"Liberal criticism of Obama is out of tough-love" Robert Kuttner in Boston Globe.

[madfloridian]

I have seen all kinds of reasons given as to why we should not keep on keeping on about Robert Gibbs slap at those to the left of him.

I disagree. I think it indicated something that is deeply ingrained in our party now....fear of the right and lack of respect for those who worked their butts off to give them a majority.

I like this article by Robert Kuttner. He really gets what the big deal is about. And it IS a big deal.

Liberal criticism of Obama is out of tough-love

Who got under Gibbs’s skin? The White House expects liberals to be Obama allies. Yet left-of-center cable TV commentators like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and contributors to the Huffington Post among others, have been scathingly critical on issues from Afghanistan and civil liberties to the economy. As co-editor of a liberal magazine whose stance has ranged from polite pleading to occasional exasperation, I have to say that Gibbs misses the point entirely. Few liberals are critical of this president out of ideological purity. Even fewer want to eliminate the Pentagon.

Most progressives fervently supported Obama. Many of us imagined a rendezvous between a brilliant outsider politician and a practical crisis rooted in failed conservative ideology — a Roosevelt moment.

..."Liberals have criticized Obama mainly because he is bungling this opportunity, not because he isn’t as leftwing as some might like. If his governing style and legislative achievements were producing either an economic recovery, or a sense on the part of distressed voters that he is their champion even if Republicans block his efforts, we would be cheering, never mind the details of his health reform.

..."Rather than turning obstructionism around on the Republicans, Obama seems to fear looking weak. But that reticence isn’t working. So for the most part, liberals are criticizing our president out of tough love. We dearly want him to succeed. For if he fails, we fail.

As for Robert Gibbs, Kuttner has these remarks.

And if Robert Gibbs, and the rest of Obama’s too-small insider circle mistake this benign exasperation for ideological purity, they are passing up a chance to rekindle the groundswell of enthusiasm that elected this president. It wouldn’t take all that much.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and author of “A Presidency in Peril.’’

All the angry lectures toward those who question will not solve the problem. The realities are real, and those of us who worked to elect this big majority should not be treated condescendingly.

The problem comes from worrying too much about what the other side thinks while making sure we on the same side stay in our proper place.

Ain't gonna work that way.

[peacebird]

1. K&R - even tho my "rec" netted a "0" because of the unrec-trons. K&R.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. They are busy

but we are getting it there

[Jim Sagle]

3. The DLC Hogwash Dispensary has been vanquished again!

;)

[Bluebear]

12. +

[Nite Owl]

4. K&R

Stuff like this needs to be read, over and over until it starts to sink in that mindlessly agreeing with a WH does no one any good.

[madfloridian]

6. Agreed on that.

I think Kuttner said it well.

[yowzayowzayowza]

5. Expecting "a Roosevelt moment" w/o commensurate Senate control is silly. n/t

[madfloridian]

7. So you say our efforts were in vain?

I would hate to think that.

There is so much at stake in the FDR concept....Social Security comes to mind. We need to stand firmly for that.

The Senate would do better if incentivized by the powers that be.

[yowzayowzayowza]

8. No, Obama has gotten more outa this Senate than I expected.

Otoh, relative the totality of the real needs in this country, from sustenance and shelter to rights and justice, we jus don't have the leverage.

[Amonester]

10. The 60 votes rule is an excuse, not democracy.

Democracy is 51 yays, 49 nays, or 52 yays, 48 nays, and on and on (you've got the picture).

The exclusive 60 yays vs 40 nays, or 61 yays vs 39 nays, and on, and on, is not democracy: it's an excuse for tyranny (a plutocracy).

[yowzayowzayowza]

11. So you wouldn't have had a prob with the Repukes...

operating with a simple majority in the Senate under *?

[Amonester]

13. * got every evil thing he ever wanted with 51 votes

the 60 votes rule never stopped ** from getting any evil thing he wanted.

now since Obama is president, the same doesn't happen very often for GOOD things...

