Home / DemocratsturningonObama
Showing posts with label DemocratsturningonObama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DemocratsturningonObama. Show all posts

More Democrats turning on Obama

Democrats refusing to endorse Obama.

Another North Carolina Democrat is refusing to support President Obama's reelection effort. This time it's Rep. Larry Kissell.
"[H]e doesn’t plan to endorse Obama for re-election and isn’t sure he’ll attend his party’s national convention in Charlotte," McClatchy reports. "Kissell represents the 8th District, which runs from Mecklenburg County to Robeson County. Last year’s redistricting added heavily Republican areas of Rowan, Davidson and Randolph counties while removing thousands of Democratic voters in Charlotte and Fayetteville."
Matt Connelly, a regional spokesman for the Republican National Committee, remarks on Twitter: "Rep. Kissell's (D-NC) district ends 9 blocks away from Bank of America Stadium, but he isn't sure if he'll attend the DNC." . . .
Another example here. 

Hayden Rogers will join two other North Carolina congressional candidates in skipping the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte and not endorsing President Obama.
"I have no plans to attend the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte and will not be endorsing in the 2012 presidential race.” . . .
U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre in the state’s 7th District won’t attend or back the president and U.S. Rep. Larry Kissell in the 8th District is taking the same approach. . . .
Democrats not attending the Democrat National Convention. 

Add Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar to the growing list of Democrats who are skipping the Democratic National Convention this summer.The moderate Democrat backs President Barack Obama’s reelection but told POLITICO on Tuesday he won’t be attending the convention in Charlotte, N.C., in September. . . .
Among those sitting this convention out are Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, as well as Reps. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, Mark Critz of Pennsylvania and Jim Matheson of Utah.
Rep. Stephen Lynch and Rep. Richard Neal, both of Massachusetts, will be staying home as well, the Springfield (Mass.) Republican reported.
The explanation offered by Democrats.



"If the president were that popular with the voters, the Democrats in Missouri, she would want to be at the convention. She would want to be in that picture," Mitchell said to Mayor Villaraigosa.
Villaraigosa: "We're going to have thousands of people, the vast majority of Democratic elected officials who are delegates are going to be there. I think it's a lot about nothing. At the end of the day, she's campaigning. I think that's probably true for Senator Manchin (D-WV) and yes, it's true, in some states we have a lot of work to do. That's what campaigns are all about. I expect that the convention will frame the campaign. That's what people will be watching and it's going to be a very close election but ultimately I expect the president to win." 
Most important West Virginia Democrats will skip Democratic National Convention

Most important West Virginia Democrats will skip Democratic National Convention

Just curious, but why are these guys Democrats?  If he also doesn't like Romney, why not run as an independent?  Given that the Democrats in the Senate go with Obama virtually all the time, isn't he really supporting Obama's policies by caucusing with the Democrats? From The Hill newspaper:
Three prominent West Virginia Democrats said Monday that they would skip the party's national convention in Charlotte, N.C., this September over concerns that links to the party could hurt their re-election chances.  Sen. Joe Manchin, Rep. Nick Rahall, and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin all said they would avoid the convention, according to the West Virginia Metro News.
"I intend to spend this fall focused on the people of West Virginia, whether that's representing them in my official U.S. Senate duties or here at home, where I can hear about their concerns and ideas to solve the problems of this great nation," said Manchin in a statement. "I will remain focused on bringing people together for the next generation, not the next election."
UPDATE: Fox News piece:
three other members of Congress have also distanced themselves from the convention -- and by extension the president -- by announcing their intention not to attend. They include Pennsylvania Rep. Mark Critz and New York Reps. Bill Owens and Kathy Hochul, both of whom won special elections in recent years.
"I guarantee that my time will be better spent meeting the farmers, small business owners and other people who put me here," Hochul said in a recent interview with The Daily. . . .
"One of the problems for a Democratic president or any Democratic candidate is that sometimes pleasing one of your core groups can displease another,” he said. As an example, Barone points to the intra-party fight over gay marriage. "Young voters are heavily in favor of it. Black voters have tended to be heavily against it." . . . 
Yet another Democrat speaks his mind and then is forced to retract his position

Yet another Democrat speaks his mind and then is forced to retract his position

This is beginning to happen just too regularly with Democrats questioning Obama's positions and then having to quickly backtrack.  Bill Clinton is just the latest example of this.

