing and supporting and defending Democratic Ideals and principles, from the base, for the base, with the base, Governing as a Democrat instead of as a corporate bipartisan money-raising centrist whateverheisatthemoment.

[ibegurpard]

6. He's already proved it to anyone paying attention

more of the same will just mean more losses

[Edweird]

7. Too little too late. He's already passed a massive amount of the RW agenda.

[OHdem10]

11. The people pushing the change--The Ruling Class believe

Obama is too Liberal and must become more Republican.

[Poll_Blind]

14. This.

So I'm very critical of the President but there's a little sliver of Michael Moore in me who desperately wants him to somehow pull it out of the fire. Actually, not it which might sound ambiguous. He needs to get his shit together and pull his presidency out of the fire.

But there have been two things really weighing on me. One is I just don't have any idea who he is and I'm not sure if these person even considers the state his stewardship is in as being "in the fire". Second, even if somehow he wises up I think the smart money is probably on the fact that he's continued to fuck things up enough that it could take the remainder of his term just to under the fucking bullcrap he did in his first two years.

Everything else, remotely useful to the American people, like the Heathcare reform, will be gutted by the Republicans.

PB

[Edweird]

34. I don't believe that this is anything more than a marketing ploy.

[Poll_Blind]

37. Can you elaborate?

:shrug:

PB

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. What (of what he's signed so far) was part of this so-called "RW agenda"?

:wtf:

The Republicans sure didn't care for nor sign onto his "RW agenda".

[Edweird]

35. Privatization, union busting, the individual mandate, attacking social security,

"the government doesn't create jobs", etc. These examples are just 'off the cuff' so to speak.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

50. Links?

I know how a lot of people here feel about the individual mandate but the right HATES the mandate too (or at least does a pretty awful job of making us think that they "like" it). A mandate to purchase health insurance is going to have to be part of any health care reform proposal (including single payer) and I don't think that people would actually care about it so much if there was a Public Option or we were going to be getting Single Payer, however in order to create the kind of price-lowering to enable more people to obtain health insurance coverage, at least for now, in the private sector, people whom are healthy are going to have to pay into the system. It's not ideal and it's not exactly what I wanted but until a massive grass roots uprising congeals around the public option (yes, I've seen the polls but that didn't quite materialize into a massive outpouring of support for it or pressure on people like Lieberman who ultimately got away with blocking it in the Senate) and/or single payer and elects the necessary Congressional leadership to get it done, private insurance is what we have to work with. :shrug: Still, there were some good reforms contained within the legislation and, just as a rule of thumb, ANY reform is ALWAYS too much reform for the RW.
As for privatization and "union busting", I'm unsure of exactly what he's done along those lines. Care to educate me?
I don't believe that Obama has signed on to any proposals to "attack" Social Security and, though the Deficit Commission is looking at everything (including SS), it is not focused specifically on doing anything to Social Security and, like I said, so far Obama has not settled on anything.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. Trying to reinstate DADT and keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan both leap to mind.

As does keeping open Guantanamo bay.

Now, I know that two of those are things that he assures us he intends to overturn. But if you look at what he's actually done rather than what he's said he intends to do in the future, there are large chunks of what the right wants in there (although much larger chunks of what they don't, certainly - I'm answering your question rather than arguing that Obama has overall been implenting a right-wing agenda).

[Proud Liberal Dem]

51. Disagree

I don't know all of the legal maneuvering around DADT but he clearly wants a more definitive legislative repeal of DADT instead of a judicial one and is acting accordingly. Different strategy, same goal. DADT is going to fall and Obama is fully in support of it falling. It's just a question of when and how.

As far as Iraq and Afghnaistan, he never promised to get us out of either places immediately but is actively pursuing withdrawal (or eventual withdrawal) from both areas. The RW and some elements of the military are clearly not happy with him about starting withdrawal in Afghanistan next year but he appears to be staying the course on it.

