I’m going to let Maddow do the arguing based on matters of Afghanistan, but it’s worth pointing out there there’s been far too little change in terms of how we address our country’s failed banking system and the economy, in job creation (like tax cuts being 40% of the stimulus), or even how this country treats civil rights issues (Guatanimo, a year later, is still open, and if it ever does close, the prisoners will by and large just be shipped to other countries, where they can continue to be held without trial indefinitely).
A lot of national democrats are starting to become worried about losing a lot of seats in 2010, despite the fact that the Republicans have not gained any popularity, even with these democratic failures. Well, there’s a reason why. This country voted for change and we’re not getting it. The people who turned out, excited for that charge, are starting to feel burned. It’s hard to ask people to come out for you again when you failed to deliver on change from eight years of George W. Bush. Obama and national democrats better learn this lesson soon, because it’ll quickly be too late.
To some extent, I see what you are saying. After all, the legislative pace has been disappointing — most particularly on financial regulation reform. However, I’d place significantly more of the blame on the continuing existence of the filibuster than Obama himself. Not only has this held up (and already watered down) health care reform, but the need to get 60 votes in the Senate for virtually every major piece of legislation nowadays has ensured that cap-and-trade will likely die in the Senate, financial reform will be watered down at best, and legislation protecting GLBT rights will not see the light of day. The situation has become so ridiculous that if it’s clear a bill cannot get 60 votes, it will never even get out of committee, never mind get a final vote on the floor. It’s hard to blame these domestic policy failures on Obama.
<
p>As far as foreign policy, I’d agree that there’s been disappointment here as well, and Obama is more clearly the one responsible for these foreign policy outcomes. Still, I think it’s far too early to say the Obama Administration has been a failure from a progressive point of view. He has already given diplomacy a far bigger role in his foreign policy than Bush, and these diplomatic efforts require time to succeed. Also, while I’d agree that the failure to close Guantanamo is clearly a major disappointment (although there’s at least some progress in trying some of these people), suggesting that Obama’s Afghanistan policy is reminicent of the Bush Doctrine is certainly not right. Most importantly, I seem to recall that it was the Bush Administration than got us into two major wars, not the Obama Administration. Trying to deal with the aftermath of those decisions is a lot different than making those ill-fated decisions in the first place. Given that, I think it’s responsible to try as best as possible to create the conditions for an ultimate withdrawal. As much as I disagreed with the decision when it occured, I admit now that the Iraq surge likely helped create the conditions for withdrawal (which, I’d note, is still on pace for next year). I have a lot more faith in the Obama Administration than I ever would with a Bush Administration that the ultimate goal is ending this war — which is far different than the Bush Doctrine ideology that undergirded the previous presidency.
is he’s done very, very little to fight for anything domestically, much less than he could have actually done. There’s much more he could do — for one thing, put the heat on the Senators who would stand in the way of progress. He hasn’t done anything of that nature. He is far more conciliatory than courageous, willing to toss aside the friends that got him there to flirt with the like of Snowe and Collins. It’s a recipe for failure and, after almost a full year, he should know that by now and change course.
It does seem, however, that the focus on Obama’s (mainly rhetorical) conciliatory approach masks the behind the scenes efforts to persuade Senators to go along with his proposal — the sort of efforts that produced the stimulus bill, which was certainly a major domestic policy victory.
<
p>Also, I still haven’t heard any ideas about how Obama could “put the heat on Senators who would stand in the way of progress.” Because of the filibuster, we know that the fate of health care reform (along with many other domestic issues) are in the hands of a handful of Senators. Looking at the list — Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Nelson most prominently among them — what sort of “heat” coming from Obama will have any real effect? Except for Lieberman, who is in a world of his own (and, by the way, endorsed Obama’s opponent), all of these Democratic Senators are in states where Obama’s approval rating is anemic at best. So what realistic options does he have here, given the reality of the filibuster?
40% tax cuts in the stim bill. He could have fought and actually made a good bill, but instead he may as well have flushed 40% of $800,000,000 down a very, very large toilet. We’re having to look at another stimulus bill, only we’re calling it a “jobs bill” now, because we decided to waste that 40%.
<
p>There’s no reason why we can’t get the conservative elements in our party whipped to the degree that they won’t filibuster our own agenda — vote against it, maybe, but not filibuster it. It just takes the willingness to call them out. Obama and Harry Reid are not willing to do that. Note that Republicans never almost threatened to filibuster their own party when they were in charge — nor did Democratic-caucusing Senators like Nelson and Lieberman, either.
Spring 2008, the lefter regions of the left blogosphere were pointing out that none of the Democratic candidates for President were progressives.
<
p>And they were right!
<
p>On a number of issues, I’m willing to guess that the Obama Administration is threading its way between what’s politically possible and what’s needed. On Afghanistan, I’m less sanguine. On economics, I’m alarmed.
To add two words to all that’s been said above:
<
p>State secrets
<
p>By endorsing the Bush use of the State Secrets privilege, Obama has denied justice to victims of torture and promoted the immunity of government agencies from responsibility for their acts. Last Spring, when DOJ reaffirmed the Bush Administration’s invoking of State Secrets in the Jeppesen Dataplan lawsuit, people defended Justice, saying they “hadn’t had time to study” the case or its implications (despite the Justice spokesman telling the judge that they had “actively reviewed this case and vetted the Bush positions and decisively opted to embrace the same positions”). Now, it’s 10 months later, and the O Administration is still doing its best to obstruct justice using State Secrets.
<
p>Where’s the damned change, President Obama?
Not to be too snarky, but one is in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan. I for one support in Afghanistan many of the same strategies and tactics I opposed in Iraq, largely because well, I supported invading Afghanistan, but opposed invading Iraq. Please let’s not falli nto the JohnD trap of wanting absolute consistentcy in an effort to make everything equivalent. Except for a slight concern about his being able to adhere to the timeline he laid out, I stand 100% behind the goals, strategies, and reasons behind the President’s speech at West Point.
This President has followed many of Bush’s policies exactly and as many have said even used some of the same words and phrases. How’s that Patriot Act doing? It would be too much to ask the biased crowd here at BMG to not be hypocrites and be consistent. Afghanistan is an exception where BMGer have been critical of Omama’s policy and I have to give hem credit by sticking to their words. Some weaker minded BMGers however were swooned by his pathetic diatribe of a speech (snore…) and are suddenly now on board for more “wasted American lives”… according to the liberal left.