The influential political blogger Nate Silver agrees with Bill Maher:
"This has been an extremely cautious White House to date; they have scrupulously avoided doing anything that might ruffle Congressional or public feathers and they are probably afraid of gambling on a specific plan and losing. But as Neville Chamberlain learned long ago, and Spock learned in the latest version of Star Trek, caution does not always equate with safety. It is time for the White House to take hold of this debate and not let go."
Without reference to policy outcomes, I concur, in part, with this analysis, and I dissent, in part. But my concurrence does not imply that I agree with Silver's premise: that Obama is "afraid of gambling on a specific plan and losing," or that his "caution" is the safe option. What follows is not a defense of the Obama Way, but instead attempt to explain what it means for policy.
Obama HAS avoided anything that would ruffle the delicate Congressional feathers. Why? Because the White House believes, from experience, that the president's agenda will advance more quickly through Congress if the White House provides little reason for the legislative branch to fight with the executive branch. From experience, they conclude that it is much easier to broker a deal between Democratic factions and the two cameras of Congress than it would be if Obama were pushing for more specifics. (Yes, there is an element here of a lesson learned from the Clinton administration, but Obama isn't Clinton.) It's not that they're afraid of losing -- it's that they want to win. Within the broader complaint about relative inaction on health care, some liberals worry that Obama isn't pushing for the type of change that fundamentally reforms and reshapes our health care institutions to fit a model that conforms to the way liberals believe the world works.
These criticisms of Obama miss at least one fundamental aspect of his personality, one that was evident in his presidential campaign: Obama has an abiding faith in the institutions of government. As a constitutional law nerd, he really does believe that Congress has a significant role to play in making legislation (and he has a corresponding belief that the prerogatives of the executive branch's actions on national security are sacrosanct." Parallel to the faith in institutions is an almost magical belief in the power of consensus. He's using his presidential powers, implied and actual, to build a consensus about health care reform, one that will last beyond his presidency. It isn't simply that Obama feels constrained by political realities in Congress, although that's part of it. It's that he believes that the best way to accomplish the most change is to let Congress legislate and let the President build public support for the end product, which still conforms to the goals that Obama laid out during his campaign. Don['t confuse bipartisanship with consensus; bipartisanship refers to outcomes, and the outcome here won't be liked by Republicans. Consensus refers to the process and to the way in which the public perceives the issue.
In the end, the criticisms boil down to a war about the definition of enough. Is achieving universal health insurance access enough of a major change? Can the regulatory reforms be enough if they don't subvert the risk-reward dynamic? If they involve existing institutions?
If you're inclined to think of Obama as an avatar of radical change, you're right: most combat troops plan to withdraw from Iraq on roughly the same timetable as Obama promised they would during the campaign. Obama's studious silence on the Iranian elections is a terrifically (or terribly) radical departure from the way the previous president would deal with the same conflict. Obama has broken through the crustiness of the Middle East peace process and is approaching Israel from a different, albeit sympathetic perspective. On his initiative, Obama and the Congress passed $800 billion worth of demand-side spending. The government took over major failing companies. His regulatory reforms include a new, fairly well empowered consumer finance protection agency -- a change so significant that his own Fed is already telling reporters that they're going to fight it. To say that the White House has been extremely cautious to date is just inaccurate.
On health care, Silver writes:
But the Doomsday Scenario for the White House is probably not that health care fails a straight up-or-down vote, but rather, that no individual version of the bill has enough votes to pass as legislators convince themselves they can hold out for an alternative more to their liking, while all the while the industry is having time bought for it to lobby against the bill, or to watch any of several political contingencies unfold (another crash in the stock market; the incapacitation of Senator Kennedy, which would deprive Democrats of a vote until a special election were held in Massachusetts) that could weaken the Democrats' position.
Yes, this is the doomsday scenario, but it is not clear at all that the same scenario would not exist if Obama had endorsed a public plan with teeth and had specified details that Congress is now debating. Congress would be eager to show its independence, and there might be even more variations of the health care bills. One additional characteristic of the Obama mind that comes into play here is his flexibility. He does not apply the same level of pressure to all situations. Health reform is a majoritarian idea, but a government-run system isn't. There is no public appetite for radical change; no mandate for it; no reason to think that Obama alone could move public opinion that much on the wisdom of having the government, and not insurance companies, mediate between providers and doctors.
