At the National Journal, Josh Kraushaar reports that the Obama campaign’s Bain Capital attack exposed the waning power of centrist Democrats in the party, a development that has many Democrats concerned:
Conversations with liberal activists and labor officials reveal an unmistakable hostility toward the pro-business, free-trade, free-market philosophy that was in vogue during the second half of the Clinton administration. …
Moderate Democratic groups and officials, meanwhile, privately fret about the party’s leftward drift and the Obama campaign’s embrace of an aggressively populist message. They’re disappointed that the administration didn’t take the lead advancing the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction proposal, they wish the administration’s focus was on growth over fairness, and they are frustrated with the persistent congressional gridlock. Third Way, the centrist Democratic think tank, has been generating analyses underscoring the need for Democrats to appeal to middle-of-the-road voters, to no avail.
The problem is, Barack Obama is facing a compelling economic message from his opponent: Mitt Romney spent 25 years building businesses and overhauling companies in the private sector; Obama, in contrast, has spent his entire career in politics and community organizing. As Romney argued effectively in his interview with Time magazine today, there is nothing necessarily wrong with Obama’s career choices. They just don’t prepare someone to deal with an economy that’s speeding toward a fiscal cliff.
In response, Obama has embraced a populist, anti-competition, anti-capitalist message. Not only is it imprudent and unhelpful to stir up those sentiments during tough economic times, it’s also damaging to the Democratic Party’s brand. And it hasn’t been politically effective so far. Several polls today show the race is tightening, and Obama actually appears to be scaring away the working class voters who he’s been trying to win over with his class warfare message. The party that emerged so unified behind Obama in 2008 already seems to be coming undone.
It's all good that which will bring Ohbamba to lose the election!
I object to the conflating of the word "populist" with the current politics of President Obama. To me populist encompasses THOSE WHO WORK and I don't think President Obama or his minions such as Pelosi and Reid care a whit about those people. n nThey seem far more concerned with the tax-eaters of the underclass and perennial students such as Sandra Fluke (although good on her for sticking up for S.E. Cupp against Hustler, not a tough call, but still) and the OWSers, not to mention the permanent dwellers in the Ivory Towers of Academe. n nNo, regarding Obama, it seems if you've ever gotten your hands dirty with anything besides the MSM's buckets of ink, you're beneath his consideration. n nThis may be rabble rousing, but it is NOT populism.
You need a dictionary. n nWebster's definition of "populism" doesn't limit the term only to those who work.
Moderate Democrats…really? n nSomeone i see did not get the memo, the Democratic Party has been fundamentally transformed into the Progressive Party.
I was going to say, where are all of those folks who were lamenting the death of bipartisanship with the defeat of Richard Lugar? n nJoe Lieberman's retirement was a leading indicator of how far to the Left the Democrats have gone. Now, this is even more evidence.
mene, mene, tekel, upharsin
It's not even good rabble rousing. n nWith Obama, it's buckpassing. With him, it's always somebody else's fault. Sarah Palin has come in for rough treatment from the editors of this magazine, even though she has been walking point for the conservative movement for the past four years and saying the things about Obama that others were too afraid to say. Four years ago she said that Obama was unprepared for the job. It's good to see that Mitt is catching on to what the Movement Conservatives always understood. n nMaybe this guy will win after all.
"Obama has embraced a populist, anti-competition, anti-capitalist message." n nThis is largely the way he's governed, he might as well run on it.
What the hell is a "centrist" or a "moderate"? You can't define them. without meaningless words and phrases. It's mush. Who cares whether a mush-minded , unprincipled, valueless coward is worried or not? Of course they're worried. People with no principles are always worried – there might be conflict or disagreement. Oh no! Centrists are a real problem. They take no position, therefore we continue to drift. It's OK if the boat sinks, as long as it doesn't rock.
That said, many of the people this article is talking about are "pragmatists". I mean, their think tank is called the "Third Way". Read Jonah Goldberg's book on Liberal Fascism if you want to learn more about this concept. They take every issue as individual. This results in inconsistent reactions. But even then, many moderate democrats are so because they differ on those seperate issues. For example, many are socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Or you can switch that and get the same result. Anyway, don't knock a person for "centrism" until you define why they are that way. Is it pragmatism or principled reactions to very different subjects.
A CENTRIST DEMOCRAT? A SANE AL GORE? NO SUCH ANIMALS!
I am wary of attacking centrist/moderates to harshly. (I do not define myself as one. In fact, I am firmly entrenched in the libertarian camp.) But keep in mind that some matters can go many different ways depending on the principles held by the individual. For example, you can say that you want the government out of our lives as much as possible. But many on the right would accuse me of being centrist when I follow that logic to the legalization of drugs and prostitution. Social, fiscal, entitlement, foreign policy, judicial, etc… issues can vary between different firmly held principles. So, as I said, I am wary of quick accusations of centrism as being unprincipled.
In highlighting Bain Capital, all Obama does is remind people that he is out of his depth when it comes to basic economics. It succeeds in making the campaign a choice instead of a referndum. Unfortunatley for his supposedly ingenius campaign team, the stark contrast they have presented is between a serious, competent business executive and a clueless street agitator. Not to mention Bain, the 9th-largest political contributor, gave 72% of its contributions to Democrats. n nPlease, by all means, let's talk about Bain some more. Next we can highlight the difference between a Mormon church service and the profanity-laced tirades of the black supremacist Reverend Wright.
Who'd a thunk it?
I remain skeptical that the Democratic Party has much of a future without the white vote.
We needed a bigger-than-life President – we got President Zero. nWe needed a well-grounded stable President – we got a certifiable narcissist. nWe needed bold leadership – we got a teleprompter nWe needed a seasoned hand – we got a hand in in our pockets nWe needed a champion for American citizens… we got a champion for the invading horde of Illegal Aliens nWe needed a skilled bridge builder – we got a class-warfare specialist and inciter-in-chief. nWe needed practical, proven policies – we got socialist dogma and monumental waste nWe needed an inspirational visionary – we got an ideologically blinded, left learning-impaired radical nWe needed a Constitutional champion – we got a domestic enemy of the Constitution nWe needed a restrained, intimidating warrior – we got groveling, bowing, Barney Fife nWe needed a patriot – we got G. D. America, G. D. America, G. D. America. nWe needed someone to unshackle our economy – we got someone who is a friend to our enemies and an enemy to our businesses nWe needed a president beyond color – we got a green president embracing every whim and myth ever spoken by the kook environmental fringe. nWe needed mature, principled leadership – we got a petulant, lying, whining, blaming, sulking, man-child. n nIt is a national disgrace that someone this inept, incompetent, racist, and a American hating Socialist could be elected to the office of the Presidency.
We have always had racist presidents, just happens that this one is not white.
There is no such thing as a moderate, conservatives and liberals will do whatever they can get away with when in power. If it were up to the Clintons we have universal healthcare in the 90s. The only reason Clinton is known as "moderate' was because of Gingrich hounding him at every corner.