Why is Obama Attacking the Left?

I don't get this strategy from the White House:

During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough....

The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

No matter what, the White House is going to need left-wing voters in the fall and in 2012. I get that they are unhappy at being attacked from left-wing bloggers, but is this in any way going to help matters? Why does Obama think that sounding like Newt Gingrinch or the morning show on Fox News will help them politically?

He wants to stick to the middle path, where you never actually solve anything, just accumulate all the errors from both sides.

Malor wrote:

He wants to stick to the middle path, where you never actually solve anything, just accumulate all the errors from both sides.

Which is my biggest criticism of him.

Without looking too deeply I've gotten the impression since very early in his administration that Obama has been attacked by both the far left and the far right. It's got to be wearing on them. Remember how everyone was talking about the historical significance of having the Democrats in charge of both houses and the executive branch? How Obama was going to be steam-rolling his agenda over any opposition and that Change was a comin'? Yeah, didn't work out so well.

The infighting in his own party has gutted our out-right killed a lot of the change he had been looking for. I have to imagine the frustration is getting to them. I'm not sure it's politically wise to call out your own fringe but they've been asking the Republicans to do the same thing so I can't fault them for it.

Also -- he knows he can abuse the far left and still be assured of their votes in 2012. Their finger wagging, disappointed votes, but votes nonetheless.

The problem is that he's tried roughing up his own team before, and it wins him nothing from Team Red. So really it's just sadistic at this point.

Sadistic or therapeutic, depending on how you look at the abuse he's endured from the far left.

Didn't you know? Obama is just GWB, flashed with Oliver Wendell Jones' Electro-photo Pigment-izer.

Seth wrote:

Sadistic or therapeutic, depending on how you look at the abuse he's endured from the far left.

Is it not deserved, though? He hasn't really done anything he promised them to get elected, and he's 3/8th through his term at this point. Gitmo's still open, warrantless wiretapping/searches have gotten even worse, both wars are still going on...

I disagree that he can count on their votes in 2012. The last democratic politician who took the left for granted was Gore, and we know how that worked out. If people begin to believe that there is no difference between the democrat and the republican, they vote for 3rd party candidates or they just don't vote. Nobody's vote can be taken for granted.

I understand that Obama doesn't want to be attacked from the left, but he's not leading the Republican party. Bloggers and left-wing journalists aren't going to just repeat the administration's talking points like Fox News heads did for Bush during Bush's first term. It's just something that the administration has to deal with. Suck it up and move on.

To put it in personal terms, I have chronic lower back pain that bothers me, but I'm not going to run out and start swatting at my spine with a baseball bat. Why? Because my spine is helping to hold up my back.

Whether this is a good or bad move in terms of political strategy, I think it's refreshingly honest. The far left is unhappy with him. In fact, a lot of moderate lefties are pretty unhappy too. The best that could come out of this is that the right-wingers will see that Obama is not the most liberal (meaning evil) president in the universe by virtue of being a Democrat, and in fact he's pretty centrist. Or at least he wants to be. The worst is that he'll just alienate everyone.

Funkenpants wrote:

The last person democratic politician who took the left for granted was Gore, and we know how that worked out.

With Gore winning the popular vote?

Minarchist wrote:

Is it not deserved, though? He hasn't really done anything he promised them to get elected, and he's 3/8th through his term at this point. Gitmo's still open, warrantless wiretapping/searches have gotten even worse, both wars are still going on...

He's toned down the rhetoric with Iran and is at least thinking about getting out of Iraq (even if only to shift those troops to Afghanistan). I think that's worth something, no matter how big of a disappointment he's been otherwise.

LobsterMobster wrote:

With Gore winning the popular vote?

And the popular vote counts for what in an electoral system?

Funkenpants wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

With Gore winning the popular vote?

And the popular vote counts for what in an electoral system?

Nothing, which would be why he lost the election. However when your point is that he took the Democratic population for granted, I think it's significant that it did support him.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Nothing, which would be why he lost the election. However when your point is that he took the Democratic population for granted, I think it's significant that it did support him.

That wasn't my point at all.

Then please explain it better, because I thought we were talking about popular opinion and your thesis seemed to be that Gore ignored popular opinion at his own peril, which I find contrary to the facts.

He's done nothing on the really critical issues, or made them worse. The things he's improved on have been few and far between, while almost everything else he's touched is worse now than it was under Bush.

He made incredible speeches. He sounded like a world-class leader. He actually turned out to be the King of Expedience, and sold us down the river.

I just don't get why every one is so disappointed in Obama. Sure, he has a lot of work left to do - but he can only do that work if he has people there helping him.

It is as if everyone assumed that he would have a magical army of unicorns and gnomes working with him to right all that is wrong in America. Remember people - this is reality, and change (in which we can, hopefully, believe) takes time and effort. One man is no panacea for all that ails us.

I think criticism and a watchful eye is entirely necessary - but come on, did you guys really assume that we would be out of the war with socialized health care, lower taxes, and an entirely green economy in just 2 short years? Especially in the political climate that has given rise to the tea party and pseudo-libertarianism. Those bloggers he was attacking did - and I think he is rightfully critical of them.