Going back to the campaign, change has never meant massively tearing down and rebuilding institutions. It has meant, instead, using those institutions, which have steadily evolved over 200 years (Obama really is a stickler for precedent in law and in government) to achieve specific, concrete policy goals that, in Obama's view, make lives better. Those who want him to move faster don't understand how fast he thinks he is moving, and they don't quite understand the Obama method, and they disagree with Obama about the ends themselves.
While I agree Obama has been slow to ruffle the feathers of Congress or Big Money he hasn't been slow to madden those who elected him. His backing of the Bush States Secrets doctrine and continued use of questionable wiretapping are just 2 of many decisions he has made that run counter to his promises.
Obama was elected because the public thought they saw a real leader in him. The polls show that the public is behind the Public Option by a wide margin yet both Single Payer and the Public Option have been all but shoved in the trashcan. The Public would back Obama if he showed the leadership to force the public option. It's that type of cojones he was elected to show. If Obama allows the Insurance companys to win it will be the beginning of downhill trend of support from his base. He may believe they have no one else to vote for as he seems willing to ignore the overwhelming calls from his base. The White House should have learned by now that his base in the blogoshere cannot be spun with Bush-like tricks.
With our own set of experts like Glenn Greenwald, Marcy Wheeler, FireDogLake, and DailyKos to name a few, we have moved beyond the times when if the White House says it, it must be true type of thinking. Nyceve and her series on Insurance known as Murder By Spreadsheet has educated thousands to much that both the industry and the White House wished she hadn't taught them. Froomkin must have touched quite a few nerves himself in recent days, why else would they close their most popular blog type feature ?
I never thought I would say this Marc but you are beginning to sound too much like a Obamabot. We need t remember his call to hold his feet to the fire when he strays from his promises. By doing that we serve no only the pres., but the country. Pres. Obama has the capital now, if he waits too long to use it it may well have gone to waste.
CrankyDem says:
"With our own set of experts like Glenn Greenwald, Marcy Wheeler, FireDogLake, and DailyKos to name a few".
.
lol.
.
Anyhow, i think oftentimes, obama should be a little more ambitious. Like the way he deals with wall street. i just don't think we should lose sleep, money and time over bank stress tests if it's just a sham that makes all the wrong economic assumptions THEN curves the tests so everyone passes. -Not that i thought about the consequences of certain banks not passing, mind you.-
.
i'd prefer if he were a little bit more empathetic towards the sensibilities of the LBGT community. But other than that, i'd prefer a 75% watered down version on 90% of all of my priorities than a total failure of all of my priorities because my staunch position on some issue causes a gridlock.
It is disheartening to see so many people who voted for this president backtracking. He inherited a prodigious amount of challenges and he's only been in office 6 months. Serious change NEVER happens overnight not in our personal lives and certainly not in government. Our country is facing perilous times and we need a president who is honest, thoughtful, willing to seek outside counsel and committed to the ideals that has sustained us since our founding. President Obama simply cannot approach these challenges as a gang-buster - he has work within a system and our fast food, instantaneous need for gratification, on the spot witness and commentary are seemingly threatening to rob us of patience. Despite how likeable he is, he cannot turn the United States (and the world) around in a day (or six months). Notwithstanding his accountability - because he needs to be held accountable...he needs time.
This is clearest description of the Obama Way I've read in a while. At least, of course really, this conforms to my own opinion about what Barack Obama is doing in the White House. What I admire most about the O is the way he is boring, couched in the emotion of those speeches way back when. Although I get feisty sometimes, basically I'm a Constitution Nerd, too. Without the built-in urge for always one more revolution, and putting my faith in slow CHANGE, I'll take bad with good, and not discuss this man with talk of trash bins, damn broken promises, and mythical real leaders. Although I'm glad it takes all kinds.
Make that two Cranky Dems. Obama should know that the "process does not always work". The push for healthcare reform has been highjacked by the forces that oppose it. Time for Obama to show real leadership because he is indeed losing his base--very rapidly now.
The Democratic base was never really 'Obama's base' to begin with.
That's right! We all know most democrats voted for Hillary. And when he stole it from her, they switched to McCain. So they should stop pretending like they elected him.
It is great that Obama has many critics on the left. Hopefully, they will keep pushing him and Cogress in that direction. The way to do that is through advocacy, not writing on a blog that Obama is "losing his base."
Obama has done a lot of things to be proud of and that are not cautious or popular: close Gitmo within a year and release the torture memos.