Gitmo is not something he wants to keep open but, as I understand it, this NIMBY Congress has pretty much tied his hands in terms of funding the transfer of the remaining detainees. There's been no indications or statements made by him that indicate that he wants to keep Gitmo open indefinitely (unless I missed them) and I believe that as soon as Congress stops wetting its pants about transferring terrorist suspects to high security SUPERMAX prisons around the country, Gitmo will be closed as well.

Obama isn't perfect to be sure but let's make sure that we're all being realistic about Congress' role and responsibility (particularly the Republican members) in some of the delays and logjams that President Obama has experienced in regards to his agenda, which, though not ultra-progressive, is, by no means, a RW one IMHO.

[adnelson60087]

8. Notice they say nothing about meeting the expectations

of the Democratic base. They still don't get why they lost. This has all the earmarks of tragedy.

[Jim Sagle]

30. Oh, they GET it. But the DC Dems exist solely to suppress their base.

So they're going to pretend Obama was a lefty the first two years so they can prescrible another right turn.

Yeah. he's a different kind of Democrat: he's a Republican.

[ThomCat]

45. Of course not. The only people who never count are the Dem Base.

We are just poor people. We are never important. :(

No matter what the situation, no matter what the problem, the solution is always to appeal to those mythical independents. And somehow, that always means moving more towards a more pro-corporate, supposedly moderate direction. x(

[aquart]

9. YeP. Different Democrat = DINO

The independents want him to move to the right? WHAT ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS? Why doesn't he try being a Democrat instead of a Republican-lite?

[iris27]

12. So he will tilt at the same windmills he has been for the last two years?

"To do so, they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington."

Sounds like business as usual to me...the Republicans will tell him to fuck off and he will get nowhere...

[Skittles]

16. sounds like he just does NOT.FUCKING.GET.IT.

[ibegurpard]

21. I think he gets it

I think he's getting what he planned for all along

[Skittles]

23. it's very hard to think otherwise

because, either he's getting what he wants or he is a complete fucking idiot and I know he is no idiot

[Amonester]

17. "they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans"

So these Professional Losers took two weeks to come up with this impossible solution?

What in "the top priority for the new neocon House is to do everything (they can) to make sure Obama will not be re-eleccted" that these Professional Losers never get?

:shrug:

[xchrom]

18. What different? We already had bill Clinton. Nt

[MannyGoldstein]

19. I'm already convinced

Seriously Mr. President, you don't need to "forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington...". I already believe that you're cool with far-Right ideology. You've done plenty already, just relax and take a break.

[OHdem10]

24. Did you read the article at WAPO? The election was a

referendum on Obama and his party. The American people
are not happy with them.

In other words, Obama should step down but to keep
the peach he should give the Republicans and Business
a larger role and more input.

In other words Obama must say Liberalism is Dead
and embrace a RW agenda.

Watch and listen the next week.

Are they just going to appoint us a Republican President
for 2012?

[Marr]

25. It flies in the face of the evidence, *but* it's a nice prelude to supporting Social Security cuts.

Notice how quick he was to say he just had to "compromise" harder? It was like he couldn't wait.

[Misskittycat]

26. This article is nonsense double-talk. It jumps all over the place

and is nothing more than internally contradictory fluff.

[OHdem10]

28. Schoen annoys the heck out of me, but. He would never write

such a piece if it had not had the approval of some
of more influential Democrats.

He is in the consulting business. It would be suicidal
for him to go out on a limb like that.

While we get angry with Obama I think most of us
want him to succeed.

[Misskittycat]

38. I'm confused. Where in this article is there a reference to someone named Schoen?

[pa28]

27. "Forge partnerships with Republicans".

Yes, McConnell and Issa have a different kind of forge in mind. They'll be the hammer to Obama's anvil.

Honestly, how can these allegedly serious advisors possibly believe what they are saying?

[Historic NY]

29. Has the shellacking dried yet? He'd better listening to those who elected him...

if he wants a chance at re-election. His adviser have done him a big disservice. I suggest he get Dean and Robert Riech on board to figure this mess out.

