Before you throw donuts at my head, I don't mean morally or philosophically. I mean he did a better job getting his programs through Congress than Obama has. The Republicans never -- I mean never -- had the majority that the Democrats presently have, even with Brown now winning a GOP Senate seat in Massachusetts. They still rammed through law after law and appointment after appointment proposed by Bush through Congress and into national policy, disastrous policy although it proved to be. So what is the problem here. Why is Obama a toothless tiger compared to Bush? I think the answer lies in the selection of Rahm Emmanuel as Whitehouse Chief of Staff.
One clear difference in the past and present effectiveness of the parties is that the GOP consistently votes as a unit while the Democrats -- blue dogs vs yellow dogs -- have been doing anything but with the exception of their final votes for cloture. The GOP, during the Bush administrations, managed to bring this nation to its knees and into endless war with its ability to pass legislation with a weak majority while the Democrats, with far more sensible programs, can't manage to pass vital improvements like health care reform, environmental or banking reform with a stronger majority. The nation watches while corporate interests act on our elected Democrats to have them water down good legislation until it serves their corporate masters. A good example of this is how the proposed health care reform has been turned into a gravy boat program for the private health insurance companies. The public reaction is an understandable one. This isn't what we wanted, they vote. They'll vote that way more and end gridlock by putting the GOP back in charge. That, to my mind, is akin to purposely steering the ship of state into an iceberg. We can't let it happen.
I've spoken to friends about the Massachusetts election. The first thing that comes to my mind is how this election didn't have to be. Up until Kerry ran for President in 2004, in the event of a Senator or Congressperson not being able to complete their term, the governor would appoint a place holder until the next regular election. Fears that when Kerry won, Mitt Romney, the GOP Governor would get to appoint a Republican senator, caused the Democratic led state house to put in a law requiring a special election. That was 2004, folks. This is 2010. There was lots of chance to change that law between then and now. The second thing about the election results I spoke of was that the good news was that this rout happened in a special election and there is still time to turn things around before the mid term elections. All my friends, and many of them are party activists, expressed little optimism that what was needed to return the party to effectiveness would be done.
We can talk about Democrats being more interested in self preservation and promotion than putting through good national policy but I have a hard time believing that Republicans are less self interested than Democrats. So I'm going to let the individuals off the hook and blame the leadership. I don't think there is any question that Obama is smarter than Bush so I won't blame Obama except when it comes to his appointments. Here, I blame Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's chief of staff. I think it is time to put him out to pasture if we are to have an effective Democratic Administration. Yes, Obama chose him and here I think Obama made a serious error. But it isn't an error that can't be undone.
Emmanuel represents the old Democratic Party. He has shown time and time again that he believes that party money and party power should be closely guarded and centralized. His tendency is to see contracts and money given to the insiders rather than to the most effective. He was strongly opposed to Howard Dean's 50 state strategy as he felt that the DCCC money should only be distributed to candidates he felt had the best chance. He was proven wrong when many candidates backed heavily by the DCCC lost while candidates backed by new state organizations paid for by the DNC with Dean in charge won in areas where Democrats were believed unelectable. Dean having proven himself right was reacted to by Emmanuel as reason for further not liking Dean. A leader who scorns effectiveness in order to maintain their own ego is a leader unlikely to do the best that can be done. I think this ego centric weakness has been apparent throughout Emmanuel's selections for important staff positions from the cabinet level on down.
Emmanuel also sides with big business more often than not. How else to explain the appointments that so clearly link the Democrats with the old, corrupt style rather than the change we voted in and crave.
We need the Democratic wing of the Democratic party so clearly represented by Dean rather than Emmanuel. Between fake conservatives and real conservatives, those who want to elect real conservatives will bypass the Democratic fake every time. We need leaders who believe in Democratic values and who will fight to make them law.
By rights Dean and Emmanuel should be working together and bolstering each others strengths and weaknesses but Emmanuel won't work with Dean. Dean is the stronger leader. Of course, this all comes down to Obama. He made this selection and only he can change it. Either he will go down as a weak, ineffectual leader who failed to bring the change he promised to Washington, DC or he will learn from his mistakes and correct the problems within his administration. I hope he does it in a hurry.