CT 04: Is Himes throwing Obama under the bus?

It's politics (0.00 / 0)

Judge on record, not on ad's.  

---

by: MBethel @ Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:00:27 AM UTC

This kind of politics (0.00 / 0)

... is why the party is facing a vast enthusiasm gap.

And, while it bears mentioning that "the record" that you're referring to includes votes against stimulus measures as described in the ad, I feel pretty strongly that we don't really have the ability to say with certainty what a Congressperson's impact in the halls of power truly is. So far as I'm concerned, the record that we can examine and judge is the public advocacy that they present, and in that regard Jim has been a real disappointment.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:15:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not defending his record (0.00 / 0)

by any means.

What I mean is that Hime's is in a part of the state that are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Understand his position. It's aggravating for sure, but he's not exactly the candidate that can fire up the base.  

---

by: MBethel @ Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:32:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What? (0.00 / 0)

You didn't mention that Himes is probably the only incumbent Dem still talking healthcare and his support for the President's plan. Pointing out the areas where he agrees/disagrees with the President is essential in the current political climate. Unfortunately, "those who were most responsible for getting them (sic) elected into office in the first place..." are unlikely to even show up this year. Himes needs to win in the wealthier towns this time around.

---

by: Neal Fink @ Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:33:44 AM UTC

The jobs of tomorrow do depend on responsible choices today (4.00 / 2)

And the jobs of today depended on responsible choices yesterday.

Choices like voting against jobs do not strike me as having been particularly responsible ones.

---

by: tparty @ Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 13:56:15 PM UTC

One thing to consider (0.00 / 0)

Is that the vote passed. Himes has not been the type of congressman to hold up legislation. It's very possible that he was released by Pelosi.  

---

by: MBethel @ Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 17:44:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Independence (0.00 / 0)

I find it interesting that there is a negative reaction to the notion that I am independent. My understanding of my constitutional responsibility is that I am to represent my constituency and make the most responsible thought-out choices I can. I think there's actually supposed to be some tension (dare I say independence) between the three co-equal branches of government. Checks and balances and all that. I don't recall "standing with the President" as being part of a representative's job description, though I have done so on much of the significant and controversial legislation passed this term.

Yes, I have taken some votes against spending bills that I considered ill-timed or poorly constructed, just as I have supported others such as UI and teacher/FMAP money that I thought were important. I know my position on a temporary extension of the 01/03 tax cuts has caused some consternation here. That is another matter that I hope we can discuss in a live blog soon.

I also have articulated a position on Afghanistan at odds with the President's and have been pointedly critical of his strategy there. Oddly, that independence has not led to charges of throwing him under the bus.

---

by: Jim Himes @ Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 21:37:27 PM UTC

Re: Independence (4.00 / 1)

Speaking for myself, I don't object to the notion of independence, but I've been profoundly disappointed at how the vision you offered in the 2008 campaign has shrunk since arriving in office.

Choosing Financial Services over Transportation. Going back on your pledge to join both the New Democrats and the Progressive Caucus -- half of it, anyway. Insisting on a delay in the healthcare legislative process that we all knew would cause the bill to be radically scaled back. Signing the anti-surtax letter and not the public option letter to the leadership. "Goin' Rogue" by offering cuts to high speed rail, affordable housing, and brownfield remediation. Opposing extensions of unemployment insurance. Supporting the Bush tax cuts for those making over a quarter-million dollars each year, when you once said that "For thirty years now, Republicans have told us that if we cut taxes for the very wealthy, everyone else will make more. That was the theory behind President Bush's special tax breaks for the very wealthy. It's the theory behind John McCain's promise to do more of the same. But the reality is trickle-down economics just do not trickle-down far enough." Lending your bully pulpit to the CEO of the Pete Peterson Foundation (!).

As for Afghanistan, in December you said that "Before I support any new commitment of American lives or taxpayer dollars, I will closely review the President's plan and ask the hard questions my constituents want answered." This year, you supported the funding for that conflict, opposed the withdrawal resolution, and if you have pointedly broken from Obama's strategy in that country, that view certainly was not in evidence at your recent presentation to the Silver Star DFA. I've heard a lot of "I've been pointedly critical..." statements in the past, and yours sounded a great deal like those offered by your predecessor, who could always find a reason to not support a timetable when binding legislation hit the floor.

I have no desire or intention to question your motives or sincerity, and to be honest, after seeing your exchange with the Norwalk Democrats over financial reform, I came to the conclusion that directly or publicly challenging your positions was probably going to be counterproductive anyway (which is why diaries like this are being written by a resident of the 5th CD instead of someone like me). You don't need to defend your record to me -- you did what you did, promoted what you promoted, and now you are where you are. Whatever unhappiness I have towards that, I certainly recognize that you're better than the other guy.

But I've seen both you and your campaign manager speak in the last two weeks, and both of you said that your greatest obstacle to re-election is diminished enthusiasm among Democrats. Sixteen months ago, I wrote to you:

Are numbers discredited because they have been used dishonestly by those who would dismantle Social Security?

The answer is, probably for most of us, yes! It doesn't mean that the numbers can't be true, but it speaks to what you (or anyone) see as authoritative sources, what arguments are being lent credence in the halls of power. The Economist and Pete Peterson are in, The Nation and Amy Goodman are out.

That's obviously not the end of the world. But add in the variety of policy disappointments that people are starting to absorb, and the question stops being "how do we get Democrat #61 and 62 in the Senate," and starts being "were we wrong to believe that these candidates think as we do?" There would be no liberal blogging "movement" to speak of (nor would there be a President Obama today) if the Democratic Senate of 2002 didn't pass the Iraq War resolution, so a lot of us are poised to pounce at the appearance of a faithless Democrat.

So sure, the response isn't exactly proportional -- not to the message itself -- but when our candidates start preaching Economist and Social Security Crisis to us at a moment of pretty high political tension, it touches something a lot deeper and more institutionally-ingrained in the blogging community than you might think.

(Emphasis added.) Anyway, back then it was a few canaries in the coalmine complaining, and now the Democrats who are questioning if their efforts will make a difference has been quantified in a more general sense. I'm a reliable Dem voter and I can't come up with a single thing that's been suggested will on the agenda for the 112th Congress to excite voters and activists like me. Insofar as you and I agree that diminished Democratic enthusiasm and expectations are an obstacle to your re-election, I can't imagine what you think ads like those shown above are supposed to accomplish.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 23:15:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]