Hullabaloo

Saturday, March 08, 2008

 
Bold Failure to Be Conservative

by digby


I just saw the most absurd story I've seen in a while on CNN. They decided to dig into Obama's record in Illinois and they found some critics. And I know that this will shock you, but the critics are -- Republicans. Gosh, I wonder what they have to say!

Dan Lothian:The question is, what did Obama accomplish? I went to Chicago and found out that the answer to that question lies in who you talk to.

New and untested, Barack Obama started early, trying to carve out a reputation as an eager hard working Illinois State Senator. He was elected in 1996. Telling powerful Democrat Emil Jones, the man Obama considers his political godfather, to throw him into the fire.

Jones: He said, "feel free to give me any tough assignments. You know I like to work hard."

That work, say his critics, resulted in one of the most liberal voting records in the senate during his eight years, pushing for abortion rights, to raising taxes. But what troubles former Republican colleague, Dan Cronin who says he respects Obama and his politics skills, is that considering the presidential hopeful's campaign of bold change, his past, he says, doesn't quite add up.

Cronin: There were no bold solutions, there were no creative approaches, there were no efforts to stand up to the establishment.

Gosh, what would that have looked like do you suppose? Bold efforts to slash taxes? Pushing bills to allow prayer in schools? After all, he's such an unreconstructed liberal that he actually (gasp!) was for abortion rights.

See how this argument works? Obama is presented as a shrieking hippie freak who loves abortion (the emphasis on "for" in Lothian's report is his not mine) and raising taxes. And that's also a very weak position, because he refused to "challenge" the "establishment" --- he's not talking about the political establishment, which was Republican during most of Obama's tenure. Clearly, Obama was standing up to them every time he cast one of those awful liberal votes. The problem was that he failed to properly challenge the Democratic establishment. Boldness and creativity, you see, are defined by how well they flout liberal ideals.

The report went on to discuss Obama's "present" votes and explained that they are a weird Chicago anomoly. And it pointed out in passing that Obama was actually known to work across the aisles. But the upshot of the story was that Republicans were quite disappointed that Obama didn't propose bold, innovative conservative legislation. I'm shocked.

Lothian wound up the reports saying:

So an interesting debate there in the state of Illinois. Of course, when you're running for president, everything is under the microscope.

Yes. A microscope with a conservative filter.

Update: Ferchrist's sake. This "critic" Cronin has apparently been all over TV with this nonsense and nobody has yet mentioned that he's on John McCain's Illinois team. Media Matters caught ABC's Terry Moran broadcasting the same swill:

Moran featured commentary about Obama from two Republican state senators from Illinois, Dan Cronin and Kirk Dillard. Moran noted that Dillard, who spoke of his "respect" for Obama and of working together with Obama on legislation, is "a [Sen.] John McCain supporter." But at no point did Moran note that Cronin is also a McCain supporter and a member of McCain's "leadership team." Moran aired clips of Cronin attacking Obama's voting record, and saying of Obama's accomplishments in the Illinois Senate: "You know, I hate to burst the bubble, but there's been a lot of hype. And, you know, when he served down here, his career was not particularly distinguished. ... There were no bold solutions. There were no creative proposals to take on the establishment. He's a Cook County Democrat, and he went along with the program." McCain's campaign website lists both Cronin and Dillard as members of his "Illinois leadership team" and as "Illinois delegates."

Comments fubared today. I don't know why --- d
.
digby 3/08/2008 03:40:00 PM |