Larry Summers on MSNBC: "The real risk to this economy is on the side of slow down, certainly not on the side of overheating.  That means we've got to make sure we don't take the gasoline out of the tank at the end of this year.  That's got to be the top priority."
But Summers quickly reversed his position releasing a statement saying:
"I fully support President Obama's position on tax cuts . . . Extending the high income tax cut does little for demand and poses substantial problems of fairness and fiscal prudence." 
Of course, this argument about "demand" makes little sense.  It only makes sense if you believe in the old Keynesian marginal propensity to consume, that poor people have a higher MPC than others.  The problem is that saving is not the equivalent of burying money in a hole in the backyard.  If you put your paycheck in the bank, the bank will lend out the money or buy bonds.  The money doesn't just sit there.
Bill Clinton goes off the reservation again: Call for the entire Bush Tax cuts to be extended

Bill Clinton goes off the reservation again: Call for the entire Bush Tax cuts to be extended

From CNBC:


[Clinton] called the current economic conditions a "recession" and said overzealous Republican plans to cut the deficit threaten to plunge the country further into the debt abyss.
"What I think we need to do is find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what's necessary in the long term debt-reduction plans as soon as they can, which presumably would be after the election," Clinton said. . . .
However, Clinton did say that Congress would be best off agreeing, at least for the time being, to extend all the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, including the so-called Bush tax cuts named after Clinton's successor, George W. Bush. . . . .
UPDATE: Politico claims that these off the reservation statements were all by accident.  Is this just part of the attempt to make things right?

. . . Clinton’s team was as aghast as Obama’s at how the boss had wandered blithely into remarks that left even sympathetic listeners wondering what exactly he was getting at. He also gave gleeful Republicans an opening to skewer Obama with a popular Democrat’s own words.
Clinton, in a ritual that would be familiar to anyone who has worked for him during the past 20 years, protested that his words were being wrested from context and blamed a manipulative news media for stirring up trouble to satisfy its own lust for chaos and conflict.
But his own team, and eventually Clinton himself, agreed there was no choice but to issue embarrassing what-the-former-president-meant-to-say clarifications, which were crafted in close consultation with senior Obama aides at the White House and campaign headquarters in Chicago, according to people involved in the negotiations. . . .
Democrats turn on Obama's intelligence leaks that are meant to help his campaign

Democrats turn on Obama's intelligence leaks that are meant to help his campaign

From The Hill newspaper:
The Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday expressed worry that leaks to the press about a cyberattack authorized by the Obama administration on Iran could lead to a counterattack on the United States.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) joined other senior Senate Democrats in expressing serious concerns about the leak, which detailed a cyberattack intended to hamper Iran's nuclear program. Some Republicans argue the information was leaked to help President Obama's reelection campaign. . . .
“This is like an avalanche. It is very detrimental and candidly, I found it very concerning,” Feinstein told reporters Tuesday. “There’s no question that this kind of thing hurts our country.”

Several Democrats noted the Iranian leak is just the latest in a series of media reports about classified U.S. anti-terrorism activity. . . . .

