Gergen: Chambliss Win Means Obama Must Govern From The Center

by Todd Beeton, Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:41:17 PM EST

Last time I checked, 41% was a failing grade. Not so in the Senate it would appear. No, now that Chambliss has won, apparently having just 41 votes in the Senate is REALLY great news for Republicans and bad news for Democrats, especially President-elect Barack Obama.

On AC360 earlier David Gergen declared:

I think this actually puts a lot more pressure on Barack Obama to govern much more from the center and not from the left. He is going to need Republicans now, he is going to need a bipartisan approach...

Right, a 41 vote minority should by all means have Barack Obama shaking in his boots. I wonder if Gergen said something similar about Republicans on Nov. 4th, perhaps something like...

I think the fact that Barack Obama won 53% of the vote tonight and that Democrats will have won at least 7 more seats in the Senate and 20 more seats in the House puts a lot more pressure on Republicans to govern much more from the center and not from the right.

Oh, he didn't? Ya don't say...

Gergen's refusal to put the burden on the Republicans to be cooperative and "centrist" rather than the Democrats is really a symptom of the persistent beltway "center right nation" conventional wisdom, which always puts the burden on Democrats to be the centrist ones since the Republican Party, so goes the logic, is where the people already are. Was there any greater evidence that the Democratic Party is where the people are than the results on November 4th?

Barack Obama has fed into this narrative, of course, by insisting on being the one who's cooperative and above the fray and never punishing Republicans or one pesky former Democrat in particular for being partisan obstructors. But in fact, the burden should be placed squarely on the shoulders of Republicans in Congress to move toward the center where, let's face it, Barack Obama already is. That's not a slam on Barack Obama, it's merely an acknowledgment of the reality that his agenda, which is largely a progressive agenda, is a mainstream agenda and it's the Republicans who need to move leftward toward the rest of us.

Tags: Barack Obama, David Gergen, saxby chambliss (all tags)

Comments

9 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Democrats need to disregard ideological BS

Democrats need to stop this "from the middle" bullshit. If they really wanted to govern progressively but please the republican crowds, they are better off compromising on lower taxes(which would cost us less than those many bailouts) than compromising on real progressive issues. For some reason, Democrats like to hold firm on taxes and overspending, but compromise on everything else.

Isnt it amazing that Democrats could not use any leverage during the Bush early years despite having 40+ seats? Democrats are freaking cowards. I hope Obama is just doing this for politics and he is planning some serious takedowns behind the scenes.

By the way, that 60 seat thing was always bullshit. The DEmocrats would have needed to be superaggressive to even have a good chance of winning the GA seat. DEmocrats used the 60 seat canard to find an excuse to rehab Lieberman. No one with any common sense thought that Jim Martin had a good chance of winning.

Martin's best chance was Nov 4. Once that was over, he had little chance. There were just too many pissed off Republicans here locally and a lot of happy Democrats who were glad to see Obama win.

How much of surplus money made it to Martin's campaign? Saxby was blasting Martin overwhelmingly when it came to TV ads.

There was never a 60 with or without Lieberman. It was just a slogan. And even with a 60, do you seriously think the Lieberman would have fallen in line on the important national security related issues?

by Pravin 2008-12-02 10:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Democrats need to disregard ideological BS

While I agree with you that the run-off was largely a formality, I take issue with the claim that 60 was never in the realm of possibility. But you seem to be suggesting that it was foolish to invest so much time, energy and money in the race in the first place and that if we'd only focused on fewer races, Franken would be the winner by now. Simply don't agree.

As for Lieberman, I'd actually make the case that Obama reached out to Lieberman precisely because he knew we wouldn't get 60. If you know you need moderate Democrats and Republicans on board, who better to have in your corner than the guy who fancies himself their leader. I'm not saying it's gonna work; I don't trust Lieberman as far as I can throw him, but if I'm Obama I can see making nice with the guy rather than having a vengeful Lieberman controlling a swing vote faction that essentially dictates cloture motions.

by Todd Beeton 2008-12-02 11:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Democrats need to disregard ideological BS

Oh, I dont mean to say it was foolish to put in resources. I think giving Saxby a scare is an excellent first step where such a thing was unthinkable a year ago. I got no problems with that.

What I was expressing was pure cynicism that Senate DEmocrats actually believed they were going to have 60 in the caucus this cycle when they kept spreading the word about the magical 60 number during the Lieberman issue. I actually agree not having 60 in the caucus is not the end of the world as I have been saying forever that caucus membership of 60 itself was not a finality to avoid filibusters and the lack of one did not ensure a filibuster.

by Pravin 2008-12-02 11:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Democrats need to disregard ideological BS

ah, yeah, I got ya.

I don't dispute the idea that the magic of 60 may have been overblown but it did provide a narrative and a goal to work toward. But yeah, it was wielded rather cynically during the Lieberman fight.

by Todd Beeton 2008-12-02 11:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Obama Must Govern From The Center

Obama has something Bush never had -- a mandate. He'll do what he thinks is best for the country. I'm always comfortable when we have a Democratic president that they have our best interests at heart. Haven't felt that way about a Republican since Eisenhower.

by GFORD 2008-12-02 11:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

I think Gergen is saying that because Dems

will not have 60 seats thus in order for Obama to get legislation passed the legislation would have to be from the center.

But the reality is that the number of 60 is really a myth. There will be some Dems who won't vote for Obama's legislation while there will be some Repubs that will depending upon the legislation.

by puma 2008-12-03 12:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Why Do We Even Need 60?

A point that is raised on sites like this one and DKos, but never in the press, is how the Republicans completely abused the filibuster during their two years in the minority. They have somehow convinced everyone that you need 60 votes to pass any legislation in the Senate. Which is hogwash!

If you want a quick comparison of what the Republican party was, compared to what it is now, look no farther than their Senate leaders. Starting in the 50s, you had Dirkson (IL), followed by Scott (PA), and then Howard Baker (TN). They were all men of character. More recently we've had the buffoon Lott, the detestable Frist, and the downright despicable McConnell. I'm already seething with what I anticipate to be a totally obstructionist attitude from the McConnell.

The nation has spoken. It's time that democratic principles once again take hold and a recalcitrant minority is not allowed to hold hostage our only chance for getting out of the morass that they created.

by Bob Miller 2008-12-03 02:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Benefit of the doubt on cabinet

Time will tell what Obama's strategy is with his cabinet appointments but at this juncture I am sticking to my feeling that he is doing his "centrist" thing because he believes that this is how he got elected and he is trying to put his money where his mouth is. For any of us to pretend that because he won the election there is no residual "fear of the unknown" factor with him would be foolish. He must I feel come into office with as much of the country behind him as possible. IF that means leaning his cabinet a little further rightward than he might have otherwise I am personally OK with that. Others may disagree but I am desperate for him to succeed legislatively and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.

On Gergen's point, I saw this last night and laughed out loud when he said it. Chambliss' victory means nothing of the sort. For anyone to suggest that an incumbent Republican having to go to a run off to win his seat means that the Democrats have to move to the center to counter is ludicrous.

by wasder 2008-12-03 06:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Gergen: Chambliss Win Means Obama Must Govern

The sad thing is Gergen is one of the more sensible Republicans out there on the air. Wouldn't it be nice if instead some pundits cited public opinion polls to warn Republicans they better not obstruct the people's will any more?

by Batocchio 2008-12-03 10:35PM | 0 recs