Moronmeter.com

I like Roland S Martin.  He usually provides very good analysis and commentary.

In his latest piece at CNN.com (“Time for Obama to go ‘gangsta’ on GOP “) , though, I think he tanks an otherwise good article with a misguided summation paragraph.

He sums up the article nicely near the beginning:

For me, I’m sick and tired of Democrats having power and being unwilling to use it. I’ve always respected Republicans when they had power because they were willing to use it and maybe apologize later.

His basic idea isn’t bad – President Obama needs to play hardball in order to move his agenda forward.

Now, I don’t agree with everything in the Democratic agenda (more often than not, it is the means I have a fundamental dislike for, not necessarily the ends), but I do find it interesting that even when they had total control over Congress and the White House, the Democrats were unable to push through their ‘signature’ legislative pieces (in particular Health Insurance Reform and Cap and Trade).

Personally, I think it was because of President Obama’s decision to let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid drive the agenda – a mistake President Obama first made with the ‘Spendulus’ package and repeated with the Health Insurance Reform legislation.

In order to keep himself ‘above the fray’, he makes few public demands for what his ‘signature agenda item’ legislation should contain, instead focusing on getting something (anything!) passed.

This has allowed him to claim victory, no matter what is passed, because since he hasn’t staked out a clear position, except getting something (anything!) passed, he achieved his goal, if something (anything!) is passed.

Republicans, however, haven’t gone along with the Democrats.  This seems to be shocking to many Democrats, because obviously, they control Congress and the White House, so Republicans should vote in favor of Democratic legislation, even if it goes against the principles the Republicans claim to hold dear.

(Note to Democrats: perhaps instead of demanding that Republicans vote for your legislation because you say so and they are being meanies by not supporting your agenda, you might try bribing them.  Payoffs seemed to work for you in the Senate with some of your own caucus members, maybe there are a couple of Republicans would be willing to sign on to Health Insurance Reform if you kick a few hundred million their state’s way…)

Mr. Martin, however, makes a hard left turn into Bizarro World in his final paragraph:

Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ‘em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.

Excuse me?

Isn’t that the same thinking that liberals derided President George W Bush for during his presidency?

I could have sworn that we were told by knowledgeable liberals that this type of ‘cowboy diplomacy’ had driven America’s allies away and left the United States alone and friendless in the world.

Now, President Obama is supposed to engage in that exact, same ‘you are with us or against us’ policy to drive his domestic agenda?

It seems to me it was either wrong when President Bush implemented it (and thus it would be wrong now) or President Bush wasn’t so far off base.

Or, maybe, it is only wrong when non-liberals pursue that course.

Personally, I like the Teddy Roosevelt policy of “Walk quietly and carry a big stick!”, but that is just me.  It doesn’t have all of the ballyhoo of “You are either with me or you are against me.  If you are against me, you will pay the price!”, but it gets things done in a nice, quiet way.

Related posts:

1. Team Obama: Wants 2010 to be 2008, But There is One Thing Missing…
2. President Obama on Health Insurance Requirement: This Apple is Like that Orange
3. Democratic Election ‘Penalty’ Starts Taking Shape?
4. Nancy Pelosi Says She’ll Keep Blaming Bush As Long As She’s Speaker of the House
5. If Scott Brown Wins, the Democrats are Toast in November