I am no Obama apologist, I believe in ideas not people, but I am a supporter. And I don't think that we are at the point where we can call him a failed president.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Then please explain it better, because I thought we were talking about popular opinion and your thesis seemed to be that Gore ignored popular opinion at his own peril, which I find contrary to the facts.

We were never talking about popular opinion. In response to Seth saying:

Also -- he knows he can abuse the far left and still be assured of their votes in 2012. Their finger wagging, disappointed votes, but votes nonetheless.

I said:

I disagree that he can count on their votes in 2012. The last democratic politician who took the left for granted was Gore, and we know how that worked out. If people begin to believe that there is no difference between the democrat and the republican, they vote for 3rd party candidates or they just don't vote. Nobody's vote can be taken for granted.

It's clear that I wasn't talking about the entire democratic party, but rather that amorphous subgroup referred to as "the left wing" of the democratic party (which is typically contrasted against "conservative democrats" or "right-wing democrats" or "centrist democrats" or "blue-dog democrats") who are upset with Obama. Provoking them using rhetoric the left associates with right-wingers is counter-production, is my point.

SallyNasty wrote:

I think criticism and a watchful eye is entirely necessary - but come on, did you guys really assume that we would be out of the war with socialized health care, lower taxes, and an entirely green economy in just 2 short years? Especially in the political climate that has given rise to the tea party and pseudo-libertarianism. Those bloggers he was attacking did - and I think he is rightfully critical of them.

I'm not seeing this attitude from left-wing bloggers. The primary complaints I've seen from guys like Glenn Greenwald, Atrios, Digby, Greg Sargent, Huffpost, and the like relate to his perceived lack of support for a public option in health care, his surge in Afghanistan, his very questionable anti-terror policies, and his embracing of bankers and Wall Street. In fact, I haven't seen much at all in the way of left-wing bloggers expecting him to move mountains and recreate our political system or turn us into a green economy. Left-wing bloggers don't tend to be pie-in-the-sky hippies. They just aren't as influenced by the wealthy interests as right-wing democrats are.

It is as if everyone assumed that he would have a magical army of unicorns and gnomes working with him to right all that is wrong in America.

Remember, this is the guy who so clearly and eloquently said that indefinite detention and torture were against the law during the election. Sure enough, he did address this issue after being elected -- by trying to make indefinite detention and torture explicitly legal.

When he DOES try to address things, he addresses them wrong. In this case, he was out in front and trying to lead.... right down the path to Hell.

I'd be happy to part of the magical army of gnomes if he'd ever genuinely try to do the right f*cking thing.

Malor wrote:
It is as if everyone assumed that he would have a magical army of unicorns and gnomes working with him to right all that is wrong in America.

Remember, this is the guy who so clearly and eloquently said that indefinite detention and torture were against the law during the election. Sure enough, he did address this issue after being elected -- by trying to make indefinite detention and torture explicitly legal.

When he DOES try to address things, he addresses them wrong. In this case, he was out in front and trying to lead.... right down the path to Hell.

I'd be happy to part of the magical army of gnomes if he'd ever genuinely try to do the right f*cking thing.

Political theater is no different than the WWE. All of the Democrat/Republican, Liberal/Conservative bashing that goes on in media soundbytes, during speeches, at fundraisers, and on talking-head shows are designed to keep us at each other's throats while the generally tenured, powerful elite keep up the status quo. The size of the country's bureaucracy has grown to the point that even if an ideologically minded person found himself in the White House with control of both houses in Congress, the real change he could bring about would be minimal at best.

Okay, but at least he could be trying to pull us in the right direction. When he actually does really get out in front of an issue, he's invariably pulling the other way.

Obama is a centrist fool. He has ran out Christina Romer. For what Larry Summers and Turbo-tax Geithner?

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal...

I guess better a Centrist fool than a right wing fool like McCain tried to be. (He gave us Palin for goodness sake.)

David Frum twitters today about Gibbs' statement: "More proof of my longtime thesis, Repub pols fear the GOP base; Dem pols hate the Dem base."

SallyNasty wrote:

I just don't get why every one is so disappointed in Obama. Sure, he has a lot of work left to do - but he can only do that work if he has people there helping him.

I largely do not want to help him, because many of the actions he has taken are in direct conflict with his campaign promises (in addition to being against my beliefs). For example, the ACLU put out a report on things that he could do to restore civil liberties simply by executive order - most of which remain undone. The only possible conclusion at this point is that President Obama simply does not want to do these things.

Further, the President is the commander-in-chief. If he says "close Gitmo", the military is duty-bound to obey. If he says "withdraw from Afghanistan", the military is duty-bound to obey. Yes, these things require some political maneuvering, but it's not exactly rocket science.

Also, note that President Obama has expanded his assertions of executive authority even more than Bush. It seems preposterous that people who labeled the Bush administration "imperial" are now apologizing for Obama's seeming lack of power. It's not the power he lacks, but the will and desire to do the right thing - and he dislikes being called on that by his nominal allies. This kind of petulant whining is unfortunately becoming more representative of this administration.