Obama's out reach to faith based supporters "ad hoc," no "clear sense of what the mission"

What strikes me when I read the Washington Post article was that Obama's religious supporters are academics.  I have meet a number of academics in religion programs and what has always stood out when I talked to them was that they were atheists.  I have no evidence that these academics are atheists, but I wouldn't be surprised that Obama had a lot of atheist academics in religion programs talking to him about what he needed to do to reach out to religious people.  I won't quote it hear, but the piece has numerous discussions about religious Democrats who were uncomfortable with Obama's support for homosexual marriage.  From the Washington Post:


. . . “I think there is a viable religious left who can be persuaded by a carefully articulated religious argument, but no one is making it,” said Valerie Cooper, a religious studies professor at the University of Virginia and Obama supporter. “I’m concerned that the administration has not followed through on the promise of 2008.” . . .
“I get frustrated when I talk to evangelical friends or students and they ask, ‘How can you be a Christian and a Democrat?’” Cooper said.
David Kim, a Connecticut College religious studies professor, helped advise the 2008 campaign when videos of incendiary sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former Chicago pastor, threatened to derail the nominee. Kim, who attended the briefing with Cooper, described the administration’s faith-based work as “ad hoc” and “with no long-term strategy.”
“I didn’t really get a clear sense of what the mission is,” Kim said. . . .
According to exit polls, the effort paid off. Obama made gains over the 2004 nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, with voters who attend religious services more than once a week, 43 percent to 35 percent. Obama also won 26 percent of the evangelical vote, compared with 21 percent for Kerry.
“It wasn’t huge, but it was statistically significant,” said John Green, director of the University of Akron’s Bliss Institute for Applied Politics . . .
But from 2008 to 2010, when control of Congress was at stake, the DNC cut its faith outreach staffing from more than six people to one part-timer, according to The Washington Post. . . .
BTW, here is an add that the Obama campaign has in the NY Times on Sunday morning. What struck me as strange about the add was that the add looks like it was done by some LGBT group, not by the Obama administration.  At least having the add in the NY Times would minimize any collateral damage among religiously orientated individuals who are relatively unlikely to be reading that newspaper.


Democrat refuses to endorse Obama and then flips after pressure


Arizona Democrat Congressional Candidate Ron Barber then has a change of heart.  This race is for the special election to succeed former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.  Barber is a former staffer for Giffords and is favored to win the race.  Later Barber had this to say:
Ron’s point last night was that the election on June 12 isn't about president Obama, or any other national figure--it's about who is going to do the best job fighting for middle class families in southern Arizona. While Ron does not agree with the President on everything, of course Ron has supported and will support President Obama in the election. His primary focus as a member of Congress will be standing up for Southern Arizonans.
Obama has been quietly having a hard time in more primaries than almost anyone has realized

Obama has been quietly having a hard time in more primaries than almost anyone has realized

Do you see a pattern here?  From Real Clear Politics:

Tuesday night, President Obama continued his streak of poor primary performances in culturally Southern states. He received 58.4 percent of the vote in the Arkansas Democratic primary against token opposition, and 57.9 percent of the vote in the Kentucky primary against no opposition (42.1 percent of the vote went to "uncommitted"). In the latter state's Harlan County, in the heart of coal country, Obama received 26.2 percent of the vote.
This comes on the heels of losing 40.6 percent of the vote in West Virginia to a Texas prison inmate, 21 percent of the vote to “uncommitted” in North Carolina, 24 percent of the vote to token opposition in Louisiana, 19 percent of the vote to “uncommitted” in Alabama, and 43 percent of the vote to various candidates in Oklahoma. . . .
There are only seven sitting presidents who have ever received less than 60 percent of the vote in any primary: Taft in ’12; Coolidge, ’24; Hoover, ’32; LBJ, ’68; Ford '76; Carter, ’80; and Bush ’92. All of these presidents, with the exception of Coolidge, were not re-elected . . . .

