by Peter Wallsten
Slowly over the past few weeks, some of President Barack Obama's most fervent supporters have come to an unhappy realization: The candidate who they thought was squarely on their side in policy fights is now a president who needs cajoling and persuading.
Advocates for stem cell research thought Obama would quickly sign an order to reverse former President Bush's restrictions on the science. Now, they are fretting over Obama's statement that he wants to act in tandem with Congress, possibly causing a delay.
Critics of Bush's faith-based initiative thought Obama had promised to end religious discrimination among social service groups taking federal money. But Obama, in announcing his own faith-based program this month, said only that the discrimination issue may be reviewed.
And Obama's recent moves regarding the trials of detainees have left some liberal groups and Bush critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, feeling betrayed, given that Obama was a harsh critic of Bush's detainee policies when running for office last year.
The anxiety is also being felt in the labor movement, one of Obama's most important support bases. Some union officials and their allies are frustrated that at a critical point in negotiations over his massive stimulus package, Obama seemed to call for limits on ``Buy American'' provisions in the bill aimed at making sure stimulus money would be spent on U.S.-made materials.
Obama has been president for less than a month, and his liberal critics concede that the economic crisis has understandably taken the focus off their issues. But some of the issues in play were crucial to building excitement on the left and mobilizing grassroots support for Obama's candidacy.
"He made very clear promises, and he should live up to them," said Arthur Stamoulis, director of the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign, which received an unqualified "yes" from Obama on a campaign questionnaire last year when the group asked if he would support "Buy American" requirements. "The fact that he's hedging on this is not promising. He's catering much too much to the desires of Republicans who are not going to support the change that voters wanted."
See the story on Obama's supporters in Tribune newspapers and here in the Swamp:
Thea Lee, policy director of the AFL-CIO, said: "We would like to have him stand more forthrightly behind the positions that he took during the campaign."
Obama has long said his administration will be driven by competence and not political ideology. He has blamed the nation's problems on a failed and highly partisan political system, and he has said that solutions should come by building coalitions that cross the traditional battle lines in Washington policy fights.
Moreover, say White House aides, Obama has already fulfilled promises such as enacting a labor-backed pay equity law and beginning the process of closing the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "Given that we have only been here for three weeks, that is a pretty good start," said White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki.
Yet, for some who supported him, Obama's recent actions contain either outright abandonment of what they thought had been campaign promises, or at least a hesitation on Obama's part to follow through quickly and clearly.
Union leaders were taken aback earlier this month when Obama, during television appearances discussing the stimulus legislation, spoke skeptically of ``Buy America'' provisions in the bill giving U.S. makers of steel and other materials an advantage in bidding for contracts.
Obama told Fox News that the U.S. "can't send a protectionist message," and he cautioned ABC News that the requirements could be a "potential source of trade wars that we can't afford at a time when trade is sinking all across the globe." That language mirrored the criticisms that business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had used in arguing against ``Buy American'' rules.
Business groups were thrilled at Obama's words. "That was an extremely important moment," said John Murphy, vice president for international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the biggest business associations. "The business community is very pleased that the White House stepped in and showed leadership on this issue."
"Buy American" rules remain in the stimulus bill that the president is scheduled to sign Tuesday, but labor advocates were alarmed by Obama's willingness to insert himself in the debate as a champion of business concerns. They said his stance was far different than during the presidential election, when Obama was trying to win union votes and called for rebuilding America with union-made materials.
Obama's new language was a "disturbing" sign, said Jeff Faux, an economist at the union-backed Economic Policy Institute. He said the president had "moved so quickly to concede on this question without really drawing the debate out."
Now, some labor advocates worry about how aggressively the new president will push to fulfill other key campaign promises, such as passage of the so-called "card check" legislation that would make it easier to form labor unions.
At the American Civil Liberties Union, executive director Anthony Romero said his group's disappointment is "deep and unparalleled" after the Justice Department decided to keep in place one of the most controversial legal tactics of the Bush anti-terror arsenal: using the "state-secrets" doctrine to block lawsuits by detainees.
The Justice Department employed the "state secrets'' doctrine last week in arguing that a case should not proceed because it might lead to the disclosure of classified information. As a candidate, Obama had attacked Bush for using the tactic and had pledged to reverse such policies.