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

On September 9, 2008 -- roughly two months before the election -- Barack Obama addressed a large, enthusiastic crowd and said: "As president, I will lead a new era of accountability in education. But see, I don't just want to hold our teachers accountable; I want to hold our government accountable. I want you to hold me accountable." In 20 short months, we've gone from "hold me accountable" to "get drug tested," you wretched ingrates.

Funkenpants wrote:

David Frum twitters today about Gibbs' statement: "More proof of my longtime thesis, Repub pols fear the GOP base; Dem pols hate the Dem base."

Well luckily he doesn't have an agenda and we can take this statement as it is meant - as an objective observation, that just adds to the debate.

Whether or not Frum is objective, the contempt people like Gibbs and Emmanuel show for the left is palpable. Plus, it's a twitter. I don't think it's meant to change the world with its deep insight. It's just a tossed-off quip.

Funkenpants wrote:

Whether or not Frum is objective, the contempt people like Gibbs and Emmanuel show for the left is palpable. Plus, it's a twitter. I don't think it's meant to change the world with its deep insight. Take it however you want.

I just assumed that since you were quoting it that you were using it to make a point. As a guy on the left, I don't feel the contempt you are talking about.

SallyNasty wrote:

I just assumed that since you were quoting it that you were using it to make a point.

In which case, whether or not Frum is biased was irrelevant since I was the one who was quoting it.

What's more, if you haven't noticed the contempt, then we disagree on a point of reality. Nothing I say about it is going to change your mind unless you want to propose a metric of contempt that you would accept. To me, saying stuff like Gibbs says indicates contempt. If you don't see it that way, okay.

I just didn't see the contempt - kind of hard to see emotions. I read it as a supporter quoting someone whose position he supported.

Not trying to start a flame war with you, but I guess I don't understand what you mean by your point of reality statement.

Gibbs made a disparaging remark about the 'professional left' i.e. the bloggers and the hard line liberals. Your quote has both you and Frum using Gibbs remarks as an example of their disdain for their base, not the hard line. I am the base - and I agree with them. The far left is what was being criticized.

SallyNasty wrote:

I am the base - and I agree with them. The far left is what was being criticized.

Why are you the base? Seriously, self-identified democrats represent about 30+ percent of the population. Which among that group are the most reliable voters, or the one that are considered the base? Traditionally, the closer people get to the center the more likely they are to be independents or break Republican on issues. We see this with blue dog democrats in the Senate and House all the time. Further:

“They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

The reality is that none of the big 'far left' bloggers I've seen call for Canadian healthcare and elimination of the Pentagon. As I said earlier in the thread, most of the complaints I've seen from bloggers relate to the lack of a public option in the healthcare bill and an over-reliance on market forces in the banking system (hardly a far left view), the desire to retain or expand Bush-era surveillance or security policies, and the expansion of the war in Afghanistan (as I pointed out in another thread, a view that a majority of Americans seems to share).

I guess that is fine if you want to use this poorly written article and some throw away comments to reinforce and prove your position - but I honestly only read some frustration from the WH due to the fact that no one wants to focus on what they HAVE done, but instead focus on what they have not.

If anything frustrates me about the article, and the administration, is that they are much more comfortable being frustrated with their base and they fringe left elements then they are about talking about how crazy the right wing has gotten and not more contemptuous of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.

I got your back, SallyNasty!

Regarding the whole Gitmo thing, yes, Obama said he would have closed it by now and could technically do so via executive order, but no state has exactly stepped forward to say, yes bring them here, and congress has actively tried to stop Obama from closing Gitmo.

I guess I feel like people are saying that the White House should disregard political reality and stick to Obama's campaign pledges immediately, consequences to his own reelection be damned.

Oh and by damning the torpedoes to satisfy the far left in the short term he could help bring about President Palin and eight years of stupid that would see the reversal of everything he had enacted.

SallyNasty wrote:

I guess that is fine if you want to use this poorly written article and some throw away comments to reinforce and prove your position - but I honestly only read some frustration from the WH due to the fact that no one wants to focus on what they HAVE done, but instead focus on what they have not.

I'm not using a poorly-written article and Frum to buttress or prove my position, since I don't post things with the expectation of convincing anyone of anything. The linked article reports the comments made by Gibbs, and as a factual matter it's clear that he said what he said, since he hasn't responded by saying he was misquoted. Is the rest of the article poorly written? Maybe so. Doesn't really matter.

If you re-read my post that began the thread, note that I said that I don't understand the strategy here. In other words, why say something that will offend at least a portion of the democratic base when he could have said nothing instead?

For my response, I will quote to you from the same article -

“The irony, of course, is that Gibbs’s frustration reflects the fact that the conservative opposition has been so effective at undermining the president’s popular approval,” Berman said.

“And from Gibbs’s perspective, and the White House perspective, they ought to be able to catch a break from people who, in their view, should be grateful and appreciative.”

Also, I would be very interested in reading the transcript of the entire interview and if, in its entirety, is as damning as that quote makes out - i would be very surprised.