"Obama: Bain debate ‘is what the campaign is going to be about’"


From Politico:
Obama’s damn-the-torpedoes remarks were also aimed at some of his fellow Democrats who are increasingly anxious that their party’s leader is attacking a private equity firm for doing what such businesses were created to do: make cash within the confines of the law.
“My opponent, Gov. Romney, his main calling card for why he should be president is his business experience,” Obama told American and international reporters at McCormick Place at the conclusion of the two-day NATO summit focused on the seemingly weightier issues of Afghan withdrawal and Pakistan.
The deep blue of the NATO stage backdrop seemed, for a moment, to morph into the sky blue of Obama’s campaign sets.
“When you’re president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. … So, if your main argument for how to grow the economy is ‘I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,’ then you’re missing what this job is about,” Obama said. “It doesn’t mean you weren’t good at private equity, but that’s not what my job is as president.”
Obama’s staff and Romney aides have been locked in an intensifying battle after Newark Mayor — and Obama ally — Cory Booker blasted the Obama campaign’s targeting of the venture capital firm as “nauseating” and a “distraction from the real issues.” . . .
Obama's comments about businesses taking the short term but him being concerned about the economy growing 10 years from now is just nuts.


From ABC News:
. . . As for the criticism that the Team Obama’s Bain attack is part of “nauseating” political discourse with which Booker has become “very uncomfortable,” Axelrod said, “on this particular instance he was just wrong.”
Booker is not the only Democrat to question the aggressive, negative portrayal of Romney’s work in private equity.  Former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford Jr. said today he agreed with “the substance” of Booker’s comments and “would not have backed out.”
“I agree with him, private equity is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, private equity is a good thing in many, many instances,” the Democrat said in a separate appearance on MSNBC earlier in the day.
Former Obama administration economic adviser Steven Rattner made similar comments last week, calling a new Obama campaign TV ad attacking Romney’s role in the bankruptcy of a Bain-owned steel company “unfair.”
“Bain Capital’s responsibility was not to create 100,000 jobs or some other number. It was to create profits for its investors,” Rattner said.  ”‘It did it superbly well, acting within the rules, acting very responsibly. … This is part of capitalism, this is part of life. I don’t think there’s anything Bain Capital did that they need to be embarrassed about.” . . .
Democrat Virginia Senator Mark Warner (a former venture capitalist): 

Chuck Todd:  "Do you think that Bain Capital practiced good or bad ethics here in the way that they went about their business?"
Senator Warner: "I think that Bain Capital was very successful business.  I think they got a good return for their investors.  That is what they were supposed to do." 


Now what are we to make of Van Jones' comments here?  They sure sound as if Van Jones' comments on integrity implies that even he agrees with Booker.  Is that possible?  Also from the Washington Examiner:
“An urban mayor who nearly DIED saving neighbor from a fire, has earned right 2 demand integrity & courage from other leaders,” Jones tweeted on Tuesday in a message addressed to Booker’s Twitter handle. . . .
UPDATE: Here is an interview with an Obama campaign spokesman defending the campaign's attacks on Bain capital. From Mediaite (video available at bottom of page):

The Obama campaign spent the better part of the day of attempting to recover from Newark MayorCory Booker‘s near-scuttling of a major component of their reelection effort, Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital, coming very close with President Obama‘s strong double-down at a press conference this afternoon. Then, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt took to Anderson Cooper 360 to undo as much of that as he could. . . .
[Obama's reframing of the Bain question to whether Romney has the experience to be president] nearly did the trick, using their most effective weapon: President Obama himself. . . . More importantly, he changed the headline to “Obama Doubles Down.” . . .
[Anderson Cooper asked Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt] “How can President Obama attack Mitt Romney on his time at Bain, highlighting only times when Bain cost companies jobs, and at the same time hold high priced fund raisers with the head of another private equity firm that’s done work with Bain, the Blackstone Group, there are people who have worked at other private equity firms in his own administration?”
. . . Five or six times, Cooper tried to get LaBolt to answer that one question, only to be met with uninterrupted talking points, or naked subject changes.
The rest of the interview went on along the same lines. Asked if he agreed with Mayor Booker that Bain had “done a lot to grow businesses,” LaBolt responded, “You know what Mayor Booker also said?” . . .
UPDATE2: A new poll by Rasmussen suggests that the Bain attacks aren't working so well for the president. 