I grew up around conservatives so I have a deep understanding of how resistant most people are to change. Many people who voted for Obama wanted change, but not too much. For those of us on the left, this can be frustrating. But we cannot be delusional that most Americans want Bush/Cheney prosecuted. Or that most Americans want to immediately end the Afghanistan war. The polls prove we are wrong.
Obama is right not to overreach on some issues. I think as the years go by we will be able to see the way he has changed policy, especially environmental policy. It is still too early to see effects from the stimulus and his budget.
As for health care, part of why liberals risk losing is because we don't fight to win. Supposedly, Congress is getting more calls from people opposed to the public option in health care than people who support it. How can this be when nearly 75% of Americans support it? Liberals tend to be more apathetic and younger.
When Obama was elected he said he could not achieve the change on his own, that he needed us. It seems like nobody on the left listened.
Well put.
I'm not part of 'the left' (former Republican), but I'm a proud Obama supporter.
President Obama was never a firebrand New Deal type of Democrat. He's a Center-Left fella. So the tension between him and the liberal base is quite natural. If the left wants 'real' change it's up to them to contact members of Congress, organize and educate people about Universal Healthcare.
Whining on blogs or on tv (Maher) is easy to do. Actually getting involved is the hard part. All this talk about Obama rising to the ocassion- what about the American people?
I don't understand. If you support Obama's approach of "center left", wouldn't the American people rising to the occasion be a kind of pestering and bad for the country? Or do you mean that they should "rise" by sitting down quietly?
Or perhaps you find that you're not having an effect whining on a blog like this and you're hoping to motivate other people not to be like you. So, if they can get off their ass, then you'll be able to, too.
Responding to Kmber, and to a lesser extent to Lolis: why, pray, do you assume that liberals are not calling their members of congress, are not "fighting"? And I don't recall having "whined" about anything--simply stated what I wanted Obama to do, in response to Marc's post. And I have no idea who this Maher fellow is (don't have TV).
Nate Silver opines that the Obama Whitehouse is "probably afraid". He got whatever influence he has by his superior analysis of polling data, and I guess has morphed into broader territory--politics blogging--with no real track record. Bill Maher's niche is political provocateur; remember he's politically incorrect and proud of it.
Marc seems to me to have learned something from all the hand-wringing during the campaign over President Obama not coming out swinging hard enough, blah, blah, blah. Turned out that he ran a pretty effective campaign by not conforming to the conventional wisdom about these sorts of things. Perhaps he's just as prescient about how to do the job of president as he was about how to win it. His performance in foreign affairs (where his is little hindered by Congress) supports this supposition. Although right wing partisans insist he should voice strong leadership concerning Iran, the foreign policy experts seems unanimous in supporting his quieter, more subtle approach.
I wish DADT and DOMA were gone already and we were heavy into investigations and prosecutions of the previous administration's war crimes and I wish single payer was on the table, etc. I might be disappointed that the administration hasn't pursued strategies that seem forceful enough to me except for my observation that, based on his performance as candidate and world leader, the President knows a lot more than anyone else about how to get the job done. Congress is the weak link here, not the administration.
Thanks to ABC, he'll have a chance next week to respond to the concerns of citizens over health care policy on prime time TV. I don't have TV either but most Americans do. I do expect he'll be able to go over Congress's heads and capitalize on the public's desire for a real health care fix. I think he has long anticipated the tactics of the forces against health care and this is his way of making the process work. But I'm not a pundit, I just play one on my computer screen.
Well said.
People, especially activists (self included) have trouble realizing that even when you win power you still govern the whole country. And even though me and my friends may want to have policy XYZ, that does not mean that congress or the american people are ready for it.
Most important legislation has been a process. It starts with building idea that there is a need for change and then getting conversation going about the options.
That is how the clintons blew it: their approach was doomed to failure because they started by designing a solution. If you float a battleship like that, people are going to attack because human nature is to attack other people's ideas - especially when they threaten your own.
I am not sure where to go with the analogy at this point, but if congress can craft something and Obama can then apply pressure on key issues, the ability for the policy to have staying power is much greater.
That said - y'all should keep whining for what you want. Whine louder and more piercing - it just makes Obama look all the more moderate. And if you are saying - Hey, I am not a whiner. You just aren't trying hard enough!
I forgot...
After whining, please come back and support Obama. Express that you did not get what you want, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And if you really cannot say that the policy is good (and some will not be) then by all means end your support.
