Democratic allies abandon sinking ship
I’ve argued here on the In Box that I think the drubbing Democrats are about to receive will be less ferocious than the conventional wisdom would have us believe.
But my view is an increasingly lonely one and some of the fiercest pessimists out there are former allies of Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress.
Across the once-vibrant progressive blogosphere, lefties are abandoning the Democratic ship, trying to put as much distance between themselves and the Mr. Obama as they can.
This, despite the fact that Democrats have achieved a series of legislative victories, coveted by liberals since the 1960s, including financial reform and health care reform.
Here’s what Josh Marshall has to say on his popular Talking Points Memo site:
What I’m curious about, though, is whether the Dems are ready for the sheer, shuddering, really just deafening chorus of defeatism and ideological self-doubt Democrats are going to face on November 3rd.
Meanwhile, two years into the Democratic reign, liberal Arianna Huffington is touring the country promoting a book in which she talks about “third world America.”
Just weeks before the mid-term elections, liberal filmmaker Michael Moore is busily attacking White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
And Markos Moulitsas, whose Dailykos website was one of the biggest boosters of the new Democratic majority in 2006 and 2008, is accusing Senate majority leader Harry Reid of “whining.”
Republicans rightly saw the desperate and pathological Democratic need for Republican approval and assent as weakness, and used it to erode Democratic support.
It’s noteworthy that not one of these left-of-center opinion makers is encouraging their audiences to vote, contribute money, or volunteer.
Moulitsas’ article is titled “Here’s how Dems fell apart,” as if the election were already over and dozens of close races were already forfeited.
There’s no mention of efforts to minimize Democratic losses.
With liberals resigned to defeat, and their biggest effort these days is to put as much daylight between themselves and the disaster as possible.
So I’ll stick by my main prediction:
If Republicans do win control of Congress, it won’t be because of a massive surge in GOP support. The Democrats will lose because their own base decided collectively to sit this one out.
Tags: election10
Just because people are critical of party leaders doesn’t mean they are abandoning ship.
I agree Brian. If the traditional Repubs do well this time it will be largely due to to 2 things- the left wing Democrats/Socialists not getting everything they wanted and the economy. I do think the TP type conservatives will fare well in local elections. Overall I doubt there will be a massive change because the traditional Republicans simply have no workable plan. They’re as guilty, maybe more guilty, as the Democrats for our problems.
Those legislative victories were on the topics that liberals have coveted, but in substance they fell short of what most liberals (at least the ones I talk to and read) wanted and expected. The bills that eventually passed were much more moderate than what was campaigned on and they were heavily seeded with compromises to an opposition that was never going to support these initiative.
That last point was the crux of Moulitsas’ article.
I can’t think of a better way to demoralize your supporters than to take an overwhelming victory (the election) and use it in such a way that makes them feel like they tied.
I don’t think they’re abandoning ship. They’re trying to right it. Can’t do that without diagnosing problems. Moore’s piece was about Emanuel supposedly saying “f*** the UAW,” a core Dem constituent, and asking on Labor Day what’s being done for labor.
What are they supposed to do, clap louder? This is not a Glenn Beck rally. They belong to no organized political party; they’re Democrats.
Republicans are “maybe more guilty” than Dems for our problems? Give me a break? Our problems result mostly from
1.huge deficits run up for the unjustified Iraq war and Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy.
2. complete lack of oversight of the financial and housing markets that led to the current economic near-collapse, and resulting high unemployment.
While Democrats did little to prevent these catastrophes, they were mostly innocent of causing them.
But Obama and the Dems have also failed to aggressively push for needed reforms, except Health Care, which, while it may have long-term benefits, has been a political fiasco. When I think of how FDR rallied the country around programs that
Yes, there are plenty of times when political allies fire salvos at each other, debating policy, ruffling each others’ feathers, indulging in personal feuds.
But if you’re serious about winning a tough election, you don’t spend your time (and ink) doing that just before people go to the polls.
If the Democrats’ allies were serious about trying to cobble together enough wins to hold a majority, you would see a very different tone from all these folks.
Then, after the election, they would go back to sniping. In 2006 and 2008 they had that kind of “message discipline.” Not any more…
–Brian, NCPR
(finishing computer-interrupted comment)
immediately put people to work (CCC, etc), supported farmers (AAA), and restored faith in banks (FDIC) and, to some extent, the Stock Market (SEC), and how Obama has failed to strongly pursue modern versions of these, it makes me want to weep.
Likewise, his kumbaya attempts to placate the Party of No and failure to effectively communicate effectively with the voters, as FDR did through his fireside chats and fierce attacks of Republican critics.
What is really sad is that, as a former community organizer, he should have known better. Saul Alinsky, the guy who wrote the book on Chicago-style community organizing, was never afraid of a fight, and often picked them to push his groups’ objectives.