Why?

Go.Figure.

[yowzayowzayowza]

14. Ya gotta be kidding me!!

Privatize SS, immigration reform, more tax cuts and advantages for busyness, etc.

[BzaDem]

15. Why do people keep saying this BS? Where do these falsehoods even come from?

He didn't do ANYTHING with 51 votes except cut taxes (which, like raising taxes or cutting or raising spending, only requires 51 votes).

He failed at social security privatization, immigration reform, and anwr drilling. The big three items of his legislative agenda that required 60 votes. He didn't even succeed at ONE of them.

[madfloridian]

16. But now we have the fiscal commission

and both houses have promised a quick vote.

We fought Bush on those things you mention, but there is no one fighting those in our party who want them.

[BzaDem]

17. Nowhere in the party platform does it say that Democrats are against making the deficit sustainable.

Sure, there is plenty in our party platform that is against certain types of programs that might have a positive effect on the deficit, such as raising the retirement age. And I have no doubt that there will be plenty of people in our party who come out against that SHOULD THAT BE ANNOUNCED by the commission. I think there will be a ferocious fight against anything like that.

But before the commission is actually announcing anything, there is no reason or expectation for there to be a massive fight against a proposal that people don't know about. Negotiations for large bills always happen in secret since the founding of our nation. It is not new. Any proposal will still need 60 votes in the Senate to pass (and 14 out of 18 commissioners to even get that far).

[madfloridian]

18. I speak of the Social Security aspect...

And the commission is packed with those who want it partially or wholly privatized so companies can profit.

[laughingliberal]

9. K & R nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Tough-love liberal.

It's what I did when I first came to DU. I said some things that should have had me tombstoned. But we were in flux and looking for answers. Maybe it was the way I said things, but the mods were kind and let me stay. But, if you do a search, and if the archives are reliable on DU, you'll see that I referred to myself as a tough love liberal way back whenever. I don't remember anyone using the term before then. (Though Chris Matthews said it after.)

[madfloridian]

21. And we are still in flux and looking for answers...

and not finding them. :hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

20. Thanks MadFloridian. Another pertinent and important post...

[Jefferson23]

22. The problem I have with Gibbs is his cowardice not to name who

he is referring to, he has refused twice now. Who are these individuals, and which policies have specifically been compared to Bush WITHOUT substance and merit as he suggests?


I want to see Gibbs take on at least one of the "professional" lefties. If I had my choice, Gibbs would need to sit through an
interview with Scott Horton and I would be thrilled to hear Gibbs explain/defend the policies Obama has either defended or expanded upon.

That would be a start, there certainly are a host of other reputable people, but I dare Gibbs to start with with Horton.


Until that time, Gibbs is doing his job as he sees fit or has been instructed, which is to display pitiful cowardice through cheap
theatrics.

[old mark]

23. Rec. I really agree about the "waste of time" factor - the opportunity to do good for the country

may not come again any time soon. We MUST take advantage of every chance we get to get better laws and policies...I don't recall voting for a "Bipartisan Party" candidate...I believed in Obama's reputation as "one of the most liberal Senators" that the Right was always so terrified about.

I regard much of Clinton's 8 years as wasted time, and I am just afraid that the next term and a half will be the same...missed opportunities that will not come again. I hate to look back on Democratic presidencies with regret at what might have been, when boldness was called for and timidity was provided.


mark

Fired Up?
x(

[democrank]

24. K & R

[Ramulux]

25. This quote is so key

"So for the most part, liberals are criticizing our president out of tough love. We dearly want him to succeed. For if he fails, we fail."

This basically explains how, I would guess, most of us on this website feel. I am constantly giving Obama shit because he doesnt seem to understand how inextricably linked he and the democratic party have become, and as Kuttner said if he fails we all fail.