[leveymg]

31. Sounds like a good plan to get "shellacked" again in 2012. No thank you.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Let me save them the "months" they're claiming it'll take. Whatever the problem, he'll move right.

Whatever the issue, he will find a way to capitulate to the Republicans and piss off the base.

In every case, the explanation will be that the President- who bargained away even the most meager public option in the HCR bill, who has had 2 years to deal with DADT, who still hasn't closed Gitmo- "over-reached" with a "too liberal agenda".

[ThomCat]

46. Yup. I do believe you are right.

That is what the corporate money wants. That is where he will go.

The lobbyists don't want regulations. They don't want unemployment to go down. They don't want businesses to be held accountable or liable for all these massive frauds. But they do want taxpayers to provide bailouts whenever necessary.

So that is what we will get. Obama's job will be to provide political cover for all of this. That means moving to the "Center." So that is what he will do.

[jillan]

33. How about trying to win back your base first, then try to get the independents? Forget the repugs -

they want you to fail...

How is it possible that they still don't get it?

[BzaDem]

39. Not sure why anyone thought that anything other than this was going to happen after the election.

Eventually, certain members of the "base" will realize that staying home does nothing except move the government further to the right than it was before the election.

[JTFrog]

43. Exactly. n/t

[Marr]

56. If Democrats had won, the same people would now be proclaiming

it a ringing endorsement of Obama's center-right politics, and you know it. Obama's crew would be making exactly the same statements they're making now; i.e, we must "compromise" even more.

Besides, I thought it was the "independents" that cost him the election, and the self-proclaimed base was an irrelevant minority. You can't have it both ways-- you can't blame the left for electoral losses, *and* argue that they should be ignored as an irrelevant minority.

[Raine]

40. So two MORE years of the same as the last

two years "forging partnerships" with repukes. :puke: :wtf:

edit: change one word

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

42. I believe he has already proven that

:(

[Stinky The Clown]

48. It gets harder . . . and harder . . . . and harder . . . .

[Bluenorthwest]

49. I'd like to hear just exaclty how they intend to 'forge' patnerships

with the GOP who hates his guts and wants to seem him fail miserably. How are they going to make the GOP partner with their enemy?
This is faith based blather from dogma soaked fools. No specifics, just this broad 'need'. Well he just spent two years trying to reach around for his Republican partners, and they slapped his hand back every time. Listen to the GOP, Mr President, they are not interested. No means no.

[woo me with science]

52. ...

After nearly two weeks of trying to convince Americans that the "shellacking" Democrats took on Election Day was caused in large part by poor messaging, the Administration has concluded that this strategy is not working and is scrambling instead to appear chastened and ready to embrace new alternatives. They will now continue on the same path of limp capitulation to corporate interests, while marketing it as a new and exciting plan...

[stillwaiting]

53. He will lose '12 in this approach, but I don't think he cares a bit about that.

It's ALL about advancing the agenda that the powers that be want to have implemented. They ALWAYS have a narrative they can spin regardless of election outcome, and it is NO surprise they have decided to trek this way.

Obama's gonna be alright after he leaves the White House. MANY of us will be struggling even more after he leaves office, and THAT is a damn shame.

[stillwaiting]

54. P.S. He's ALREADY established very well that he's a "different" kind of Democrat.

He's most definitely a "New" kind of Democrat.

[grahamhgreen]

55. Yeah, the different kind of Dem he's talking about is called a "Republican"!!!

[TBF]

59. +1 nt

[lunatica]

57. The Washington Post doing it's best to wimpify Obama as much as possible

If Obama didn't have a plan to begin with he sure as hell isn't going to suddenly figure one out. By the way, I think Obama did have a plan and he stuck to it which is why the GOP and teabaggerati hate him so much. It's not all about the color of his skin.

[Poboy]

58. Trojan Horse presidency. -nt