Sirota: Obama "obstructing his own agenda by shielding incumbent senators from primary challengers"

[rmp yellow]

Obama crushes Democratic dissent
The president is obstructing his own agenda by shielding incumbent senators from primary challengers
By David Sirota
Sep. 26, 2009


The recent headlines about President Obama working to crush primary campaigns against Democratic incumbents would be great fodder for a canned column looking at hypocrisy.

Yes, it would be easy to read about the president trying to clear the Empire State's primary field for appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and then pen a screed wondering how that squares with Obama promising to avoid "be(ing) the kingmaker" in local elections.

With the White House citing genteel deference to incumbents as justification for its efforts to stop a Democratic primary against Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, it would be a cinch to write an essay noting that Obama might never have become a successful politician had he not first taken on incumbents in 1996 and 2000.

Watching Obama help newly appointed Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., attempt to thwart a primary challenge from former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D), I might have a grand time simply railing on a president who never would have reached national prominence had he not run against machine-backed puppets in a Senate primary. Indeed, this Colorado example is a replica of that now-famous Illinois contest in 2004. Bennet, like one of Obama's toughest opponents back then, is a millionaire who has never run for public office. And as in 2004, that millionaire is being propped up by the establishment against an Obama-esque state legislator who has oodles of experience and grass-roots support. The hypocrisy, of course, is that Obama is now backing the tycoon instead of his former self.

More: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/09/26/sirota_primaries/print.html

[Arkana]

1. Yes, God forbid Obama try to help the Senators who are actively trying

to assist him in implementing his agenda.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Penn. needs Admiral Joe for senate, not the former Republican the WH is endorsing. nt

[Raineyb]

16. Like Arlen Spector?

I think just about ANY actual Democrat would be better than that finger to the wind sack of shit. If THIS is the type of "Democrat" that we're NOT trying to get rid of in the primaries, then there's a problem.

[Arkana]

27. On healthcare Arlen's been more of a team player than some of our so-called

"Democrats".

[Mass]

31. Only since he has a primary opponent.\nt

[Raineyb]

50. Exactly!

Without a threat of being unemployed, Senators have a nasty habit of ignoring the electorate. Without the threat Specter was perfectly willing to tell us all to take a flying leap. It doesn't help to have the President insist on not running primary candidates against candidates who clearly deserve it. Any blue (cross) dog who obstructs a robust public option (which is already the compromise position) ought not have support against a primary challenge.

[Better Believe It]

30. What's fight is Senator Bennet leading and how is he taking on the Republicans?

Oh .... he's one of the those fiscal discipline, moderate, conservative "republican lite" democrats!

We need lots more of them!

[donco6]

40. He's supporting Michael Bennet who is wishy-washy on public option.

I don't see that as supporting Obama's agenda. Is it?

[msongs]

2. especially weak ones who have a good chance of losing the seat to repubs nt

[rmp yellow]

4. Would their chances greatly increase if Obama supported them?

That's a good question IMO.

[ProSense]

3. Doesn't Sirota have a few Republicans

to support in the name of bipartisanship?

[brentspeak]

55. Shameless logical fallacy on your part. Sirota was talking about NY state politics in that post

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue here.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Yes, Sirota....President Obama is just terrible! Trying to get votes to pass our agenda now.....

What a destructive force he is being! :sarcasm:

[Thrill]

7. BS. Why would you want to spend money fighting primaries when the GOP

is going to have a boatload of money this election cycle to run against the Democrats.

Obama is being smart

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Maybe it has something to do with choice and accountability.

Without a vigorous primary process we are left with a party void of accountability and lacking a mechanism for progressive choice.

[Thrill]

26. What difference does it make

if in the end you don't have the funds to beat the Republicans in the General Election?

Go check out the funding right for DNC vs RNC. It ain't pretty

[bertman]

36. I have written the DNC and told them not to bother sending me anymore requests for

money until they start pushing a progressive agenda and progressive candidates. I've been trying to get them to turn around for ten years and they still won't listen, so screw 'um.

I'll send my money to ActBlue and to individual candidates I like.

If more Democrats would tell them the same thing we might get some action. Then, on the other hand, we're competing with the corporatists for their attention.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

54. Go check out what you want with your party.

GOP funding matters not in the respective primaries.

[Juche]

18. Because not all of us want a senate full of democrats who oppose UHC, EFCA and cap/trade

If we aren't going to use our majorities, why even have them? Why have a filibuster proof majority if you can't get labor, health or energy reform?

