In the interview with The Hill, which reads like a hatchet job from Andrew Breitbart, Robert Gibbs, the WH press secretary, had this to say about the anti-war left and single-payer advocates like our own nyceve, who originally favored single-payer but settled on the public option in the mistaken belief that the White House would fight for it:
"I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it’s crazy."
The press secretary dismissed the "professional left" in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality."
This is what is known as a strawman argument. Most of those on the left do not want to eliminate the Pentagon, what they want to do is reduce the bloated military budget and refocus the funding towards domestic priorities at home such as unemployment, job creation, investment in renewable energy, education, and public transportation.
Of course there are a few that wants to completely eliminate the Pentagon, but they do not represent the entirety of those who are displeased with the White House on their continuance of the war in Afghanistan, more funding allocated to Blackwater, one of the worst military contractors, to replace troops in Iraq, and the further erosion of civil liberties. All of these are valid criticisms, and those making these criticisms are in no way comparable to teabaggers on the right.
For instance, teabaggers want to tear down this President. Those on the left do not want to tear down President Obama--they support him, and yes, a majority of them will vote for him again, and they want him to do much better. This is where the criticism from the left is rooted, in the desire to see President Obama succeed through the enactment of progressive policies, rather than failing in the enactment of bipartisan moderate policies that leaves the electorate feeling like President Obama isn't on their side, as DemFromCT wrote in his front page post:
Voters get the part about "Bush sucks". They get the part about the GOP being out of ideas. But they also get the part about Wall Street getting a more sympathetic ear than Main Street. That's the consequence of catfood commissions, dawdling on unemployment benefits, and pretending jobs don't matter as much as the deficit. That latter includes Blue Dogs, so don't blame it all on the GOP (even though much of it is them.)
Voters are results oriented, and the economic results right now are not pretty, regardless of whatever steps are being made to fix things in the future. Speaking of the future, the question on the table is "will that future include me?" If people are uncertain whether your plans include them, why would they vote for you?
And by the way, what's so wrong with Canadian healthcare? The only thing that can be seen as wrong from it is that corporations, i.e. private insurance companies, aren't involved in the process. It wasn't smart of Gibbs to bash single-payer advocates since they've been completely left out of the legislative process, as we remember from the arrest of single-payer advocates at the Senate Finance Committee hearings. Given the fact that Gibbs has chosen to bash single-payer advocates, tells us all about how the administration views those who support a health care system that is focused on patients, rather than on for-profit care.
Greg Sargent from the Plum Line also points out that Gibbs's bashing of the left isn't helpful since much of President Obama's rise can be credited to the anti-war left, who supported the President against President Hillary based on his opposition to the war in Iraq:
If memory serves, didn't the White House repeatedly insist Obama was committed to the public option, the central goal of those who Gibbs is now claiming want "Canadian healthcare"?
Also, didn't antiwar sentiment play a pretty big role in electing Obama as president, given that Obama's opposition to the Iraq War was almost singlehandly responsible for allowing him to rise from relative obscurity to defeat Hillary in the 2008 Dem primary? One wonders if the more-than-100 House Democrats who voted against funding the Afghanistan war are meant to be among those who are allegedly in favor of "eliminating the Pentagon."
Maybe the reporter Gibbs spoke to was trying to bait him into what Duncan Black and others call "hippie punching." Unclear, though, what exactly taking the bait and indulging in hippie punching accomplishes. Gibbs says the vast majority of the liberal rank and file remain fully supportive of the president, and that's probably true. But Dems need everyone to turn out, and all hands to be on deck, from the "professional left" on down, and browbeating folks into being enthusiastic seems like a questionable strategy.
Also, let me offer something slightly controversial here. Don't let Gibbs' comments turn you away from getting out the vote in November, or your desire to go out and vote. Yes, I know his remarks may de-motivate people from doing so, but here is why you should still get out and vote and ask others to vote as well in supporting candidates of your choice.
Since much of those in the Administration are from the Clinton administration, they are comfortable in not needing the left, and to working with Republicans to pass bipartisan legislation. If we want to stay relevant, and to prevent the Administration and their supporters from taking a hard-right turn after November to appease Republicans and so-called moderates, we should make sure that who we support are still in the House and Senate come November.
Otherwise, if we lose the House, and the Administration gets a loss in the Senate, they'll be okay in working with Republicans. Mitch McConnell hopes that President Obama will "become a born-again moderate" as a result:
But at a Monitor-sponsored breakfast with political reporters on Thursday, the Kentucky senator cautioned, "I am not going to be very interested in doing things left of center. It is going to have to be center right, and I think the president is a flexible man. And I am hoping he will become a born-again moderate."
Senator McConnell had a private meeting with President Obama on Wednesday at the president’s request. They agreed not to discuss the contents of the meeting.
The Senate currently has 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, and 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats. "I hope the numbers will shift, and the opportunity for doing things more in the political center will be there," McConnell said.
He noted, "If you have a big majority, what you want to do is pick off a Republican or two, give it a patina of bipartisanship, and do what you want to do. If you are between 55 and 45 [seats], you get genuine bipartisan agreement."
If you think what the President's done so far is terrible in his approach towards bipartisanship in spite of the fact Republicans have thrown spitballs at him for doing so, it'll be even worse watching him do it after November just as President Clinton did when he lost the House in 1994. Don't want to repeat the disasters of 1994 in which the Clinton administration took a hard right? Then let's make sure the Administration doesn't do it again as a mistaken lesson from the 2010 elections.
Let me be clear on this--I am not going to hector you into supporting Democrats, or doing the get out the vote effort, or dangle the specter of a Republican majority over you like some people here have done. I have too much respect to browbeat people I know who poured their heart and soul into electing President Obama, and into the 2006 and 2008 elections. This is the case I am making as to why and how progressives should stay relevant in making sure the Administration doesn't go even further to the right. I hope you will give it serious consideration, and thank you for reading my post.