Democrats’ “Coming Rift?” or a Spreading One?

Commentary magazine’s Abe Greenwald writes about the “Coming Rift” in the Democratic Party. There’s some interesting stuff here, but I’d say — wouldn’t you? — that he is actually months late. But no matter.

Greenwald talks about how the netroots that helped propel Obama to the White House may be feeling betrayed by the moves of the transition and the likely policies of an Obama administration.

Greenwald notes that the left and many other Americans desperately want the Iraq war ended but that Obama has signaled that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

. . . There’s the Iraq War. A December Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 7 in 10 voters believed that Obama “should fulfill his campaign promise to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months.” If that figure represents the average voter, we can safely assume that more than 70 percent of Democratic voters supported this sentiment. But as Eli Lake argued in an indispensable New Republic article from Christmas Eve, “For all the talk of withdrawal and timetables, however, nothing like that is likely to happen.”

What is likely to happen is that President Obama will stick to the ratified status of forces agreement, keeping troops in Iraq for three more years and allowing for a renegotiation which will probably keep troops there a good deal longer, if not indefinitely. This likelihood is, of course, of a piece with Obama’s choice to stick with George W. Bush’s last Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Greenwald also notes that Obama’s LGBT supporters have been surprised.

There’s gay marriage. In October, Michelle Obama stood before a gay and lesbian Chicago audience and said, “I feel like I’m preaching to the choir because you know Barack’s record” on “issues of interest to the LGBT community.” Maybe they didn’t know as much as the future first lady assumed. Between the President-elect’s previously ignored stand against gay marriage, Proposition 8 support from a key Obama voting bloc, and his scheduling of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his presidential inauguration, the liberal gay community isn’t quite sure what hit it.

And, speaking of economics, Obama isn’t drifting left there either.

On the economic front, what Larry Kudlow deems “a pleasant surprise” has the spread-the-wealth crowd in a tizzy. The punitive tax hike on the “rich” that Obama spoke about throughout the campaign is on hold, while a program of new business tax cuts and personal tax credits has been offered in its place.

So, Greenwald asks, how does Obama get the drooling support of the left and then practically turn his back on them after the voting is done?

Open-ended global instability has made certain that the U.S. will stick to the most vital Bush national security positions. Similarly, economic uncertainty requires the continuation of the Bush tax cuts and the indefinite postponement of pie-in-the-sky entitlements. Despite the campaign scraps thrown to the left-wing chorus and the sham apologetics offered to the international community, many liberal policies have been temporarily rendered non-starters. But if Democratic leaders are resigned to the judicious employment of conservative principles, and Democratic voters are not, where is the party heading?

It’s hard to say, but it can’t hurt to look at how this gap came about. One place to start is with the netroots. The runaway train of preposterous (and liberal) expectations that delivered Barack Obama into the White House first gained speed as a runaway train full of preposterous accusations against George W. Bush. With their cartoonish demonization of every Bush policy and associate, groups like the Daily Kos and Moveon.org made it impossible for any liberal with a web browser to give a single conservative policy a fair shake. Barack Obama’s exploitation and mobilization of this online hysteria made for an unstoppable campaign, but also for an illusory state of political affairs. Democratic politicians, President-elect Obama included, always knew better than the frenzied multitude that voted in “change.” But the netroots were duped as a result of their own momentum.

Greenwald ends by saying that if the Democratic party isn’t going to fracture completely, the left needs to rethink and reach out. Yeah. That’ll happen. We have long talked about the difference between what the Bots seem to think Obama will do and what he has clearly done. We’ve also long predicted that salivating supporters will be disappointed.

Back in July, SusanUnPC said this after discussing Obama’s flip-flops on public campaign funds, FISA, Iraq and other positions.

Look. The only “change” anyone can believe that Barack Obama will act on is any finger-to-the-wind “change” that helps him achieve his SOLE goal: Winning.

He is not abandoning his principles because he doesn’t have any that he holds dear.

Medusa and Bud White also covered Obama switches in June.

Two-faced? Hypocritical? Or showing his true colors? Last week Barack Obama made 180 degree turns on three previous positions he had taken in order to seduce liberal Democrats. In an article entitled “For Obama, winning is everything“, Michael Tomasky writes of these changes, claiming that:

It’s acceptable – and necessary – for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected.

————–
The second liberal principal Obama sacrificed in the space of one week is his decision to support a bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity. Only last year Obama promised to filibuster the bill but instead, in a stomach-lurching turn to the right, he gave his support to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. . .
—————–
As Michael Tomasky writes, most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, so when Obama joined in with the most conservative minority of the supreme court justices to support the death penalty in the case of the rape of a child, he turned more right than many from the right wing, causing many of his supporters to doubt their support.
—————–
Indeed, there is an emerging narrative — not just in the blogosphere — that Obama is two-faced. Unlike the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper, this narrative is born out of Obama’s own actions; no windsurfing imagery is necessary, even the big blogs are beginning to see that Obama has no core values and that he suddenly shifts positions and rhetoric to suit his needs.

