POLITICS APRIL 22, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. -- What does President Obama's visit to California this week on behalf of embattled Sen. Barbara Boxer have to do with passage of the financial reform bill? Far more than you'd imagine.
That Boxer is in any trouble says much of what you need to know about this year's election. California has become a Democratic bastion and Boxer has been a liberal institution who never before faced a serious re-election challenge.
Now she is seen as sufficiently vulnerable that Obama will come to the state for another fundraiser for her next month. The threat to Boxer is grim news for Democrats.
Is this sense of the election about to be overtaken? That's where financial reform comes in. If health care legislation had to fight uphill against a public mood that is skeptical of government's capacities, the financial reform bill Democrats are pushing has the advantage of flowing with a public view devoutly critical of Wall Street, bankers and all their works.
And for the first time in Obama's presidency, Republicans are uncertain as to whether resolute opposition to a Democratic idea is in their political interest. There are strong indications that the GOP would prefer to avoid an all-out confrontation over re-regulating the financial system, and several Republican senators are saying that they would like to negotiate with Democrats on this one. Suddenly, it's Democrats -- and, in particular, the often conflict-averse Obama -- who are relishing a fight.
This raises what may be the essential question for the campaign: Can Democrats finally put the Republicans on the defensive?
Obama is betting that they can. His speech at a fundraiser for Boxer in Los Angeles on Monday offered a template for a new Happy Warrior president. After a year in which he repeatedly and almost apologetically insisted that he was -- really, really -- trying as hard as he could to work with Republicans, he turned the beat around and asked why Republicans weren't willing to work with him.
He used his praise of Boxer -- "she wants to cooperate with folks on the other side of the aisle where she can, but she's willing to fight where she has to" -- as a pivot to what he hopes will be a central theme of this year's national election campaign. His words about Boxer, he said, were "not a bad adage ... for the Democratic Party.
"In this entire year and a half of cleaning up the mess, it's been tough because the folks very responsible for a large portion of this mess decided to stand on the sidelines," Obama declared. "It was as if somebody had driven their car into the ditch and then just watched you as you had to yank it out, and asked you, 'Why didn't you do it faster -- and why do I have that scratch on the fender?' And you want to say, why don't you put your shoulder up against that car and help to push? That's what we need, is some help."
In one paragraph, Obama did what many of the dispirited in his party have long been urging him to do: He linked the economic mess to past Republican policies -- much as Ronald Reagan blamed the economic downturn of the early 1980s on Democrats and liberals -- and turned the tables on bipartisanship by asserting that it is Republicans who are blocking concord.
And then he connected this argument to the struggle over financial reform, aimed at changing "a situation where people are allowed to take wild risks and all the downsides are socialized even as the profits are privatized." Obama said that "some of the rhetoric that's coming out of the other side of the aisle" suggested that Republicans "so far, at least, don't seem to acknowledge that we're going to have to make some tough decisions and reform the system."
Note the words "so far, at least." Democrats clearly see financial reform as a winner either way. With Republican cooperation, they have a bill. With Republican obstruction, they have an election issue. For once, Democrats are negotiating from strength.
No one doubts the Democrats are in a deep electoral hole. But Obama has now joined the battle with a strategy to transform the election from a referendum on his own party into a contest with a Republican Party the public doesn't much like, either. Boxer's fate, but also the fate of a lot of other Democrats, hangs on its success.
E.J. Dionne's e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. (c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
7 comments
I hear you, Mr Dionne, but how long will this newfound offensive by Democrats last? When the next round of bullying by the GOP comes, which is a certainty, me thinks the Democrats will revert to their natural state -- a self-defeating defensive crouch. The Clinton-led Democrats never stood idly by, absorbing blow after blow from the GOP. They counter-punched effectively and even threw a few first punches of their own. I believe that their calculated mindset of avoiding the usual defensive posture of Democrats was what helped them succeed. That's in addition to their good policies, of course. That the current White House, Reid and Pelosi did not learn from the Clintons, or are unwilling to deploy such political tactics, is truly odd. It's even more strikingly so, given the relentless nature of the GOP's attacks on Democrats in general and this White House in particular.