But you really have to ask yourself - isn't at least better that we are having the debate? There was ZERo hope for anything progressive over the past eight years. Now health care and climae change legislation are real possibilities - imperfect as they may be. So can't ya just give the guy credit for the positive impact he is having... even if it doesn't fit your dream?
Well put.
I think there are many liberal Obama supporters who will continue to gripe, but when it's all said and done they'll come back a vote for him again because (deep down) they know he's good for the country.
This is nuts! Standing up for something will get you attacked, so don't stand up for anything! Well, that may save Obama from getting attacked, but it's not your opponents who are going to do what you don't have the guts to propose by just prayin', voodoo and hopin'.
Besides, Obama seems to be a radical anti constitutionalist when it's come to constitutional matters thus far, namely civil liberties. If suppressing evidence and passing laws to override existing institutionalized safeguards, all just to suppress public debate because it causes a little tension, if that ain't believin' in institutions, what is, right?
Oh, wait, I just got it. The american constitution just exists in the fruity liberal heads of aclu civil libertarians! Right! My mistake, sorry.
LOL! You're outta control. Pairing the word "radical" with "Obama" just makes you sound as dumb as all of those people at the Palin rallies last year.
It’s interesting that you and James Fallows, as well as Dickerson and Beam over at Slate are all posting along the same lines: Obama’s innate ability to link issues into a strategic vision and how it affects his practical political strategy.
“He does not apply the same level of pressure to all situations. Health reform is a majoritarian idea, but a government-run system isn't. There is no public appetite for radical change; no mandate for it; no reason to think that Obama alone could move public opinion that much on the wisdom of having the government, and not insurance companies, mediate between providers and doctors. “
Obama changes the framework of the debate. He sets out a vision of the future that links issues into a strategic view He critiqued the single issue and wedge politics of the previous two administrations. Voters loved it. Crowds grew bigger. He won a sizable majority.
And it’s exactly because voters embraced his larger vision that Obama is in the best position to champion what pundits will surely rail against -incrementalism - now. In today’s economic and political climate, Obama can claim partial reforms as victory. Getting several camels heads under several policy tents is better than trying to install a single 800 lb. beast in one.
The voters expect action on health care, energy, global warming. They rejected single issue maximal demands and wedge politics by voting for Obama. And recent polls suggest they also worry about the deficit.
If Obama can lay some basic foundations of change in major policy areas, he will have fulfilled his majority mandate. For example, passing portability and non-discrimination for ‘prior disease’ in health insurance coverage changes health care delivery in significant ways. Bottom line: more people covered.
And reforms like these, unlike those dependent on spending authorization, are difficult to reverse in successive administrations. These would be embedded in the health care delivery system.
If Obama insists on an immediate ‘public program’ in health care reform but doesn’t have the votes, voters will see him the same as Clinton and Bush, whose respective health care and social security reforms flamed out..
Obama’s integrated vision of policy greatly appeals to voters rejecting the single-issue and wedge political model of the past.. His pragmatism re-assures them.
Marc, or somebody - I'd like this statement explained: "Health reform is a majoritarian idea, but a government-run system isn't. There is no public appetite for radical change; no mandate for it; no reason to think that Obama alone could move public opinion that much on the wisdom of having the government, and not insurance companies, mediate between providers and doctors."
ALL of the recent polling suggests the exact opposite, unless I misunderstand your words. The public WANTS a public option. The public WANTS an option to choose between a private insurer and a public one.
Where is this meme coming from, other than wishful thinking on the part of congressional representatives with financial backing from insurance companies?
QT
My guess is if Obama doesn't sign a decent public option healthcare bill, the Dems lose seats in 2010 and unless the economy is humming along amazingly by 2012 he loses. Yes, that's how important I think the healthcare bill is. The proposed bill is not going to cut it. It is pretty much status quo. There is no point in subsidizing poor folks into paying for crappy insurance because they can't afford the copays. Covering 65 percent on the "bronze" bill is basically giving the poor person nothing. It's like when I was talking to a poor person about a daily living assistance device which in my wisdom I told her was "only $25." Her response " It can be $500 if it's that much, because I don't have the $25."
"There is no point in subsidizing poor folks into paying for crappy insurance because they can't afford the copays."
Poor folks already have excellent insurance which requires no co-pays (at least here in NJ). It's called Medicaid. I don't imagine the poor would get a worse deal under any Obama reform. The group at risk is majority of middle class Americans who currently have health insurance and like what they have. They'll probably end up with something a little worse.