Democrats have begun criticizing Mitt Romney’s business record, but a plurality of voters view the Republican’s business past as a positive.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that Romney’s track record in business is primarily a reason to vote for him. Thirty-three percent (33%) see his business career as chiefly a reason to vote against him. Twenty-two percent (22%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) . . .
Or how about this?
Voters now trust likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney more than President Obama on all five issues regularly surveyed by Rasmussen Reports, especially when it comes to money.
A new national telephone survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters trust Romney more than Obama when it comes the economy, while 39% trust the president more. Ten percent (10%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording,click here.) . . .


Just a copy of Booker's remarks:
"To me, it's just we're getting to a ridiculous point in America, especially that I know I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital," Booker said. "If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses. And this, to me, I'm very uncomfortable with." 
Nice summary of quotes from different Democrats upset with Obama's attacks on Bain Capital.


UPDATE: Some more Democrats speak out:




Deval Patrick: Bain "Not A Bad Company"


Ed Rendell: "Either/Or" On If He Agrees With How Obama Campaign Being Run

Rattner on Bain

More info available here.

UPDATE: Federal Inmate Keith Judd ends up getting 43% of

43% to a federal inmate, amazing!  To put it in perspective, Keith Judd got almost as many votes in the Democrat primary as the winner of the Republican primary, Mitt Romney, got.  From the West Virginia Secretary of State:

Prison Inmate in Texas takes 40 percent of the Democrat Presidential Primary Vote in West Virginia?

Prison Inmate in Texas takes 40 percent of the Democrat Presidential Primary Vote in West Virginia?

Why isn't this getting huge coverage in the US?  From the UK Daily Mail:


Just how unpopular is President Obama in some parts of the country? Enough that a man in a Texas prison received four out of 10 votes in West Virginia's Democratic presidential primary.Inmate Keith Judd, 53, is serving 17 years for extortion at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution. He was sentenced in 1999 for making threats against the University of New Mexico and is due to be released on June 24 next year.With 93 per cent of precincts reporting, Obama was receiving just under 60 per cent of the vote to Judd's 40 per cent. . . . 
In Oklahoma, anti-abortion protester Randall Terry got 18 percent of the primary vote. A lawyer from Tennessee, John Wolfe, pulled nearly 18,000 votes in the Louisiana primary. In Alabama, 18 percent of Democratic voters chose "uncommitted" in the primary rather than vote for Obama. In Tuesday's North Carolina primary, 21 percent of Democratic voters marked "no preference." . . .
Obama's "reelection campaign doesn’t want to share financial resources with congressional Democrats"

Obama's "reelection campaign doesn’t want to share financial resources with congressional Democrats"

From the National Journal:

In fact, Obama’s reelection campaign has a split personality when it comes to the general election. One side is confident and growing more so about the turbulent GOP primary, an improving U.S. economy, and better numbers for Obama in swing states. The other side harbors fears bordering on paranoia about massive spending by the GOP and outside super PACs for the party’s nominee.
“There is already unprecedented super-PAC spending going on,” Messina said. “There will be super-PAC spending in key states against us. We have to be prepared for that.”
To prepare for it, Obama’s campaign has put the rest of the Democratic Party on a starvation diet. Messina and senior White House adviser David Plouffe (Obama’s 2008 campaign manager) have told top Democrats that they won’t receive any cash transfers from Obama’s campaign or the Democratic National Committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sought commitments for $30 million, the amount distributed to them in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles. Not this time.
Messina said that the campaign fears outside groups will devote upward of $500 million to anti-Obama super-PAC TV ads as soon as the GOP nominee (likely to be Romney) is decided. By comparison, GOP nominee John McCain spent $333 million on his campaign, and outside groups spent $26 million supporting him. Obama spent $730 million in that campaign, and outside groups spent $88 million attacking him. . . .
Reid and Pelosi, according to Democrats aware of the sit-down with Plouffe and Messina, took their medicine without complaint. Democrats close to the situation said that the leaders emerged feeling that Team Obama was in full-blown panic mode about the need for campaign cash this fall. “They are just freaked out about super-PAC spending,” said one of Pelosi’s top allies. . . .
Democrat Billionaire Mort Zuckerman on Obama

