Note To Congress: When America Voted For Change, We Were Talking About You Too
January 8th, 2009 | by Ken Grandlund |Frankly, I don’t care how much past service or time in office any of our politicians may have. This is a new game, and yesterday’s “achievements” mean little or nothing in a Post-Bush world. Especially when, for a great number of our so-called leaders, those “achievements” can be directly tied to the place we find ourselves today. Sadly, most, if not all, of our elected officials are slow in realizing that we Americans were serious when we elected Barack Obama on a platform of change.
I for one no longer have any patience for those “esteemed” leaders like Diane Feinstein who make noise and gum up the works when they don’t get a “courtesy call” from Obama when he chooses someone for a cabinet position. Hey Feinstein…Obama is not required to ask your permission or check with you first about any nomination. Your job as Senator is to simply vote yes or no when the time comes for you to do so. Enough of this petty nonsense from people who are supposed to be adults. News flash for you politicians…you too could be looking for a new job if you don’t change your ways.
Call it a leap of faith, but for me, this presidential election was about more than just finally ending the disastrous course set by Bush and his criminal cronies. It was about bringing real change to our nation’s politics by ending the old way of doing things. Granted, I’ve been less than thrilled about the team Obama has been putting together-too many “old timers” in there for my taste, especially when the goal is to change the order of business. (I mean how much change can you expect to get from people who have spent decades mired in pay to play politics?) But for now, I’m still willing to believe that Obama will drive this ship in a new direction, and in order to avoid running aground, he decided to hire on a seasoned crew rather than a bunch of greenhorns. But so long as Obama is the one driving the ship and calling the shots, the names of those hoisting the sails and manning the jib is somewhat less important provided they follow the directions given to them and don’t fall into old habits that would sink their boss’s best intentions.
But does this hope for change we all signed up for stand any real chance of succeeding? We all know that a president can only do so much on his own, despite the disgusting trend crafted by the Bush-Cheney team. If Obama reverts to a more traditional interpretation of the office of President, then reliance on a rational, adult Congress is key to any success he may achieve for this country. Unfortunately, that’s not the Congress we gave him, or at least, it isn’t looking that way in the beginning. Obama is saying and trying to do all the right things to be able to hit the ground running. But the Congress continues its petty infighting, it’s unearned displays of individual grandeur, and it’s incessant partisanship. With leadership like that, Obama could be supernatural and still get stymied while playing by the inane rules of yesterday’s political playbook.
I am optimistic that Obama will have not only the vision, but the assistance he needs from a rationally behaving Congress to put America on more solid footing and towards a better tomorrow. Clearly the task is daunting. And as Obama has been saying, things will probably get worse before they take a better turn. But a better future is possible, if Americans really want it. Many of us may think that the battle for rational government has been won simply by electing Obama. It is a mistake to think that. The first skirmish was won, but the battle looms large ahead. We must all have the fortitude to stay engaged, to pressure petulant lawmakers to do better, to think beyond themselves, to behave like real leaders. If they do not, we must have the will to remove them from office. If WE do not, then the mess we lay in will be of our own making. Politicians will listen to people if we speak loudly enough. But if we simply sit back and pretend that our task is done because we got Obama into the White House, we will fail. And we will deserve to fail.
(cross posted at Common Sense)
3 Responses to “Note To Congress: When America Voted For Change, We Were Talking About You Too”
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 8, 2009 | Reply
I guess, unsurprisingly, I disagree. Feinstein had good cause to speak out. Picking a head of CIA with no experience in intelligence was, in my opinion, a boneheaded move, evidence that Obama puts politics above intelligence and security and Dianne SHOULD have spoken up. That she did indicates that she’s nobodies lap-dog and that she DOES take her position on the intelligence oversight committee seriously. The fact that V-P elect also thought Obama’s failure to consult a mistake, pointed out in your own linked article, strengthens the point.
One of the on point criticisms of the Republican majority in Congress under Bush was that it was too complacent, that it failed to vigorously oversee the president’s actions. It seems strange that you are criticizing a Democrat for doing her job where the Republicans failed. Congress is, if nothing else, a collection of professional bitchers whose main job is NOT to vote but to deliberate, build consensus within chambers and between chambers and with the people and governments of the states but most of all, to act as a check upon the Executive Branch of Government. One of the ways they do that is by criticizing the president when they think he’s making a mistake. The president can go a long way toward making this a less unpleasant experience by being sure to consult frequently especially with the members of relevant committee members in Congress of both parties when doing things like making appointments.
If he or she fails to do so, he or she has no one but him or herself to blame if they catch flack. Congress is about much more than just voting. You should know better, Ken.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 8, 2009 | Reply
Besides, I can think of no better evidence that Democrats in Congress are taking the voters’ call for change to heart than their willingness to call bullshit on a president-elect of their own party when they think he’s making a bone-headed move. I applaud Feinstein for this and Reid for saying that congressional Democrats don’t work for the president. Personally, I think Reid was wrong in his original stand regarding Roland Burris but he definitely had the hope and change message firmly in mind when he was willing to stand up to Obama. Here’s to hoping he and the rest of Congress of both parties will continue in this same vein when they feel it appropriate.
By Ken Grandlund on Jan 8, 2009 | Reply
Naturally we disagree Craig, that’s what keeps life interesting.
For me, evidence that the Congress (Dems AND Reps alike) aren’t convinved in the voters’ will for real change comes in their interactions with each other as well as with the public at large. Challenging a potential nominee is just an example of old time politicians feeling “left out.” Well why not? It is these same old timers who wrought such havoc by being unwilling to do their jobs for so long. For my money, they should all have been tossed out.
The CIA example though is interesting-there have been several DCI’s whose background was not in intelligence, but rather in politics or the military (not necessarily military intelligence though) and their tenure’s have a mixed rating. The CIA though is not exactly a bastion for enlightened change and thought, at least historically, so perhaps having someone from outside that world has a chance to make some changes. We know that CIA needs reform, and frankly always has.
No, the congress looking to block Obama aren’t doing it out of a response to voters’ call for change but rather because of it. They don’t want real change, never have. And so they are going to fight it and obscure it and play petty games to erode any real change. They LIKE the way things work…it benefits THEM. When a new leader, brought in on a message of change he championed and that resonated with voters, actually starts to do things different, they balk, or at lleast try to gum it up. And that is counter productive for the country.
My critique is not me saying that Obama should be given a free hand- he should not, nor does he seem to think he should. We all know where that road leads, especially with unscrupulous leaders like BUsh, but also with to those with more honorable intentions. Hope and Change do not mean obstruct. They mean doing it different than before. So far, all I see are the same old games.