Mr. "Center Right" Speaks: "Obama Agrees With Me"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:43:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I am going to try and coin a new phrase - "High WORM" - a mixture of "High Broderism" and WORM (What Obama Reallly Meant.) Jon Meacham, Mr. Center Right hisself, shows us how it is done:

[I]f Obama governs as he ran—from the center—then there will be disappointed liberals and conservatives. The left may feel somehow cheated, and the right, eager to launch perpetual assaults on the new administration, could well find Obama as elusive and frustrating as the opposition found Reagan.

Hmmm. Reagan was a Centrist was he? Good to know. But seriously, what Meacham is saying is that Obama agrees with him. Never mind Obama's actual proposals - I defy you to find even one mention of Obama's statements on his plans for the country (and I could have sworn I saw a whole 30 minute infomercial broadcast nationwide a few days before the election, not to mention the standard Obamabot line - "check his website') - Mr. Center Right knows what Obama really meant. Just remember the rule - no matter what, progressives always lose.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Mandate: Dems Need Not Apply | Boehner Rejects Bipartisanship >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Mr. "Center Right" Speaks: "Obama Agrees With Me" | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ladies and Gentlemen, (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by dk on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:53:35 PM EST

Nancy Pelosi:

The country must be governed from the middle," Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Wednesday. "You have to bring people together to reach consensus on solutions that are sustainable and acceptable to the American people.

Now Meacham is obviously a fool, but do we really have to pretend like the centrist talk (centrist defined as to the right of liberal) is really just a media construct?

What more evidence does Pelosi need ... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM EST

that Americans want progressive leadership?

Do we have to all line up and tell her personally?


Oh man, I've decided I don't care what they (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Teresa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:08:09 PM EST

call it as long as it is progressive. I'm "hoping" they are just trying to fake out people who are scared of the liberal label and still put in the right policies.

I just don't get giving up before the fight.


: Giving up before the fight (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by joanneleon on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:15:26 PM EST

I don't get that either. Reluctantly, I've come to the conclusion that the dem leadership prefers ruling from the middle. None of the dem leaders are progressive -- not even close.. I believe they now feel that they have two years of free rein to do things the way they like. The only time they worry about anything is right before an election. And clearly they don't worry too much about it then either, given the votes on the behemoth bailout.
The fact that we are going to continue with the same party leadership in Congress is a travesty. This election was won in spite of them, not because of them.

: I'm "hoping" with you (none / 0) (#38)
by sj on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:33:49 AM EST

but I don't have much of it. They gave up before the fight right after the midterm elections. I see no reason to expect different behavior now.
If that's what she said, then I believe that's what she'll do. Remember: there was absolutely no reason to even bring up the FISA vote last summer. She's not trying to fake out a soul.
I remember the elation when she was elected Minority Leader because she was from a liberal district and wouldn't have the positioning vs. district leaning problems that Daschle (and Reid, actually) did. I knew nothing about her before that but I have learned that when she says she's going to push nothing, I should believe her.

I agree with Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by cpa1 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:22:54 PM EST

We must be governed from the middle BUT the middle must learn and take their responsibilities seriously. The middle can no more be gullible to the hate and fear mongers of the Republican Party. We are labeled as liberal but most of us are a lot more middle than we think. Some think the liberals are people who hate corporations and still think Nader did the right thing. They aren't liberal they are a___holes.

To me liberal means a fair chance or liberally anyone should have the chance to have what everyone else has. The plutocracy is not the middle, they are noblemen, the sheiks, the sheriffs of Nottingham. We must make liberal define most of us because it does.

Merkley went ahead of Gordon Smith for the Oregon Senate seat and I am very encouraged by the Lane County Map with a 58 to 38% for Merkley with about 100,000 votes to go.


: The Portalnd Oregonian Agrees With Me. (none / 0) (#31)
by cpa1 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:02:54 PM EST

Oregonian projection: Merkley defeats Smith to take U.S. Senate seat
Here is the link. That get's us to 57.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/elections/2008/11/ussenate.html

There is nothing wrong (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:27:29 PM EST

with rhetorically claiming the center. It's what you do that matters.


Well, if past experience is (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by dk on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:30:36 PM EST

any indication of future performance, I think we know what she means. But if you think by consensus she is talking about consensus between Barney Frank and Barbara Lee, I stand in awe of your optimism.


Sigh (none / 0) (#12)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:40:20 PM EST

The point is that she was talking, not doing. It's smart politics for her to claim the center.


