Maureen Dowd wrote a Very Serious piece claiming that Obama failed to lead. I don't get that. Part of why I denigrate the piece as Serious as opposed to serious is because there's nothing at all specific in her criticism. She holds him responsible for the defeat but it's all about some mystical failure to provide Leadership.
The New York Times' Maureen Dowd ripped President Obama for failing to do enough on gun-control and said he "still has not learned how to govern."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/harry-reid-democrats-gun-control-90291.html#ixzz2R82Ao1lP
The New York Times' Maureen Dowd ripped President Obama for failing to do enough on gun-control and said he "still has not learned how to govern."
"President Obama has watched the blood-dimmed tide drowning the ceremony of innocence, as Yeats wrote, and he has learned how to emotionally connect with Americans in searing moments, as he did from the White House late Friday night after the second bombing suspect was apprehended in Boston," she writes in a column published Sunday. "Unfortunately, he still has not learned how to govern."
"Dowd argues that the president could have turned the support from 90 percent of Americans into 60 votes in the Senate for expanded background checks for gun buyers. But, she asserts, he didn't know how to work the system to do it, and what's more, "he doesn’t want to learn, or to even hire some clever people who can tell him how to do it or do it for him."
"She faults Obama for delivering soaring speeches and rhetoric when he could have been down in the trenches, persuading senators, one at a time, with whatever it took."
"The president said the Newtown families deserved a vote," Dowd writes. "But he was setting his sights too low. They deserved a law."
So the only tangible criticism seems to be that he didn't go to dinner with enough Republicans. He's actually tried to take this Very Serious Advice lately specifically on the sequester and many of the GOPers have rebuffed his overtures. I have no problem with him continuing to at least offer to do this if just to point out the lack of good faith from the GOP. We've been hearing that he's failed to go to dinner with them for years and when he tried it they dismissed it. Is Dowd claiming this was what sunk the bill? It's pretty thin gruel.
The explanation for the defeat seems to be that you can only do so many tough votes. Hedi Heitkamp who's been roundly criticized by many liberals is suggesting she would have voted for it if her vote would have made a difference.
There seems to be a theory of a a kind of Holy Trinity of tough issues: Senators feel they can't support immigration reform, gay marriage, and gun control all at the same time. Which seems strange as all three actually poll very well. One theory is that while they all may poll well the opponents are more intense at least on gun control.
In some ways Heitkamp seems even less courageous as she doesn't have to go up for election again until 2018. In any case, many liberals are calling her out including Bill Daley in a tough op-ed at the Washington Post. He says he contributed to her campaign in 2012 and feels betrayed. He's arguing that big liberal donors in NY, Chicago, and Los Angelos just say no to any Dems who voted the wrong way on this issue.
"Polling has shown that nine in 10 Americans and eight in 10 gun ownerssupport a law to require every buyer to go through a background check on every gun sale. In North Dakota, the support was even higher: 94 percent. Yet in explaining her vote, Heitkamp had the gall to say that she “heard overwhelmingly from the people of North Dakota” and had to listen to them and vote no. It seems more likely that sheheard from the gun lobby and chose to listen to it instead."
"Here in Chicago, we know how serious a problem gun violence is. Over Easter weekend, 25 people were shot in Chicago. Last year, more than 400 young people were shot in our city. Our mayor and police are working tirelessly to fight gun crime; over the past decade, the Chicago Police Department has taken 50,000 guns off the streets. But illegal gun traffickers don’t respect state lines, and easy access to firearms in other states helps fuel gun violence in Chicago."
"Instead of getting help from Washington, 45 senators seem determined to make it easy for criminals to get guns, no questions asked."
"And the truth is that gun violence is not just some big-city, blue-state problem. Which state has the country’s highest rate of death by gun? Alaska."
"Yet both Alaska senators — Democrat Mark Begich and Republican Lisa Murkowski — voted against expanding background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those so mentally ill that they are a danger to themselves or others."
"The other two Democrats who voted against background checks are Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana. Like Begich, they will be running for reelection next year. And no doubt they’ll come to Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and other cities looking for money to fuel their campaigns. These cities, of course, are also too often the destination for illegal guns flowing in from out of state."
"So I’ll have some advice for my friends in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles: Just say no to the Democrats who said no on background checks".
Many liberal groups are making Daley's argument and plan to target Red State Dems who voted against background checks. There are two ways of looking at the argument of HeidKamp and company that they would have voted for it if there were more votes. You can make that argument but there's also the composition problem: if all Senators on the fence make the same argument we fall short as we did. Had she and the other Democrats fallen in line the swing GOPers like Jeff Flake, Dean Heller, Lisa Mukowski or Kelly Ayotte may have found it easier to do.
Indeed, Jeff Flake has already gotten a lot of flak in Arizona for failing to support the bill.
For this reason, there is good reason for the Dems to continue to flag this issue and explains why Harry Reid plans to bring this up to another vote. It maybe that each vote against this will be harder and harder. As Reid argued, in the long term this stand against background checks will likely proved unsustainable.
"I’ve spoken with the president. He and I agree that the best way to keep working towards passing a background check bill is to hit a pause and freeze the background check bill where it is.”
"He said that would give gun control advocates more time to lobby Republican senators who voted against the legislation."
“It is only a matter of time… The stand of the Republicans is not sustainable,” Reid said. “It is a question of how long they’re going to stand firm, but it is not sustainable. I assure the 90 percent of Americans who support meaningful background checks. I’m going to continue this fight.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/harry-reid-democrats-gun-control-90291.html#ixzz2R82Ao1lP
Weird thing here is Baucus is retiring! So what gives with him? I'm so sick of this "won't lead" complaint. I'd like to see Dowd try to lead. It's almost like she's falling for the GOP strategy: block everything, and then blame what you're blocking for a "failure of government."
ReplyDeleteHere's a piece on what has become the standard GOP strategy, but this one regarding Obamacare:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/19/about-the-obamacare-train-wreck/
I see that Greg Sargent also called out Dowd this morning-called it the Green Lattern Theory of Political Leadership
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/23/the-morning-plum-the-green-lantern-theory-of-presidential-power/
What I think happened to Dowd is a process that Ezra Klein and Krugman in particular have described so well.
The Very Serious People (VSP) think to be a Serious person you have to criticize both sides roughly equally. As both sides aren't equally culpable-far from it-this leads often to some very weak and tendentious reaches.
KLein has admitted to falling victim to it before himself-though he has since the apalling performance of Ryan at the GOP Conference last September seen through it.
He said at the time that journalists basically have the choice in seeming fair or being fair.