You know this probability for a fact? I hear conservatives talk about how health care will be "worse" if it's made less private. It's always about losing choice, losing coverage, being forced to accept a public system that spreads the wealth but overall is less than the best that richer folks could afford if they had the freedom.
Well, the solution to that is to insist and make sure that a public health care system makes no restrictions on what doctors you can choose. That covers a high proportion of procedures and services. And then given that if you want a little extra luxury insurance, that should cost less because it will have to cover so much less.
This logic in the debate, "Obama and the democrats can't fight for anything, because the conservatives know it will be TOO RADICAL". Well, at this point, it's pretty obvious that all the talk of radical was baloney, and that Obama is suggesting really puny, indeed incremental change.
How exciting. What a strategist! Aim so low that no one will even care if you fail. Formidable!
As a constitutional law nerd, he really does believe that Congress has a significant role to play in making legislation . . .
This neatly avoids the way that lobbyists and Big Money corrupt and undermine the Constitutional role of Congress.
Is the rule of such a thoroughly corrupted body legitimate? Does it bear any resemblance to what the founders intended or to the way representative government should operate?
Calling the influence of Big Money "free speech" is a hilarious obfuscation of what actually is legislative nullification of what the people rightfully expect of their leaders.
Some Americans like to cry crocodile tears over corruption in Africa, but the difference is mostly between the amounts of money and services up for sale. And the trend is that there are smaller and smaller scraps left over for the people -- as the current bailout for the financial wizards clearly shows.
Our noble Congress is busy making America into a third-world economy, with an ever-richer elite sitting arrogantly atop a disappearing middle class.
This is my first time leaving a post on this blog. I really truly enjoyed this article. It seems Marc put my thoughts into words. I believe in the 5 months that the president has been in office he has done a great job. I notice his critics on the left seem to have forgotten that he said he would be the president for all people. In my opinion those on the left want to believe Obama had this big mandate for radical change. Truth is and its hard for some to except HE DID NOT! This country carries some heavy conservative views and the Independents swing in that direction. Obama knows real policy change has to begin somewhere then improved. Setting a direction for something new is change from what we have had the last 8 years and I do not believe Obama will water down policy and if he does I'm sure he has a good reason for it.
I've also noticed the increasing juvenile actions of the left in the last 5 months. We seem to be like spoiled children having a temper tantrum towards our president. Let me repeat it has been only 5 months! If those on the left are so concerned with change why are we sitting on blogs complaining? Bill Maher, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and Silver complain about big business yet they collect their checks from them. Maher claims Obama is all over TV yet I have seen him on MSNBC, HBO, CNN and the LA Times promoting himself all week. This is hypocrisy! Left, why not go door to door to persuade your fellow American to support the president? This act might garner a better outcome. Republicans almost never turn on themselves but the Democrats are like crabs in a barrel. With all of our "smarts" we are not smart enough to recognize good STRATEGY!
The economy and foreign policy issues are the important priorities and the left has forgotten this. When on a airplane the attendant tells you to put on your mask then help your child. We cannot do everything unless we do the most important thing and that is survive as a nation. Do you want a job? Do you want health care at all? Do we want the country to fail or lose a Democratic president because we are angry that new policy PROPOSALS are not "good enough" for some people standards yet? As an African American I know what it is like to go without. It's a history and reality that is a part of my culture but I'm happy someone is doing something finally. I've learned to be patient and supportive when it comes to good deeds and good people.
America voted for Bush and the conservatives policies twice. Its time all of us take responsibility over our actions instead of blaming Obama for every complaint. By voting or not voting we the people helped to create this mess! I know I'm not as articulate as some on this blog but I know right from wrong and the way the left has been acting toward our new president is wrong.
Bill Maher does not represent me! I criticize Obama for specific policy he promised and has abandoned or reversed in ways that are offensive to my ideals!
I have zero, ZERO problem with him going on tv. Maher and those hollywood liberals are a bunch of lazy brained hypocrites, I agree. Big business and capitalism are huge motivators for profit and opportunity.
But I think maybe I'd like a certain basic level of humane guarantee in a society that is prosperous enough and stable enough to afford it.
I admire the invention of drugs. But that doesn't happen ONLY via drug companies seeking profit. Sometimes it's a curious phd scientist or an independent researcher or a government researcher.