Democrat Billionaire Mort Zuckerman on Obama

From the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Zuckerman maintains that America will solve its problems over the long haul—"I am not somebody who's pessimistic about this country. I have had a life that's been better than my fantasies," he says—but he's certainly pessimistic about the current administration. That began shortly after inauguration day in 2009.

At that time he supported Mr. Obama's call for heavy spending on infrastructure. "But if you look at the make-up of the stimulus program," says Mr. Zuckerman, "roughly half of it went to state and local municipalities, which is in effect to the municipal unions which are at the core of the Democratic Party." He adds that "the Republicans understood this" and it diminished the chances for bipartisan legislating.

Then there was health-care reform: "Eighty percent of the country wanted them to get costs under control, not to extend the coverage. They used all their political capital to extend the coverage. I always had the feeling the country looked at that bill and said, 'Well, he may be doing it because he wants to be a transformational president, but I want to get my costs down!'"

Mr. Zuckerman recalls reports of Mr. Obama consulting various historians on the qualities of a transformational president. "But remember, transformations can go up and they can go down."

Now comes the latest fight over Mr. Obama's jobs plan, which has as its centerpiece a tax increase on the wealthy with obvious populist appeal. Mr. Zuckerman supports raising taxes on the rich but says such a proposal cannot be taken seriously unless it's paired with other measures to grow the economy and restrain deficit spending. He also wonders why, if the president wanted to get a plan enacted, he didn't begin with private bipartisan discussions with House and Senate leaders, instead of another address to a joint session of Congress.

"Even if you want to do this to revive your support in the base, to revive your credibility on the issues of the economy and jobs, which has fallen off the table, this isn't going to accomplish it. Another speech from this guy? The country knows this is just another speech. They understand it almost instantaneously, and his numbers have continued to go down for that reason. What the country wanted was some way of coming up with a solution."

The only solution Mr. Zuckerman sees now to juice the economy "is to broaden the tax base and simplify and lower tax [rates]. To me that will be as close to revenue-neutral as you're going to have so it isn't going to be seen as a budget buster." . . .

"Reagan surprised me," says Mr. Zuckerman. "He got the point of every argument. . . . He was very decisive. And everybody loved working for him. They followed his lead because they really respected his decisiveness and his instincts."

'I was not a Republican and I was not an admirer of his before I knew him," continues Mr. Zuckerman. "And you know, Harry Truman had a wonderful definition for the presidency. He said the president has to be someone who can persuade the American people to do what they don't want to do and to like it. And that's what you have to do. Somebody like Reagan had that authority. He was liked so much and he had a kind of moral authority. That's what this president has lost." . . .
Some Democrat Congressmen Refusing to Endorse Obama

Some Democrat Congressmen Refusing to Endorse Obama

John Fund has this at the WSJ's Political Diary:

David Boren, the only Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, told reporters yesterday he's not ready to endorse Mr. Obama. "Unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion," he told reporters. Mr. Obama's designation by the non-partisan National Journal magazine as the Senate's most liberal member may be catching up with him.

Then there is Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida, who says he will remain an uncommitted superdelegate and may not even attend the party's convention. Asked how he felt about running with Mr. Obama as his party's nominee, he told the Palm Beach Post: "I'm a Democrat, but am I going to have a pep rally or something like that? No I'm not going to do that."

Another potential dissident is Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia. He has refused to tell reporters if he thinks Barack Obama would make a better president than John McCain. Finally, Rep. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee has been outed by his state's governor, Phil Bredesen, who told the Philadelphia Inquirer that a Democratic congressman from this state, who could only be Rep. Davis, had told him both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were "poison" politically to him. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)