"Clearly, the state secrets campaign promise is broken," said Romero, "On his watch, with his attorney general, and with his government lawyers articulating the Bush administration policies."
Advocates of medical research using human embryonic stem cells are also watching Obama. As a candidate, Obama told the web site sciencedebate2008.org that he would reverse Bush's restrictions on federal funding for the research ``through executive order." Immediately following his election victory, transition director John Podesta told reporters that the stem cell order would be one of the first priorities.
But Obama recently signaled in remarks to Democratic lawmakers that he intended to wait for action in Congress.
Wary of a delay, one prominent advocacy group sent Obama a letter recently saying that he had pledged to revoke the Bush order. "We wanted him to know that we were still counting on the campaign commitment," said Amy Comstock Rick, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.
Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod told Fox News on Sunday that action could come soon.
Under Bush's faith-based initiative, religious groups taking federal money to provide social services were allowed to discriminate in hiring against people of other religions.
Obama, as a candidate, had seemed attack that policy when he said that groups receiving federal grants should not discriminate against the people they serve, ``or against the people you hire on the basis of their religion.''
But instead of reversing Bush's policy, Obama has said his own faith-based team may conduct a case-by-case review.
"People know that this looks like a promise that has been deep-sixed," said Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
While Lynn said he was upset by Obama's Feb. 5 announcement of his policy on religious discrimination, "I'm more disillusioned now, because there has been weeks of healthy criticism and yet no movement by the White House."
Comments
Absolutely.....after all he has had like what? almost a whole month. Just can't believe it hasn't all been solved by now.
Posted by: bill r. | February 16, 2009 8:02 AM
This morning's op-ed in the NYT is more pointed on the faith-based initiatives:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/opinion/16mon2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Mr. President, you called for "change," not acquiesence, manipulation or worse, obfuscation.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport ☯ | February 16, 2009 8:38 AM
You must be talking to those losers, the Republicans, masquerading as President Obama supporters !! I am impressed with most things, President Obama has attempted and doubly impressed with the things he has successfully put into place. Three weeks on the job and he has passed a stimulus package and the largest tax-cut in our history, not too shabby, for an Illinoisan !! Mistakes, he has made and he will continue to make, so much for the messiah image, but I am also impressed by his admissions, to those mistakes. What a refreshing new development in our White house. Unlike Bush, and his big blunder in Baghdad, but that was another time, when women and men accepted any incompetent for their leader !! Now, we have elected a man, who can look the American public in the eye, every day, knowing he isn't lying to them, nor is he cheating them !! A new day has dawned in America, "... with liberty and justice for all ! ". It sure feels good. Now, if we could just get rid of all those pesky little Republicans, buzzing around Washington !!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, America | February 16, 2009 9:52 AM
You folks always seemed to forget that Obama and the WH gang are from Chicago, famous for the ole' shuffle: promise everything and then obfuscate the issue, then bob and weave until no one knows what you done as you propagandize the decisions in your favor, thus making you believe they have kept their promise while they have pulled off a double switch you failed to notice and the results are quite different than what you expected. All failures are blamed upon other factors and individuals. Get used to it, as well as being tossed under the bus.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 16, 2009 10:07 AM
I think Obama is finding that it's one thing to run for office, quite another thing to govern. When running, a candidate can say whatever he wants, because he's got no responsibility. When in office, he's got to think about what's going to work, not what the special interests supporting him want. At least we hope that's what officeholders do.
For the rest of us, we should keep in mind the lines from "The Boxer" when listening to campaign promises:
"All lies and jests
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest."
Posted by: DaveB | February 16, 2009 10:11 AM
Absolutely.....after all he has had like what? almost a whole month. Just can't believe it hasn't all been solved by now.
Posted by: bill r. | February 16, 2009 8:02 AM
bill r-
Obama has had "almost whole month" (your words) AND two years of a campaign that included daily rhetoric on how the current Bush admin is missing the easy and obvious answers to the current problems...he certainly wasn't a Senator during the campaign- what exactly was he thinking about and doing all this time??
-
You would think that in the last two years he would have had been able to apply the much publicized judgemnt and "smarts" to pretty much have a plan in place- keep in mind he was talking doom and gloom well before the recent economic meltdown. Instead, he outsources the writing of the stimulus bill to the two-headed big government monster Pelosi/Reid...
