Paul Krugman speaks for millions here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30krugman.html
----------------------------------------------------snip
What explains Mr. Obama’s consistent snubbing of those who made him
what he is? Does he fear that his enemies would use any support for
progressive people or ideas as an excuse to denounce him as a
left-wing extremist? Well, as you may have noticed, they don’t need
such excuses: He’s been portrayed as a socialist because he enacted
Mitt Romney’s health-care plan, as a virulent foe of business because
he’s been known to mention that corporations sometimes behave badly.

The point is that Mr. Obama’s attempts to avoid confrontation have
been counterproductive. His opponents remain filled with a passionate
intensity, while his supporters, having received no respect, lack all
conviction. And in a midterm election, where turnout is crucial, the
“enthusiasm gap” between Republicans and Democrats could spell
catastrophe for the Obama agenda.

Which brings me back to Ms. Warren.

The debate over financial reform, in which the G.O.P. has taken the
side of the bad guys, should be a political winner for Democrats. Much
of the reform, however, is deeply technical: “Maintain the requirement
that derivatives be traded on public exchanges!” doesn’t fit on a
placard.

But protecting consumers, ensuring that they aren’t the victims of
predatory financial practices, is something voters can relate to. And
choosing a high-profile consumer advocate to lead the agency providing
that protection — someone whose scholarship and advocacy were largely
responsible for the agency’s creation — is the natural move, both
substantively and politically. Meanwhile, the alternative —
disappointing supporters yet again by choosing some little-known
technocrat — seems like an obvious error.

So why is this issue still up in the air? Yes, Republicans might well
try to filibuster a Warren appointment, but that’s a fight the
administration should welcome.

O.K., I don’t really know what’s going on. But I worry that Mr. Obama
is still wrapped up in his dream of transcending partisanship, while
his aides dislike the idea of having to deal with strong, independent
voices. And the end result of this game-playing is an administration
that seems determined to alienate its friends.

Just to be clear, progressives would be foolish to sit out this
election: Mr. Obama may not be the politician of their dreams, but his
enemies are definitely the stuff of their nightmares. But Mr. Obama
has a responsibility, too. He can’t expect strong support from people
his administration keeps ignoring and insulting.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to