- scrubby
April 22, 2010 at 6:15am
scrubby, as to financial reform, the best thing is Republican obstruction to last for a while before they cave but I am not sure it will play out that way. The strange thing is the more successes Democrats have now the less they will have to run on in the fall so I am not sure it is politically win-win for the Democrats with regards to the financial bill. It is great for the country but bad for the Democrats if it passes. And if it passes the Republicans will take credit for the parts that poll well meanwhile they will say it doesn't go far enough and will only guarantee future bailouts all the while they will do their best to assure the banks that only they can assure future bailouts. And when Democrats point out that Republicans are shameful, two faced liars and crooks, the media will lament the new tone of the Democrats. Clinton wasn't exactly successful in 93 either.
- blackton
April 22, 2010 at 10:29am
Can anyone from CA on these boards (or anywhere else for that matter) explain why Boxer is in trouble for re-election? Blackton....The masochist in me was actually hoping for a filibuster a couple of weeks ago for the resons you outline. I think that in this time of extreme discontent, it doesn't do the incumbent party any good to drop off the public's radar so soon. Now, I have moderated somewhat about the filibuster, but I still think the Ds need to first find a way to start taking credit for creating jobs and keep the pressure on the Rs to atone for their sophmoric opposition to everything good for the country. A win on financial reform is really a good thing for everybody, but it does have a tendency to move the spotlight off those responsible for the success. I'm not sure how to keep the President on offense if he gets this win too soon. I really doubt he wants to take on immigration reform right now. That's a firecracker to be sure.
- desertdog
April 22, 2010 at 11:41am
It's true, blackie, that Clinton in '93 was struggling, but his presidency, overall, was a success. I doubt very much that it would have been so if his team just stood pat, as the current White House seem to believe in, while the Republicans attempted to politically pummel them to death. If memory serves me right, the Gingrich-led GOP spent as much time on the defensive as on the attack. Hell, even Bob Dole got so smacked around by the Clintons during the '96 elections, all he could do was whine about it. This White House needs a James Carville type -- somebody who's willing and able to return fire effectively. There's just too much unreturned fire from them. Such docile mentality doesn't charge up the base, rather the opposite could be true. I just wish the Democratic leadership are a little more combative.
- scrubby
April 22, 2010 at 12:29pm
scrubby, yeah the Dems. don't have an official attack dog like Carville so you got a point. I am still not sure it will be as effective due to our fractured media but it is worth a shot. On CNN last night it was good to hear Roland Martin state the simple truth that birthers are stupid people and the Republicans who are using this issue are cynical (a-holes, I might add)
- blackton
April 22, 2010 at 1:00pm
Lets hope that playing offense is a permanent change. Democrat need stop acting like wusses and should listen to Ed Rendell- he's no wild-eyed socialist! "We have been out-spun and we are scared," he said. "And when you are scared, you can do one of two things: you can circle the wagons and hide inside or under the wagon, or you can get out and fight for what you believe in. I think we are starting -- President Obama started when he went to the Republican caucus -- to fight back and for what we believe in. If we do that, I think our losses will be much less [in 2010] than what anybody suspects." Suck it up. Use the nuclear option, if need be. Republicans surely would (and will, if Democrats continue in wussihood). If they disagree with you, voters often go for strong and wrong rather that right and weak.
- drofnats1
April 22, 2010 at 1:33pm
Everyone seems to be pining for the aggressive days of Bubba, but was it not here in TNR that Clintonian triangulation was declared dead? How could Clinton have been so aggressive if he carefully triangulated constantly to stay in the popular middle? Shrub, at least, presented a contrast to that, a perverse lump who wouldn't move because he knew he was right. Obama may just be doing more of the same, squinting into the sun. But Obama, unlike Dubya, is extremely aware of the world around him. I'd hate to be his opposition.
- haricot
April 22, 2010 at 6:59pm