Obama supported Lieberman and protected him in 2006 and 2008. Now Lieberman opposes the public option and EFCA. This is what happens when you shield people from consequences like obama wants to do. You end up with senators like Lieberman who can't be relied upon to vote with us on the big issues.

Obama is being dumb. You assume he would've learned his lesson from Lieberman. Unconditional support leads to spineless democrats. Lieberman used to support public health and EFCA. Now he is on the fence.

And if Obama things supporting someone like Specter who is only a democrat to avoid a primary challenge and who fundamentally opposes many democratic values over someone like Sestak, who is an actual democrat and supports democratic legislation will not lead to a massive backlash among the very people who put him into office (unions and liberals), he is an idiot. If he thinks we dems will blindly support any appointment to senate he and Reid make, even if it is an appointment of a republican who has no intention of voting democratic he is loopy.

[boilerbabe]

38. What's EFCA?

Is that something to do with emissions? As far as cap/trade..do you think that is a good long-term solution to emissions put out by coal burners? As far as I can see, sequestration of coal emissions is going nowhere, and the main concern is with reducing mercury from their stacks. The technology is not quite there yet, and if it was, nobody would or could spend money to retrofit. Especially if they had the option for cap and trade. All this is going to do is afford power plants with money to keep on polluting rather than encouraging new abatement technology. That is just my opinion, which may be wrong, but I am in the power generation industry and run a very clean plant (though we run 24/7 and no matter how clean you are with a natural gas combustion turbine/generator, it adds up over time).

By the way,I think you are right regarding the obstruction to our Democratic processes.

[Juche]

45. Employee free choice act

It'll make it easier to form a union by changing laws regarding union elections and corporate responses to unions. Right now about 11% of the labor force is unionized. With EFCA and new rules, about a million new union members would join each year until the rate stabalized at 20%+ in 10 years or so.

[Thrill]

52. What difference does it make if you ultimately don't have funds to

beat the Republican in the General Election??

[Juche]

53. I don't take that stance

I guess it is a matter of opinion. I don't mind it when Nader runs either (although I prefer he stick to safe states). I don't think anyone 'owes' the democratic party their votes or money. The party has to earn those things. If they fail, then people should take their money, volunteer efforts and votes somewhere where their views are being represented. There are times when the lesser of 2 evils is better (like voting for Gore instead of Nader in Florida), but I really don't think this is one of them.

Besides, like I was saying, what good is a filibuster proof majority if we can't get things passed anyway? Even if we reelect these dems, so what? they will still be on the fence and unwilling to actually support democratic legislation.

Also, people were making this same argument in Obama vs. Clinton (someone should drop out so the other candidate could save money). What ended up happening was that voter registration went up, public involvement went up ad name recognition went up.

So these primaries from the left could have many benefits. They could increase turnout, registration and name recognition while also intimidating centrist dems.

[donco6]

42. Hardly.

Here in Colorado, people are incensed that Bennett is going to waltz into a Senatorship with no experience in elected office. His stands on public option (stands - plural - as he has leapt back and forth several times) leave us cold. I welcome a primary where they have to actually speak out on their positions ON THE RECORD.

[polichick]

9. Here's the important point ...

"At a moment when Obama's agenda is acutely threatened by congressional Democratic recalcitrance, the president's anti-primary posture tells all Democratic incumbents he will defend them, regardless of their position on issues. And that message blunts Obama's most powerful instrument of legislative leverage: fear of contested elections."

(Unless Obama's agenda isn't what we think it is.)

[ProSense]

10. "Obama's agenda is acutely threatened by congressional Democratic recalcitrance" This is bogus

Obama has to work with the current caucus, not the one that will be in place in 2011.

Specter is now a Democrat who strongly supports the public option.

Not only is Sirota a hypocrite, but his arguments are flawed.

[polichick]

12. It's silly to pretend there hasn't been "congressional Democratic recalcitrance" re healthcare...

...and energy.

A bunch of Dem incumbents need to be booted to the curb asap.

[ProSense]

13. Pretend?

Most of the Democrats in the Senate who present a problem are not up for re-election in 2010. The notion that one election is going to end recalcitrance is ridiculous.

This argument is silly as it relates to the current circumstance because Obama has to deal with the current Congress. The notion that he should be supporting opponents of sitting Senators or House members at this time is beyond stupid.

[polichick]

14. "Supporting opponents" is not the same thing as just letting Democracy work...