Well, I submit it's only talking, not doing, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by dk on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:42:28 PM EST

if one things she is only talking and not planning to do what she is talking about.


In either case (none / 0) (#22)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:27:21 PM EST

it's still just talking.

If you believe Nancy Pelosi is going to advance a centrist agenda, you probably would have believed it even if she had made the statement. So the statement isn't what you're upset about, it's the agenda that you believe she has.

I believe it's smarter to criticize for actions as opposed to mere words that happen to be smart politics anyway.


But her actions over the past two years (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by sallywally on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:57:52 PM EST

have not been very encouraging, have they?


No (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:28:48 PM EST

but I am generally less harsh on Pelosi than the blogosphere at large. She has a tough job, leading a caucus that is considerably less liberal than she is.

I do think the next two years are put up or shut up time, in that we can't expect to be awarded a third straight election simply by being non-Republicans. From my reading of the tea leaves, Reid and Pelosi are happy to stand by and let Obama set the agenda, so let's hope he has a good agenda.


: Thanks for your thoughts. (none / 0) (#30)
by sallywally on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:57:55 PM EST

I hope you're right, and I'm sure you know more about Pelosi than I do. I always appreciate your comments.

: Just curious: (none / 0) (#39)
by sj on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:38:01 AM EST

How do you know that the caucus is less liberal than she herself is? I keep coming back to the unnecessary FISA vote and the unenforced, unused subpoena power. She seemed perfectly fine caving after writing a Sternly Worded Letter.
In any case, she doesn't strike me as liberal at all. Although her district is.

Reaching consensus (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by ruffian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:48:02 PM EST

is partly a function of educating those who are not on your side from the start, and shifting the consensus closer to your side. There are persuasive arguments to be made for tax increases, for example. I hope Pelosi means she is willing to make that effort and not just draw a compromise line in the sand between the two sides of every issue.


There is no governing from the middle. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Jake Left on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:52:44 PM EST

It's called running from the middle. If we start with namby pamby, lets-all-get-along, across the aisle, joining hands, middle-of-the-road, half assed attempts to keep on doing what we always have done, then he is not governing. He is running for 2012.

Meachem - aaargh (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by ruffian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:56:02 PM EST

The left did not find it hard to attack Reagan. And the people that supported him knew it - they did not pretend to be centrists. They were proud to be pulling the country to the right. At least that is how I remember it.

And the right now does not find it hard to attack Obama, since they are not constrained by facts. They are already calling him a socialist, for gods sake. Meachem and Broder always ignore that aspect of the right wing smear machine - it is fact free. No matter how centrist Obama's views are, he will be attacked as being a leftist.

Progressives always lose is right.

: I left out a sentence (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by ruffian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:58:40 PM EST

Reagan was admittedly, unabashedly conservative. Never acted like a centrist.

It's 1929, not 1932 (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by esmense on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:04:29 PM EST

The Washington establishment is not desperate enough -- yet -- to try anything really new.

: Maybe we should freeze their accounts (none / 0) (#27)
by nycstray on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:05:19 PM EST

and put them all on notice? {grin}

Well...all is not grim (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by ajain on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:19:42 PM EST

I just read this piece on the Hillary's new role in Time and I'm sure most people will be happy to read this:

While there are already those who are arguing that Obama's ambitious and expensive health-care-reform effort will have to wait until the economy is in better shape, Clinton disagrees. "I'm going to make the case that it's important to move simultaneously on several fronts. I know how difficult that is. But a new President has a honeymoon period," she said. "I hope that we're going to really make progress on health care right off the bat with a new Congress. There are a lot of different ways of doing that." One campaign is over for Clinton, but another has just begun.

She's back. (none / 0) (#32)
by sallywally on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:05:08 PM EST

Wonderful!


: She's been back since June (none / 0) (#33)
by nycstray on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:12:22 PM EST

she's got a lot of irons in the fires there.

If we have "to lose" ... (none / 0) (#1)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:49:47 PM EST

this isn't a bad way to do it.

And if we "lose" every election this way, I'll be very, very happy.

Not a bad way to lose it? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Pepe on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:21:36 PM EST

I often wonder what people are thinking here. Is Rob Porter a Progressive? I don't know but if he thinks things are going swell on day one post-election my guess is he is not a Progressive.

Case in point, Obama just picked Rahm for his CoS and is looking to install some former Clinton appointees who along with Rahm ushered in NAFTA. What real progressive could be happy with that?