[indepat]

26. Governing to the right of center, ratifying most of junior's far-RW agenda, leaving far

too many of junior's embedded ideologues in government (DOJ and MMS, for example), getting passed a largely Republican HCR, these and many more are examples of not being left-wing enough: to wit, governing to the right of center does not meet the left wing reason or smell tests. :)

[autorank]

27. kIr Nope, it's just tough

These politicians are there to serve us. They work for us.

They get all the perks in the world and a big rake off when they "retire."

So when they screw up, they get a direct response.

[TheKentuckian]

28. Good write up. This is not at all where I wanted to be in my feelings for the President

Not by a long shot. Feel free to hit up the archives and look at my meager (but unmet) policy expectations and try the lame irrational expectations game.

Well, the milquetoast is chucked now. May as well at least ask for the moon if you can't even get pebbles from the yard or at most a rock from the local quarry.

Goodness gracious! Hell, I wasn't even a public option hardliner. I just damn well expected common sense market based reforms to start us on the right path and out of the mouth of madness and Obama pops us all in the maw of the monster and wants a ticker tape fucking parade.

Fought against ending too big to fail. Watered down everything.

I'm sick with it. I'm not happy to be this fucking pissed, especially at this particular man.

It bugs and stinks but the Jamestown gang tells a whopper of a narrative trying to paint disappointed decades long Democrats into devils, children, fools, malcontents, and anything else they can use as a shield to stave off their own cognitive dissonance and harden their positions rather deal with their own disgust and sense of abandonment or their cynical plotting to squash the Democratic wing of the party in favor of "sensible centrism", reframing and limiting the spectrum of ideas.

Sorry but sometimes chess is just wishful thinking for being in progress of getting scammed.

The only reason to believe in "chess" at all is believing everyone essentially thinks like you and the fucking don't. Not the Republicans, not the Indies, not the media, not even the rest of your fellow travelers.

Well...there is one more of course, the guy putting US in check would like it too.

If there was any fucking chess it was the people getting our asses handed to us in a record low number of moves.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

29. You were never for him!

:sarcasm:


I've had that line thrown at me plenty.

[TheKentuckian]

30. It's crazy. I chucked all the wood that I could chuck and was "pragmatic" way before it was cool.

A couple of em might have been able to beat me in zealotry but not a one of em could best me at cold blooded "pragmatism" and hence I know it is a football stadium's worth of diaper filling.

[Overseas]

31. K&R! I admire the way he describes what I was expecting so succinctly--

Most progressives fervently supported Obama. Many of us imagined a rendezvous between a brilliant outsider politician and a practical crisis rooted in failed conservative ideology — a Roosevelt moment.

I thought surely now, after the Bush crash and the Bush torture, with a practical pragmatic president coming in, Democrats would band together and recognize the millions of voters who crossed party lines or voted for the first time in recognition of the crises our country was facing-- they voted for The Party of FDR.

So I also like what he says about urging the administration not to pass up the chance to rekindle the groundswell-- we gave the party that crashed our country one more chance to work together and they blew it-- so let's return to our base and what has been proven to work-- FDR stuff-- millions of green jobs, including infrastructure repair, and better national health security by lowering the age of Medicare to 50. And enacting his second bill of rights.

[whistler162]

32. Yeah that is what the abusive parent says to the about child!

Gibbs keeps being proved correct!

[ProSense]

33. "Why isn’t Obama behaving more like Harry Truman in 1948? "

This is a mid-term election year, and the President is not up for re-election until 2012.

Why didn't Truman in 1946 act like Truman in 1948?

[defendandprotect]

34. Only disagree that this is Obama "bungling" .....

Did Obama simply mistake the Wall Street gang that set us up for this corrupt

and criminal economic failure as "change makers"?

Did he fail to understand that Rahm is DLC-corporate wing of the party?

Obama is a "New Democrat" and that's much more corporate friendly than I would

have voted for had I known!