Does anyone remember the kerfluffle back in March about NAFTA and Canada when an Obama staffer told Canadian officials that campaign statements to the contrary notwithstanding, Obama would continue to support NAFTA? NQ covered it then.

That was Larry Johnson’s response tonight when I showed him the New York Times/A.P. story just published that confirms what the Obama camp has scurried away from: That Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee contacted officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago and assured them that they should not worry about Obama’s remarks about NAFTA. Goolsbee, reported national Canadian media giant CTV.ca, “said that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric.”

The A.P. has obtained the actual memorandum produced by the Canadian consulate as a record of its meeting.

Then there was Obama’s flip on the Energy bill (from March).

But it’s that last part that gave me a chuckle because, well, Senator Obama has been FAR from consistent on trade policy or hardly any policy at all. In fact he makes stuff up that sounds really good to his adoring fans, he even puts out commercials touting his strong support for workers in need. But when one examines his “consistent” record there is indeed a consistency there, but it is the type of consistency that is inconsistent and is more than a little troubling. In fact you might say that his rhetoric and his actions are two entirely different things as this recent NAFTAgate scandal is making very clear. the guy talks a good game, but when it comes to actually taking action he is missing in action.
—————–
The first example the American people experienced of Senator Obama’s post-partisan working across the aisle approach was on July, 29 2005. On that fateful day Senator Obama voted YEA to the Dick Cheney behind closed doors Energy Policy Act of 2005. The same so-called Energy Policy that offered HUGE giveaways to the oil companies and special interests. I’m sure you have heard Senator Obama on the stump claiming:

Washington’s failure is the failure of a president who spent most of his time in office denying the very existence of global warming – of a Vice President who developed America’s energy policy with a secret task force that opened the door to oil lobbyists and then shut it to every other point of view.

To anyone paying attention, Obama loooonnggg ago signaled that he would move away from any lefty position after supporters were already dialed in. Months ago, the left were “outraged” by Obama’s stance on FISA, Iraq, LGBT issues, NAFTA, economic policies, the death penalty, etc. Pick one.

We covered all that then and realized the pattern was that his statements on these issues DID NOT MATTER. All the people expecting huge change from Obama would be disappointed, we warned. Support the guy if you will, but don’t be fooled we said. Time and again.

So, pardon us if we don’t quite feel your pain now. We got inoculated quite a while ago to the “Obama promise.” And that “coming rift” Greenwald talks about? Well, some form of it has long been noticeable, from the PUMA movement to Democrats for McCain to the post prop 8 LGBT community to people who felt the Democratic party left them.

The rift has long been there, but the Democratic party has simply sailed on, assuming the people it jerks around have no where else to go. So, all you women, LGBT, civil libertarians and whomever else feels they got skunked, just take it and go away.

Unless you’ve got another idea.

————————————–

A Smattering of NQ articles on Obama switches:

Obama Chooses Evangelist Rick Warren to Deliver Inaugural Invocation – or Let’s Watch Some Heads Explode

Post Informercial bits and lots of other quibbles
Obama’s infomercial.

Jesse Jackson suggests Obama owes him and that many US policies will change under Obama – notably toward Israel.
Jackson – Obama Foreign Policy Includes Apologies and less “Jewish Clout”

If you are interested in what the Brits thought about possible Obama policies before the election, read this article from October.
Sir Nigel Sheinwald on Senator Obama

RRRA noted Obama flip-flops back in September
It Was Only a Matter of Time

Back in August, we noted (see #3 in the story) that some Obama supporters felt alienated at the convention.
How Does Obama Attack a White Woman in the Post OJ Era – Part Deux

Ani mentioned old as new again back in August.
Obama: Old Politics Dressed Up in a Shiny New Suit

Medusa wrote about Backtrack Obama and flip flops on Iraq
The Clowns of the Circus: Flip Flops and Shenanigans

Susan wrote a GREAT piece on Obama backtracking back in JULY. This piece discusses Obama’s switches on wiretapping, accepting public campaign financing funds, and other changes.
Even the New York Times Editorial Board Turns on Obama

Larry had a few things to say about Obama and Iraq back in July.
Obama, The Fast Change Bamboozler

Medusa also talked about Obama’s wanting to have it all ways.
Obama’s Two Faces and Forked Tongue

NQ noticed back in April that Obama’s support of the LGBT community was less than soulful.
Open Letter to all LGBT Community Members and Supporters