For the last 3 years, Obama's critics have been clamoring that, if only he had been more bolder, aggressive, given more speeches, spoken out for more progressive policies, etc.. then surely we'd have better policies, a better economy, a better political outlook, more pie...
And perhaps this line of thinking was understandable since Obama repeatedly chose to follow a more conciliatory approach; after all, anyone can speculate about how things might be different without evidence that the alternative would have failed.
Such evidence, though, is now amply provided by the depressing article in today's NYT entitled Some Democrats are Balking at Obama's Job Bill
As the quoted portions below the fold make clear, the central problem has never been Obama, but the lack of strong, progressive Democrats.
Initially, let's be clear that for the past week (at least), Obama has essentially been doing everything his critics have wanted.
He proposed a jobs bill stronger than anyone expected.
He gave a speech that even made Krugman happy.
He followed that up with rallies in enemy territory, such as Eric Cantor's district and John Boehner's town.
He directly took Republicans to task for placing their own interests above the country's interests.
So where did that get him?
From the article:
“I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation,” Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said in an interview Wednesday, joining a growing chorus of Democrats who prefer an à la carte version of the bill despite White House resistance to that approach. “For that reason alone I think we should break it up.”
Republicans have focused their attack on the tax increases that would help pay for the spending components of the bill. But Democrats, as is their wont, are divided over their objections, which stem from Mr. Obama’s sinking popularity in polls, parochial concerns and the party’s chronic inability to unite around a legislative initiative, even in the face of Republican opposition.
Some are unhappy about the specific types of companies, particularly the oil industry, that would lose tax benefits. “I have said for months that I am not supporting a repeal of tax cuts for the oil industry unless there are other industries that contribute,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana.
A small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses. “I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”
His voice rising to a near shriek, he added: “We have the economy that tax cuts give us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it? The president is in a box.”
“I have serious questions about the level of spending that President Obama proposed,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat from West Virginia, in a statement issued right after Mr. Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress last week.
Senator Kay Hagan declined on Wednesday to say her support for the bill that Mr. Obama spent the day promoting in her state was indubitable. “We’ve got to have legislation that is supported by Democrats and Republicans,” she said. “I’m going to have to look at it. “
Representative Heath Shuler, another North Carolina Democrat, said Congress should tame the deficit before approving new spending for job programs. “The most important thing is to get our fiscal house in order,” said Mr. Shuler, a leader of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition. “Then we can talk about other aspects of job creation.”
Now, I am not suggesting or arguing that Obama was correct previously when he struck a conciliatory tone, nor am I claiming that he is incorrect now in adopting a fighting persona.
But I think this article exposes the lie that Obama has been the only, or even the primary, problem.
*********
QUICK UPDATE:
I just noticed a couple of other posts, discussing this topic.
From Steve Benen, With Friends Like These...
And from Jonathan Cohn, Conservative Democrats Strike Again
Both posts contain additional quotes from Dems, undermining Obama's job plan.