Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

HEAD TO HEAD: Who can win the general?

We interrupt the media love fest with Barack Obama, at the expense of our Democratic
ideals, to bring you some salient facts.

Politico.com
has quite an enlightening article up today on Mr. Obama in his pre meteoric
political phase of his life. His unknown phase reveals a hard core liberal.
However, when compared to the presidential version, I must say he’s hardly recognizable. The politics of convenience in action.

Primary voters are deeply involved with considering Mr. Obama as never before.
That’s as it should be. David Mizner over at MyDD (also see Eriposte over at The Left Coaster, and Tom Watson) has some thoughts on this very issue today as well. But let’s consider that he’s chosen as our general
election candidate, which has to be taken into consideration at this point. Reading the article on Politico.com and Mr. Obama’s responses
to questions in the affirmative or negative, without using the available space
to explain his views, I’ve got to submit that this could get ugly. That
is unless the Obama of today can explain the liberal views of yesterday, which
are down for all to read. I’d ask why Obama walked away from his liberal leanings,
but that’s just too easy.

Channeling Tom Schaller, I have to ask, how do Democrats win the general election without the west? Answer: we can’t.
Of course, I say this with all due respect for the south. So if you want to
go there, think about the ways we can and can’t win over voters in the south.
I contend Mr. Obama has found the one way in which we not only will lose the
west and the south, but will likely take us down all across the midwest.

Hold on to your hopes, audacity just straggled them:

Filling out a 12-page questionnaire [part 1 of questionnaire, part 2 of questionnaire] from an Illinois voter group as he sought a state Senate seat in 1996, Obama answered “yes” or “no” — without using the available space to calibrate his views — on some of the most emotional and politically potent issues that a public official can confront. “Do you support … capital punishment?” one question asked. “No,” the 1996 Obama campaign typed, without explaining his answer in the space provided. “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions. “Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer. … ..

Are you hearing the same negative general election campaign ad by Republicans
that I am? Barack Obama, he will take away your guns! Relauch the finally dead
cultural question about Democrats and firearms. I’ll have to hide this post
from my husband because he will go berserk and he’s further left than I am at
this point, but he believes in the 2nd Amendment. Guess what, most westerners
do. Come to think of it so do southerners, most midwesterners… ugh, this is painful.

Of course, Mr. Obama no longer holds these beliefs about guns. I know, you’re
shocked. But if that doesn’t get you this one sure will.

Obama said he would support a single-payer health plan for Illinois “in principal” [sic], “although such a program will probably have to be instituted at a federal level; the long-term objective would be a universal care system that does not differentiate between the unemployed, the disabled, and so on.” The campaign says Obama has consistently supported single payer health care in principle.

Single-payer health plan? It’s Dennis Kucinich. And Mr. Obama is carping at
Hillary about mandates? His prior beliefs actually include the mother of all
mandates. Oh, but Mr. Obama doesn’t believe in it today. He just believes in
a single-payer health plan on “principal” (sic).

By the looks of these questionaires, Mr. Obama hasn’t met a principle he wouldn’t
switch for a wider audience with the electorate.

My favorite paragraph is compliments the writers, Mike Allen and Ben Smith:

The questionnaire, which was provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign, raises questions of whether Obama can be painted as too liberal and whether he is insufficiently consistent.

Insufficiently consistent.

Are you all feeling the love yet?

The campaign responds within the Allen-Smith article:

For instance, Obama says he supports the death penalty in limited circumstances, such as an especially heinous crime. The campaign says Obama has consistently supported the death penalty “in principle” and opposed it “in practice.” On handguns, his campaign said he has consistently been for “common-sense limits, but not banning” throughout his 11-year political career.

Delicious. Mr. Obama “consistently supported the death penalty ‘IN PRINCIPLE’
and opposed it ‘IN PRACTICE.’ How clear. How perfectly, well, groovy for the
the other guys. As for the banning of all handguns, he was for banning before
he was against it.

Someone hand me an icepack, because I think I’m going to faint.

Enter David Axelrod:

“His views are very much in the mainstream of the Democratic Party,” said chief strategist David Axelrod, who has known Obama since 1992 and worked with him since 2002. “There are some issues on which he’s probably viewed more conservatively. He’s been a consistent voice on issues of, for example, parental responsibility and pushed those hard, because he believes in them.” … .. … But Obama’s history is that he’s been progressive and pragmatic and been able to work with both sides of the aisle and people across the ideological spectrum to get things done,” Axelrod said. “He comes to the table with a point of view, but he’s not dogmatic or rigid. He’s willing to compromise on details without sacrificing his principles.”

Oh, good Lord. Progressive and pragmatic? I’m dizzy over the dissembling.

Note to David: You can’t be a liberal in the late 1990s, with your views on
paper for all to see, sans explanations, then say you’re candidate is “viewed
more conservatively” today without providing a laugh track, especially
when you use words like “progressive” and “pragmatic” together
in the same phrase.

Oh, and one more thing from the same article.

“Do you support … any other restrictions on abortions?” the questionnaire asked. “No,” Obama wrote. The “other” was a reference to an earlier question about “parental consent/notification for minors seeking abortions.” Obama wrote that he did not. Obama’s campaign said that is his current view and that he has never voted to restrict access to abortions.

Back in Barack’s liberal days he made declarative statements on matters of
a woman’s civil rights. No. Period. “Present” didn’t come to mind.
But when he started playing politics, all of a sudden giving conservatives cover
became important and he started hedging his principles with “present.”

Obama’s lack of ideology has bothered me from the start. Now comes a questionaire
that outlines his earlier ideology as a die hard liberal. Single-payer health
care plans. Banning handguns, which takes my gun owner’s breath away. No restrictions
on abortions and no parental notification for minors. Where is that Obama today?

Triangulating to beat fellow, er… liberals… progressives. I’m so confused.

The Obama campaign can try to walk away from these nuggets the Politico.com
found. But you can bet the Republicans won’t. In the general election Barack
Obama will get creamed on negative ads and so will we, not only for having liberal views, but for flip flopping
on them. Imagine our congressional candidates in conservative districts running with a handgun banning general election candidate. The worst of it is that many of the views resurrect battles Democrats
have fought, won or made peace with to move on to better, more winnable ground. Banning handguns?
Here we go again.

One more thing to consider. The Republicans haven’t even gotten started on Mr. Obama, though they sure will cranking after today. As for Clinton, they’ve done all the negative ads, the swiftboating and caricatures that can be done. The books have been written, rehashed and regurgitated, with this year’s screeds all sinking. There’s nowhere else to go on Clinton. They’ll have to run against her policy ideas, which won’t be easy unless Democrats buy into the wingnut spin. With Barack Obama, the fun has barely begun.

No tags for this post.