On being Pro-Obama vs. being Pro-whatever one thinks is right

[AlexanderProgressive]

Pro-Obamaness in action

I see that there is a debate in these quarters as to whether one should be "pro-Obama" (whatever that means) or being "pro-whatever one thinks is right."

In a Washington Post article today ( http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/06/house_approves_106b_bill_to_fu.html?hpid=moreheadlines ), Perry Bacon reports that 19 House members supported the war spending bill not because they liked it, but because loyalty to their President:

The House today passed a $106 billion bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September, as House Democrats backed President Obama despite misgivings among the ranks about his strategy in Afghanistan.
The 226 to 202 vote came after Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had called some reluctant Democrats during the day imploring them to back the bill, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had strongly pressed her colleagues in a closed-door meeting to vote for the bill in a show of support for Obama, even if they oppose his strategy for increasing troops in Afghanistan. . . .
"We are in the process of wrapping up the wars. The president needed our support," said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who had earlier said he opposed the war funding but voted for it in the end. "But the substance still sucks" . . . .
House Democrats had put off the vote for more than a week, looking to win support for the bill. President Obama, who had pushed to insert a provision in the bill to bar the release of photos depicting abuse of detainees held in U.S. custody abroad, demanded the Senate take out the provision to win votes from House liberals who said they would not support the war bill if the photo ban was included.
In the end, 19 House Democrats backed the bill who had opposed it the first time, although some cited loyalty, not agreement with Obama's plans, as their reason.
"I want to support my president," said Rep. Jan Scha

Glen Greenwald reacts:

If I recall correctly -- and I do -- the primary criticism of the GOP-led Congress from 2002-2006 was that it abdicated its institutional responsibility to act as an independent branch and instead became a subservient arm of the executive branch due to political allegiance to the Republican President. Pat Leahy famously mocked Congressional Republicans for taking orders from Dick Cheney on how to vote at a weekly lunch they had with him. But at least Congressional Republicans had the decency to pretend that they were exercising their own independent judgment -- not subordinating their judgment to the President's will out of "loyalty."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/17/congress/index.html

[redqueen]

1. "Obama demanded the Senate take out the provision..."

I'm sure that had nothing to do with the change of heart, no... it was all just "loyalty" crap.

Nice spin there.



Oh, and welcome to DU.

[Boomerang Diddle]

2. If it's on the internet it must be true......

n/t

[incapsulated]

4. Yes, the Washington Post is just some anonymous blog n/t

[Boomerang Diddle]

8. And they are never wrong! Never! Never ever!

Because if someone says something on a blog, even a blog with a famous name, it's always right! Always!!!!!!

[incapsulated]

10. So, do you take that skeptisim about anything said in a major newspaper

When it's positive about Obama?

Don't think so.

[redqueen]

11. Can't speak for others, but I am skeptical about claims when they don't add up.

Greenwald seems to be spinning this as some kind of issue, when it was one quote by one representative... and he conveniently ignores the fact that the bill was changed.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Some people are loyal to politicians, some people are loyal ideas, and some

people are loyal to neither.

[redqueen]

5. Yes... "some". I wonder how many make up the "some" cited here.

I see one quote.

Amazing how easy it is to spin things like this. Still.

[ZombieHorde]

6. "how many make up the "some" cited here"

I have no idea.

[CJCRANE]

7. Some people are loyal to politicians who represent their ideas

or most of their ideas.

Anyone who wants to see 100% of their ideas represented in one person needs to run for office.

[ZombieHorde]

12. Loyalty to politicians who represent their ideas or most of their ideas is still

loyalty to politicians. The politician is superior to the idea or the idea is superior to the politician, unless that politician is you of course.

[CJCRANE]

13. Any idea is usually represented by a person or group...

so some point you will have loyalty to someone.

[ZombieHorde]

14. Supporting someone and being loyal to someone are two very different things. nt

[4lbs]

9. However, we have a bunch of Senate Democrats that agree that Guantanomo should be closed yet they

voted overwhelmingly against the funding to do it.

They voted 90 to 6 against funding the closing.

Those Senate Democrats gave in to the fear-mongering about having detainees come the U.S. and possibly detained in federal SuperMax prisons or prosecuted here.

[GeorgeGist]

15. In any difference of opinion, there are only 2 possibilities:

Both parties are wrong, or one party is right.