And I don't want something as banal as treatment by general practitioners and surgeons to be open to great profits. Well, I must be a communist because I don't want to pay 19.99 for a box of cereal!
Liberals could just as easily (and childishly do) accuse of all conservatives and republicans of being sean hannitybots. That doesn't make that nonsense accurate. Neither is casting a lame jerk like Bill Maher as the voice of all liberals.
I admire the invention of drugs. But that doesn't happen ONLY via drug companies seeking profit. Sometimes it's a curious phd scientist or an independent researcher or a government researcher.
Without wanting to drag this off topic, this isn't true. Great basic research is done at universities and foundations, but drug development is almost exclusively a private sector process--and that's a pro forma almost.
That's not to say that the way that we discover and develop drugs is how it ought to be--there are lots of inefficiencies--but the "NIH discovers drugs" myth makes talk about how we ought to reform the pharmaceutical industry more difficult.
"Health reform is a majoritarian idea, but a government-run system isn't. There is no public appetite for radical change; no mandate for it; no reason to think that Obama alone could move public opinion that much on the wisdom of having the government, and not insurance companies, mediate between providers and doctors."
http://www.drudge.com/news/122203/poll-76-want-public-option-health-care
WTF?
Dgtllvr how is Health Care radial change? This country has toyed with it for many years and we do have forms of it now just not good ones like Cobra, Medicare, Child Health Care Plus. Americans are for this because one it cost to much and two most of us are out of work! No mandate just the reality of the recession, high cost and security. The reality is the cost of comprehensive public health care will make a lot of Americans scared as well.
The point I was trying to make is change is slow and takes time and might not happen the way you envision it. WE have to put one foot in front of the other to learn to walk. NOTHING happens over night because WE want it NOW! Wasn't that the screwed up mentality that got us into this mess in the first place? Learn to have a some faith and patience.
I can fully understand why some on this blog have aimed their anger at Obama. I say turn it over to education and good conversation with those who don't share progressives views. Give back by sharing and motivating people who don't follow politics and policy. Use your anger to do some good instead of cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you haven't already...RUN FOR OFFICE OR GET INVOLVED WITH SOME COMMUNITY SERVICE! Do something instead of complain. Understand that good strategy is our friend but blind emotion can get you nothing and can destroy any progress made. Obama is doing a good job, lets support him and use our knowledge and passions to change minds and learn instead of bashing each other with non-productive arguments.
Like ChillRobSki, I too am a new commenter on this site. I must say, I am struck by the dispassionate and thoughtful writers. This is not the tone I hear on the other sites I read (Huffington, Kos, Firedoglake, etc.), where the fury is palpable.
People are enraged at Obama in a different way than we were at Bush. We knew what Bush was, knew he was a complete disaster, and knew there was no hope of change. If we had elected Clinton, e.g., I believe we would not have been as disappointed in her as we are with Obama, because we knew she was the status quo. But naive as we were, as inspired as we were, as, damn it, as hopeful as we were, we expected greatness from Obama. This is a devastating comedown.
And we gave him a pass on the Wall St.-trickle-down-to-Main St, and on no torture prosecutions, and on lack of transparency, on FISA and DOMA and DADT and on and on because we just knew he was saving all his political capital, all his real fire to get us health care. We don't care about the Byzantine workings of Congress with their parliamentarian rules, don't care about Obama's temperament- we want real change now. The frustration has been pent up too long. And his failure on this, to many of us, will define his Presidency, unfairly or not.
Yeah, that's the thing. It has only been 5 months. But Obama has done A LOT in 5 months. A lot of disappointment. A lot to consider.
How long do people want to wait.
And it's hypocritical and unfair to wait so long. Dubya didn't get anywhere near 5 months of credit from Democrats. So if they stand for something other then partisanship, isn't it our duty to voice complaints?
Complaints are ideas. They propose a different direction. They're not just "whining" and bringing down the mood.
Maybe if principled conservatives had dared to complain more about Dubya, they could have moved him to be a genuine "smaller government" conservative. Now they have to run around justifying and protecting everything he did because they didn't have the guts to stand up to him.
Let's democrats not make the same mistake with our guy!
I think Marc you are right. Obama is first and foremost is a consensus builder. Anyone wanting to understand his style of decision making should read Team of Rivals. The way Lincoln balanced opinions and looked for consensus and compromise frustrated alot of hardliners and ideologues but it saved the union and advanced the country.