-
He needs another year and a panel of experts to tell him what to do about Gitmo- when in the campaign he all but called Bush stupid for not immediatley closing it... wheres the plan?
-
On a more frightening note- what if Iraq wasn't as progressed as it is now- thanks to the surge whose success he still can't/won't acknowledge...scary to think who would have been making that decsion for him.
-
I (obviously)didn't vote for the guy- but even I had given him more credit than his performance has been showing.
-
And BTW- whats up with the "hurry up and sign the stimulus by Friday before any can read it and to avoid catastrophe" nonsense-and then the commander in chief has a leisurely long ball playing, going out to dinner weekend in Chicago? Seems that the economic collapse he has warned of has defered to Obamas schedule?
-
Campaigning is the only thing this guy does well- governing ..not so much.
Posted by: heartburn | February 16, 2009 11:37 AM
heartburn....What in the world do you think he could have accomplished in the campaign years? That's a little silly. So much has changed over those years. If you remember clearly, 4 months before the election McCain was saying the fundamentals of the economy were strong. If you don't think there is a little bit much on his plate, I think you choose not to accept that. You seriously can't believe that there aren't more problems facing him than any other president, maybe outside of Washington or Lincoln. Who is looking for the "Messiah" now?
Posted by: bill r. | February 16, 2009 12:05 PM
You seriously can't believe that there aren't more problems facing him than any other president, maybe outside of Washington or Lincoln. Who is looking for the "Messiah" now?
Posted by: bill r. | February 16, 2009 12:05 PM
Really-? 9/11 stacks up pretty high on the (blank) sandwich being handed to a new prez..
Your acting as if Obama was just made aware of the economic issues...his entire campaign was based on being critical of everything from the war to the economy...are you saying that Obama didn't believe in his own message?
Clearly the magnitude of the issues with the economy have changed recently- But Obama was running on hope and change- including his almost two year "eight years of failed policies" rhetoric...wouldn't you think that there would have been a better plan at least outlined , given that basically his whole campaign was based on change or "I'm not Bush?"
I am disappointed- and that is saying an awful lot- since I was prepared for disappointment...
Posted by: heartburn | February 16, 2009 12:22 PM
You folks always seemed to forget that Obama and the WH gang are from Chicago, famous for the ole' shuffle: promise everything and then obfuscate the issue, then bob and weave until no one knows what you done as you propagandize the decisions in your favor, thus making you believe they have kept their promise while they have pulled off a double switch you failed to notice and the results are quite different than what you expected. All failures are blamed upon other factors and individuals. Get used to it, as well as being tossed under the bus.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 16, 2009 10:07 AM
So Chicago politicians are Republicans? Your description of "the ole shuffle" couldn't be more right-on-the-money in describing Republican modus operandi.
Posted by: Op109 | February 16, 2009 12:41 PM
So Chicago politicians are Republicans? Your description of "the ole shuffle" couldn't be more right-on-the-money in describing Republican modus operandi.
Posted by: Op109 | February 16, 2009 12:41 PM
Op109
You must be referring to all those lobbyist that weren't allowed in Barrys' administration but were given waivers because they were uniquely qualified or perhaps it was the tax cheats who were uniquely qualified and allowed to not experience consequences, or maybe Rahms' 21 hours of recorded speak with Blago because he was uniquely qualified, now whose' M. O. are speaking about?
Posted by: Don B. | February 16, 2009 5:08 PM
But Obama was running on hope and change
Posted by: heartburn | February 16, 2009 12:22 PM
heartburn......Bush had basically 6 months in office before 9/11. I think he spent those months aquiring a handicap in golf. Maybe you could enlighten me as to the important government work and life changing legislation he passed those first 6 months. I can't seem to think of any. As far as the change and hope......I have to say your Rome was built in a day argument seems so ridiculous to me. Almost.......partisan!
Posted by: bill r. | February 16, 2009 8:19 PM
Posted by: bill r. | February 16, 2009 8:19 PM
So your standard for Obama's success is completely based on how much better or worse he performs compared to Bush?
Posted by: heartburn | February 17, 2009 9:40 AM