Appears the MSM may be awakening from its Ryan/teabagger stupor to recognize the discontent on the left. On today's Washington Post frontpage:
President Obama faces a growing rebellion on the left as he courts independent voters and Republicans with his vision for reducing the nation’s debt by cutting government spending and restraining the costs of federal health insurance programs.
Key liberal groups, which helped elect Obama in 2008, are raising concerns that he has given up political ground to Republicans, allowing the message of reducing government to trump that of creating jobs and lowering the unemployment rate.
Seizing on Friday’s deal, which would cut $38.5 billion from the fiscal 2011 budget, activists on Tuesday threatened to sit out the 2012 presidential campaign if Obama goes too far with further cuts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
The clash over government spending — coming as Obama prepares to make a major speech on fiscal discipline Wednesday — is the latest example of the frayed relations between the president and a broad coalition of union and activist groups.
. . . .
Those frustrations have followed dismay on the left over Obama’s health-care law and December’s tax deal with Republicans — not to mention elements of the administration’s foreign and trade policy.
The liberal activist group MoveOn.org, whose vast membership mobilized for Obama’s election in 2008, issued an e-mail blast to members Tuesday decrying the president’s deal with the GOP last week and the prospect that he might embrace some of his deficit commission’s ideas on deficit reduction.
Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn, said many of its 5 million members “worked their guts out” to help elect Obama. But, after the recent string of dealmaking with the GOP and the president’s apparent willingness to compromise on entitlements, he said the base could well stay home in 2012.
“If the president and the Democrats don’t stand up to Republicans, I don’t see people coming out and doing the work that it would take to get them elected,” Ruben said. “If they came out to vote, these diehards might vote for the president, but whether they open their wallets and their hearts and their address books and hit the pavement, that’s a totally different thing.”
A liberal group called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee on Tuesday said that more than 60,000 liberals responded to an e-mail by committing not to donate to Obama’s reelection campaign if he cuts Medicare or Medicaid.
Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research, said Obama has apparently “abandoned” his earlier view that increased spending was needed to stimulate the economy. And that suggests he may look for a bargain on entitlements.
“If he feels like the path of least resistance is to cut a deal, even if that means unwinding Medicare and substantial cuts to Social Security, I think he might do that,” Baker said.
The public option was strike one. The Bush tax cuts were strike two. If Obama caves on privatizing Medicare, turning Medicaid totally over the states, taxes, and excessive budget cuts, that will be strike three. A lot is riding for him on today's speech and, perhaps more importantly, on the followup, or lack thereof. Progressives understood the constraints Obama is under, but they also have seen is total lack of fight on a whole array of issues, and his, too often, willingness to cave when push comes to shove. Enough is enough. And an embrace of the catfood's commission chairmen's recommendations as his negotiating position would be more than enough.
Maybe he thinks progressives will be with him in the end no matter what. Maybe he thinks he can live without their money and campaign support. But he better not take their votes for granted. And if he is thinking of doing so, I suggest he speak to President Gore and Vice-President Lieberman.