1115.org

“I see a Republican up there. He might want to be my friend…”

I want to like Barack Obama, I really do. But as a U.S. Senator, his lofty rhetoric about uniting the blue and the red is less useful than leadership, especially when Democratic leadership is in shorter supply than Democratic charisma.

Obama, unhappy with those who criticized his fellow Senate Democrats for voting to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court, took the welcome step of posting an entry on Daily Kos called “Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party.” While there may be a day when all politicians look at blog posting as part of their job, that day isn’t here, and for that alone, he deserves credit. In fact if more of his colleagues communicated so directly with their constituents, Obama might not have felt the need to defend them. But he did defend them, and in doing so betrayed a surprising piece of information: Barack Obama doesn’t think that Democratic Senators have a responsibility to lead an opposition.

To wit:

It’s this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts’ confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don’t think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn’t swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.
[…]
In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense.

The non-ideological lens Obama writes of is courtesy of a Republican message machine that beat Democrats to a bloody pulp in the race to define Roberts. As early as July, this battle was over, lost by too many headlines that read “Bush Pick Looks Like a Shoo-in.” Democrats allowed themselves to be played by the White House’s duck-duck-goose nominee game, and then didn’t bother to rebound with the serious questions that just might have had the public questioning the mainstream-ness of a man who according to the few memos released is an ideologue. Obama is either not aware that Democrats could have mounted an opposition to Roberts had they done the necessary preparation beforehand, or he rejects the premise that they should have. I’m honestly not sure which bothers me more.

I’ve been banging this drum for a while now, but it’s especially important as the President is preparing to name his second Supreme Court nominee. Given the corner the President finds himself in at the moment, and his instinct to fight rather than compromise, the smart money has him nominating a true cultural conservative to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. The God Squad is demanding it, and it’s the only way he can keep their enthusiastic support. But in reality, unless Democrats are better prepared this time, the President could nominate anyone and leave it to his message machine and the so-called liberal media to create the appearance of a moderate, non-ideological jurist who enjoys bowling in his (or more likely her) free time.

The dizzying effects of the media bubble and the staid tradition of the U.S. Senate may bring about a different point of view complete with different tactics, different priorities, and a different understanding of the way Republicans play the game. Communications and information are their weapons, (why else would the White House communications staff balloon from 13 under Clinton to 52 under Bush) and they work. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said of the Iraq War: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” Card seems to know a thing or two about what sells, because their marketing plan for Roberts felt like a last second Apple gadget announcement, that worked so well it convinced a full half of the competition to buy some.

There’s a reason there was a documentary made about Clinton’s War Room. Rapid response run by smart, capable operatives is essential to winning elections and other political battles. It’s no accident that Clinton was the last Democrat to win, a lesson that is starting to feel like Groundhog Day as we’re forced to wander in the wilderness looking for the savior Obama was billed by some to be. But as we search on, Obama preaches tolerance of our own politicians who value their reelection chances more than the people they need votes from, along with bipartisanship and compromise with those on the other side of the aisle who routinely break Senate and House rules, pay journalists for propaganda, smear our officials, and accuse us of being un-American.

Obama continues:

…How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation’s fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist’s threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?

Having a big tent party is an admirable goal, but that doesn’t preclude it from getting in the way of the goals that matter. There aren’t more than 4 Republican moderate Senators, and they don’t vote with Democrats as much as anyone who calls themselves a moderate should. Is it because of how we treated Zell Miller or John Breaux? No. It’s because their party is powerful and unified. Democrats lost seats in the 2004 elections, yet were able to stop Social Security privatization because the remaining 44 were united in their opposition regardless of how conservative their state may have been. That never would have happened last year as one of the conservative Democrats would have been unable to suppress his urge to make a deal. But all of the Presidential candidates (for 2008 and beyond) are now attempting to look moderate rather than trying to win back Congress in 2006. There was no reason for anyone to vote for the toxic bankruptcy bill. There was no need for any Democrat to vote for CAFTA with the jury still out on NAFTA. Yet many did just that for reasons having nothing to do with compromise or bipartisanship, but to satisfy their corporate campaign contributors.

Senate Democrats do have a wide range of views, from Barbara Boxer on the left to Ben Nelson on the right. That’s already an ideological gap that 30 years ago would have represented most of the difference between the most liberal Democrat and the most conservative Republican. Now that we have that kind of diversity in our caucus, we shouldn’t take another step right until the Republicans meet us halfway. After all, the trip from Boxer to Nelson is far enough, going from Boxer to Rick Santorum or John Kyl is just ludicrous.

Near the end of his defense of his brethren, Obama takes a page out of the President’s book, letting us know that being a Senator is hard work:

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives’ job. After all, it’s easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it’s harder to craft a foreign policy that’s tough and smart. It’s easy to dismantle government safety nets; it’s harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It’s easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it’s harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that’s our job.

It’s time for Obama and the rest of the Democrats in Washington to do their jobs, not come crying to bloggers because we are critical of votes that betray our goals and beliefs. Anyone looking here for silence when that happens should step away. Now.