In addition to NAFTA I just found this writen by David Sirota in September of this year:

I thought the House Democratic Caucus Chairman was a position whose mission is to help elect more Democrats, so that Democrats can do more things Democrats promise to do. According to Inside U.S. Trade, I'm wrong.
Here's the snippet:

"Among the House Democratic leadership, Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) is actively advocating that Democrats would be better off having the votes on pending [free trade agreements] this year for a number of reasons, sources said. They said that one of the reasons Emanuel cites is that there are likely more Republican members in this Congress than there will be in the next, which would mean that fewer Democrats would have to take a potentially divisive trade vote now."
Correct: Emanuel -- one of the original architects of NAFTA -- wants congressional Democrats to pass controversial NAFTAs with Colombia, South Korea and Panama right now, so as to avoid inevitably STRONGER opposition from his own party in the next Congress.
To really fathom how incredible this is, understand that Emanuel -- the Democratic leader -- is effectively acting as the House Republican whip. He's saying that he wants these bills up for a vote because there are enough Republican votes right now in the House to pass it over current Democratic objections -- and there won't be enough GOP votes in the next Congress.

Pretty remarkable. Rahm wanted to use the existion GOP to pass trade agreements in fear that a new congress with less GOP could not pass them.

So it appears that Free Trade, a Progressive no-no, is alive and well in the Obama administration. It will be interesting to see how many here get upset with that. This type of thing will separate the real Progressives from the Obamabots.


Not really a surprise (5.00 / 4) (#23)
by joanneleon on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:28:50 PM EST

Obama waffled on the free trade issues all through the primaries. His economic advisors were an indicator of how he would govern. However, after the primary, and really beginning at the convention, Obama took on a populist tone, and began talking more about trade and outsourcing jobs, etc. But this was pretty much a new position for him, and he clearly did it to get the blue collar votes that he found were critical to him after all.

Now it remains to be seen which economic Obama we will see come January. Personally, I think we're more likely to see the former than the latter. Hopefully the Democrats will, if they are going to forge ahead with these trade agreements, find some way to make them more fair and less destructive to our middle class and to this country's ability to actually produce things.

This is an historic election, and it is a great thing, but fundamentally, this party is just not that much betrer than the Republicans on some issues, like trade. I hope people take to the streets when the trade deals come up.

And... Rahm is such a disappointing choice, for a whole lot of reasons.


: The large question looms-- (none / 0) (#34)
by hookfan on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 01:37:22 AM EST

What will be the Democratic response to the disaster that Bush capitalism has wrought? Will it be a time to clean it up or to clean up on it?

flashback (none / 0) (#10)
by EricRick on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:34:30 PM EST

I apologize for posting a comment off-topic. But I think one of the great qualities of a blogger is the ability to recognize his/ her own errors.

Do you have anything to say about this prediction you made in August, Big Tent Democrat? What was that story about Obama's only chance in Florida having to do with to picking Hillary as VP?

What happened on September 14? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:39:43 PM EST

Obama barely won Florida as it is. My point was right at the time unless you wanted me to know the economic meltdown would occur on September 14.

In addition, Palin hurt McCain in Florida.


flashback (none / 0) (#21)
by EricRick on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:20:10 PM EST

Thanks for the reply, Big Tent. But it would still be worth pointing out that "at the time" you didn't make a point about what was going to happen at that time. You made a prediction about what was going to happen on Nov. 4.

It would be a nice gesture to go back to that post -- and to a lot of things that you all posted during the primaries -- and acknowledge some of the errors.

This is it, I won't post again. Cheers and let's celebrate!


I just told you it was not an error (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:37:51 PM EST

Unless not anticipating the Wall Street meltdown counts as an error.

If you are not going to read my reply, why ask for it?


Obama has one chance to win Florida, pick Hillary (none / 0) (#35)
by EricRick on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 03:34:01 AM EST

looks pretty darn obviously like an error to me, in the light of last night's results.

But if you want to continue pretending that that's not what you wrote, fine. The archives are there.


: Today I am not in a good mood (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 07:10:52 AM EST

I guess I should have considered the possibility that McCain could have died as well.
I do not need the likes of you in my threads.
Please stick to Jeralyn and TChris' threads and stay out of mine.

I felt that way too (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by ruffian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:42:29 PM EST

until the housing meltdown got traction in September. That changed the entire landscape in FL, which along with CA, is ground zero for foreclosures and plummeting home values, not to mention retirement funds. All previous predictions were inoperative after that.


: And don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by joanneleon on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:31:21 PM EST

that both Clintons worked in Florida for Obama.