Nobody said anything about supporting opponents ~ once again, you twist things to fit your "Obama Fannie" point of view.

[ProSense]

17. Twist things? How the hell does Obama's endorsement prevent democracy from working?

Give me friggin break. If you think advocating that the President butt out is supporting democracy, you're the one twisting the meaning of democracy to suit your whining.

[polichick]

20. LOL - I always know there's no argument when you resort to that...

..."whining" response. Yes, you twisted things by pretending that someone was calling for the prez to "support opponents."

Nice try.

[ProSense]

22. I suppose you had an argument when you resorted to "you twist things to fit your 'Obama Fannie'"?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[polichick]

23. I spelled out the argument - you made up that "supporting opponents" bullshit...

...to fit your Obama Fannie pov ~ I stand by that argument. Where's the hypocrisy?

[ProSense]

25. OP: "obstructing his own agenda by shielding incumbent senators from primary challengers"

That's beyond absurd. I said "The notion that he should be supporting opponents of sitting Senators or House members at this time is beyond stupid."

The OP implies that Obama should refuse to support any sitting Senator, and by doing so he'd be giving the impression that he supports a primary challenge. It's not hard to figure out, and it's absurd.

[polichick]

28. Who said that the prez "should support opponents" of sitting Senators?? nt

[Juche]

15. Specter is a democrat due to primary pressure

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/since-primary-challenge-specter-voting.html

When Specter was pressured with a primary from the right he voted democratic 16% of the time. When he was pressured from the left he voted democratic 97% of the time.

W/o the pressure he voted democratic about 60% of the time.

You need primary pressure to let politicians know that we voters are not gullible idiots who will stand for their crap.

[ProSense]

19. As a Democrat, he's supporting Obama's agenda

And Obama needs to sustain that support until Specter is no longer in that seat. It's ridiculous to equate keeping Specter on board while he's in office and Obama's current work get his legislative agenda passed with the machinations of an election that is more than a year away.

[Juche]

21. Specter supports Obama's agenda because he is being primaried from the left by Sestak

And he knows he needs to support Obama's agenda if he is going to win the 2010 primary against Sestak (who I support and have donated to, and recommend everyone else donate at least something to). Look up Specter's voting. If it weren't for primaries from the left Specter would not be voting the way he is.

[ProSense]

24. So? You seem to think Obama has something to do with the primary process.

No one is arguing about the impact of a primary challenge. All Obama cares about right now is getting and sustaining the Democratic caucus' support for his agenda. If there was no strong candidate to mount a challenge, he'd still have to work to bring/keep Democrats (including those who aren't up for re-election) on board.

[Juche]

29. I think Obama has something to do with the primary process because he does

Obama agreed to campaign and fundraise for Specter. And he and Reid tried to clear the primary field. Now Obama is trying to clear the field in other races.

If Obama cares about democratic support, he wouldn't shield democrats from the consequences of their actions like refusing to support UHC, EFCA or cap/trade. Obama is too nice. You can spit in his face and he'll buy you dinner afterwards. Just ask Joe Lieberman.

[ProSense]

33. Why would Obama not agree to campaign and fundraise for Specter?

He needs Specter's support now.

You claim that "he wouldn't shield democrats from the consequences of their actions like refusing to support UHC, EFCA or cap/trade.

Specter supports these issues, EFCA and a public option.

[Juche]

44. Specter supports them because Sestak is doing a primary from the left

Back when Specter was being primaried from the right by Toomey he voted democratic 16% of the time. When he became a dem and Sestak primaried him from the left he voted dem 97% of the time.

Specter was opposed to EFCA before a primary from the left by Sestak. So all this talk about how primaries from the left are destructive doesn't add up to me. If it weren't for Sestak, then Specter would be more conservative.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/specter-to-oppose-cloture_n_178571.html

Keep Specter under pressure from the left. That is the only way he is going to vote like a democrat. Clearing the field of competitors in 2010 is going to make him more conservative.

Obama does shield democrats from consequences. After Lieberman supported McCain, Obama told the senate to let him keep his committee chairmanship. Now Lieberman is waffling on major issues.

If Obama had his way, Sestak wouldn't be in the 2010 race, which means Specter would have no reason to support UHC or EFCA. So I'm glad Obama isn't getting his way, because if he did then Specter would be further to the right.