Sad.
Democrats are very good at forming a circle and then shooting at each other.
Uh, Newt, better take a look at Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters and see just how up to their ears they were in the housing debacle. They wrote the laws, benefited from the laws, and when it fell apart rushed in to save the day from the mess they created.
And just to be honest, FDR prolonged the Depression 7-8 years through his policies of micro management and control. Do we really need another one man Gov’t?
Saul Alinsky? Oooog boy.
Bret,
Clearly there is plenty of mud to be thrown at both sides re housing. But when Atty. Gen. Spitzer, back in his Good Guy days, and all 49 other State AG’s attempted to allow states to regulate sub-prime housing finances, it was forcefully fought off by Bush & Co., to site one example.
FDR prolonged the Depression? So we were doing great 1929-33 under Hoover, and the recovery in jobs 33-37 was a prolongation of the Depression?
And Old Saddam snuck the WMDs out of Iraq just to spite Bush, right?
And who was right there beside Bush and Co (I’m no fan of his BTW) with their fingers in the till?
FDR- Yes, by at least 7 years. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx A wonderful, charismatic, micro managing leader. As one of his contemporaries said prior to his election, “Franklin Roosevelt, an affable fellow of no particular talent who wants desperately to become President.” Things like forcing industries to hire labor rather than rebuild and re-tool prolonged the depression, exempting them from anti-trust regulations if they did as he wished. I won;t even get into his seizure of privately held gold, that was criminal.
That site should be an interesting read.
You are correct that FDR prolonged the Depression by chickening out on his programs in1938 to attempt to balance the budget. Which brought us down to near 1933 levels.
Of course, what ended the Depression was WWII, the most massive taxing and borrowing program in U.S. history, which was followed by 35 years of virtually unbroken prosperity.
But under this President we are at as high of rate of spending now as in WWII as a percentage of GDP. Yet we are not building anything, we are just borrowing and printing money for what effectively is nothing.
Why do people want to go back to FDR? A 10 year depression a war and a guy who wanted to be President forever?
I am not an FDR hater he did some needed things, but that is not the model that works today it has not worked against this depression the proof is in the lack of results for the massive spending we have tried.
I agree WW2 ended the Depression. I also agree going “back” to something won’t work. We just need to try not to make the same mistakes again, learn from history, be as smart as we allegedly are.
Brian: “But if you’re serious about winning a tough election, you don’t spend your time (and ink) doing that just before people go to the polls.”
I agree to a point, and this is really important election, but if you want to move your party in a particular election and you don’t have the kind of money the Koch’s have then you must force some accountability at election time when you have the one thing your representatives want.
I think there may be some mis-understanding of the Democratic Party. The truth about the Dems is that liberals have very little power within the party and the only time they can drag issues forward (to the left) is at election time.
I should just say that there are some on the left who feel that the Democratic party should take a trouncing because they haven’t stood strongly enough for their core values and that in the long run it would be better to shed the party of some blue-dogs or at least let the leadership know that the far lefties need to be listened to.
Brian Mann,
Why so many blogs on national congressional races, but nothing on NNY state legislative races.?
We have four competitive state legislative races in the region, including the Aubertine-Ritchie race which could very well determine control of the state senate.
Scratchy – It’s a really good point. We’re way behind on covering the Assembly races and working now to do some catch-up. Thanks for the nudge.
Brian, NCPR
Knuck, the Kochs (who no one ever heard of til very recently) seem to be the “bad guys” of choice lately. How do you square your coming down on them for promoting their political views when the left has multi billionaire George Soros and his huge machine and has had for years? Because he’s on “your side” he’s faultless?
Bret, I just used the Koch’s as an example but there are many more on the right. I agree that there are some on the left with deep pockets who try to influence the political process but the Republicans have a much deeper bench, and they have the NRA and the Chamber of Commerce etc.
What have the Dems got? Unions, and I bet you belonged to one so that just shows how strong the unions are.
Some???? The Dems have “some”?!!! Knuck, the Dems OWN Hollywood. Lets see, we want to influence things. Who will be more effective at reaching a large number of people? Who has more well known personalities? Who has the public’s eye 24/7? The Chamber of Commerce or Hollywood? Jeeze, lets be honest here, the Dems own Hollywood, TV, movies, the music industry, a very major portion of the news industry, MTV, etc. Who do you think has more influence with the 18-28 age group- actors and musicians or Wayne LaPierre? And for that matter I’m a Life member of the NRA and currently they can’t do anything right as far as most of the membership is concerned. They are the “country club” and cocktail party type of lobbyists that just don’t represent the common man anymore. Look for some changes coming at NRA in the next few years.
Yes, the Dems own Hollywood. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlton Heston, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Fred Thomson…