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.


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)