[donco6]

43. Well, yeah. The article is about Obama's impact on primaries.

He's actively campaigning for Dem incumbents like Bennett, even though Bennett was appointed to office and has never, ever been elected to anything. His stands on various issues aren't even KNOWN. He hasn't had to defend anything except in town halls, and there he's been all over the map. I don't care for Obama's interference in this.

[Mass]

32. He would not without Sestak running against him. We all know that, whether we choose to ignore it or

not.

In 2011, we can be sure he will be back to his old habits (or may be back to be a Republican, if the winds blow this way). In the mean time, he receives the support of the Democratic establishment (WH, Senate, and PA) against a moderate Democrat that would be better than he is.

[ProSense]

34. No one is ignoring anything. Everyone knows Specter's record, but

Obama needs Specter's vote right now. Obama needs to sustain that support until Specter is no longer in that seat. It's ridiculous to equate keeping Specter on board while he's in office and Obama's current work to get his policy agenda passed with the machinations of an election that is more than a year away. No one is saying that he shouldn't face a primary challenge, but that's completely unrelated to what Obama needs to do to get his agenda passed until that time comes.

Of course the pressure is helping, but to expect that Obama is going to do anything but voice support for the Senators he currently needs to keep on board is unrealistic.




edited for clarity.

[Mass]

35. By going to campaign for Specter, Obama insures that he stays in his seat.

It is ridiculous not to see the simple relationship between the two. There is an important effort made right now to get Sestak to drop from the primary, and whether it was wanted or not, Obama's campaigning for Specter is part of this.

[ProSense]

37. Going to campaign for Specter? He made a statement about an election a year away.

Obama declaring support for Specter has no impact on the primary challenge ongoing. This is Sestak's decision. And nothing is preventing anyone from supporting him if they want to. Whether anyone likes it or not, right now Obama's main concern is ensuring that his agenda succeeds, and that requires the support of the current members of the Democratic caucus.

[Mass]

41. You are naive if you truly believe this.

By campaigning for Specter at a fundraiser now, Obama adds to an effort to convince Sestak to drop out of the race. He did not need to do so, but chose to do it. Obviously, he can campaign for whom he wants, but those who will think he is wrong to do so are also entitled to do so.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jjrtAMMbwCAGMULhAAfVyp_fmDXwD9AO0P800

[ProSense]

49. It's still about his agenda. Sestak is not in the Senate now. Period. n/t

[Cha]

56. Thanks for explaining this

even if some people don't get it.

Obama does..that's the main thing.

[joeycola]

46. I suspose you also believe in the easter bunny!!

............Obama declaring support for Specter has no impact on the primary challenge ongoing. ...................

[ProSense]

51. Not my fault that you can't put two and two together.

Sestak, Obama and Specter aren't joined at the hip. If you want to support Sestak, I'm sure Obama isn't preventing you from doing so.

[joeycola]

57. ah, changing the subject. LOL.

[Juche]

47. Obama may need to do that

But history has shown when he offers a kind hand it gets slapped away. Joe Lieberman, the stimulus bill, the UHC bill. Obama gets slapped around and keeps offering more and more bipartisanship and forgiveness as a result. Very sad. The only thing that worked to pull Specter to the left was a primary challenge. I do not know if Obama's support alone would be able to bring Specter on board.

Take Lieberman. He begged Obama to campaign for him in 2006 against Lamont. Obama agreed, and that is partly why Lieberman won. Lieberman then supported McCain/Palin in 2008 and attacked Obama. Obama then refused to punish Lieberman by encouraging the stripping of his committee chairmanship. After that 'with us on everything but the war' Lieberman started waffling on EFCA and UHC.

Obama doesn't get far with kindness. Its too bad he doesn't realize it.

Plus what about all the support the dems lose in 2010 with these attitudes? I'm not going to be nearly as gung ho for Obama in 2012 if he is going to try to appoint republicans to democratic seats in the senate. Obama is going to lose a lot of financial and volunteer support for himself and the dems from liberals and unions if he keeps up this kind of behavior.

So whatever benefit he may get by pandering to Specter may be compensated for by the loss of support when liberals and unions refuse to fight for a democratic party full of wimps, republicans and people who change their mind on legislation the second there is a chance it might be passed. Many dems who supported cloture on EFCA back in 2007 are now opposed to it.

[polichick]

11. delete

[depakid]

39. Spot on analysis

[jgraz]

48. Who says those senators don't support Obama's agenda?

They're the perfect excuse for a go-slow, pro-corporate approach to minimal, incremental "change".