I get accused of going after Barack Obama quite a lot, arguing that he is not the “anti Hillary” as some claim. I’ve been clear about the reasons from the start. It’s nothing personal. It’s ideology or actually the lack thereof.
I still don’t know why he wants to be president, but even more disturbing is not knowing what he’d do once in office. I believe his thin ideological allegiance spells trouble for so many things Democrats hold dear. There is no doubt he’s got a brilliant mind. I also know all politicians are deal makers, which is why I continually urge people not to “trust” any of them to the point you forget that to get things accomplished making deals is part of their job. But rewriting great social programs crafted by history making Democrats is not my idea of Democratic leadership, especially when those programs still work and we’ve also recently fought to keep them intact. It’s a political giveaway to which I will not sign on. It’s also a political warning sign. Some things are worth drawing a line in the sand. I was proven absolutely justified in my concerns about Obama again yesterday.
Andrew Sullivan made the case for Barack Obama on “This Week.”
In the process he actually revealed the case against him instead, at least if you believe in Democratic policies, which Sullivan clearly does not.
One element showed up recently,
with Digby giving it a good airing the other day in “Great
News for Republicans,” which came with this
warning of things to come as well:
Three years after the collapse of President Bush’s plan for private Social
Security accounts, Republican presidential contenders are eager to try again.
Not so the Democrats, who gravitate toward increasing payroll taxes on upper-income
earners to fix the program’s finances.
Digby
links to Krugman’s column, then explains
the insanity:
… .. Actually the article is wrong in one important respect. It says the
Democrats are not eager to get into the issue. That’s not true. They
were the ones who brought it up and now the Republicans have eagerly jumped
on the bandwagon. … ..After their ignominious recent defeat on this issue, even if they are unable
to move to privatization, the Republicans are thrilled that the Democrats
have inexplicably given them opportunity to demagogue it again so soon. …
..
The “they” in this instance is Barack Obama. The truth of it is that the newly revived GOP Social Security gusto comes compliments of his lack of ideology and his willingness to put all issues on
the table in a Let’s Make a Deal presidential campaign that represents bringing everyone together but has no guiding ideological compass. He’s admitted as much himself.
No wonder Andrew Sullivan, a conservative Republican, is thrilled.
Obama’s goal is partially based in reality and is understandable up until the moment it serves up our Democratic political
soul in the process. Sullivan’s trumpeting of Obama’s face, his ability to “defuse
tensions,” not to mention his alleged “great temperamental skills”
reveal the paper thin ideological purpose of Obama’s campaign. Change for the sake of change yields Democrats what?
Compromise for change may move us forward, but where are we actually being led? Without an ideological core what are the guideposts that allow us to move our Democratic agenda forward in the process? Or is this all simply about getting along and achieving political consensus among two parties that at present have serious differences that should not lend themselves to compromise? I ask this honestly, because that seems to be the choice people are considering. Compromise with conservatives who have screwed this country up completely, or standing up for what Democrats believe in and not giving an inch unless what’s given up doesn’t harm our Democratic goals. Because Republicans do not have the answers to our challenges, which is the reason we’re fighting to win and lead. It’s not to give ground for the sake of it to people who even when saying they disagree with George W. Bush didn’t have the courage to act.
“Polarization” in this context simply means someone who is willing to stand on a political hill and fight a battle worth waging. It means cowardice will not be rewarded. It puts Clinton in clear context. It makes the fight for Edwards, Richardson and Biden, however up hill at this point, a true rallying cry when juxtaposed against Obama’s “change” mantra that stands only for the act itself. When I hear him talk to the 700 Club, using his religiosity in a similar way as George W. Bush when talking about abortion and women being “prayerful” (via email) before making the choice, I think of all my secular friends and wonder where that leaves them. I say this as a spiritual Episcopalian who’s had enough of men in office talking about abortion as if it’s not a right to privacy guaranteed in the Constitution, but instead something other.
Hey, but never let it be said that some Democrats aren’t perfectly willing to wrestle
defeat from the jaws of victory by sending signals to the opposition that bipartisan compromise is on the way. Social Security was settled. We’d won against Bush and Republican privatization. Right up until
the moment Mr. Momentum decided that it was in “crisis” once again. I have no idea where that will lead us in the end.
Comments are closed.