The Congressional Black Caucus, a mostly Democratic caucus in Congress that focuses almost exclusively on the black community in America, is not particularly happy with the President. So while the President is on a midwestern bus tour, the CBC is on a permission tour.
Meaning? Well they’re politicians seeking permission from the black community to “unleash” on the President according to Rep. Maxine Waters.
"We don’t put pressure on the president," Waters told the audience at Wayne County Community College. "Let me tell you why. We don’t put pressure on the president because ya’ll love the president. You love the president. You’re very proud to have a black man — first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us."
The problem, Waters said, is that Obama is not paying enough attention to the problems of some black Americans. The unemployment rate for African-Americans nationally is a little over 16 percent, and almost twice that in Detroit. And yet, Waters said, the president is on a jobs-promotion trip through the Midwest that does not include any stops in black communities. "The Congressional Black Caucus loves the president too," Waters said. "We’re supportive of the president, but we’re getting tired, y’all. We’re getting tired. And so, what we want to do is, we want to give the president every opportunity to show what he can do and what he’s prepared to lead on. We want to give him every opportunity, but our people are hurting. The unemployment is unconscionable. We don’t know what the strategy is. We don’t know why on this trip that he’s in the United States now, he’s not in any black community. We don’t know that."
She joins the rest of America wondering “what the strategy is”. The President has talked all around it, but as usual, has offered nothing concrete, nothing in writing and certainly nothing the CBO could score. That would provide a record, and it appears this President wants to avoid such things. It would also provide leadership, something this President has avoided like the plague during his tenure.
The CBC still loves him, but they just don’t think he’s doing as well as he could (a sentiment shared by many in varying but overwhelming degrees). So, fingers firmly in the wind, the CBC is asking permission to launch on the Prez:
As she discussed her dilemma — frustrated with the president but hesitant to criticize him lest black supporters turn on her — Waters asked the crowd for its permission to have a "conversation" with the president. "When you tell us it’s alright and you unleash us and you tell us you’re ready for us to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation," she said. Some members of the crowd immediately voiced their approval.
"All I’m saying to you is, we’re politicians," Waters continued. "We’re elected officials. We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we’ll let go."
"Let go!" some in the audience yelled.
Indeed. But don’t expect the same sort of treatment the CBC would give a GOP leader to be “unleashed” on Obama.
It is interesting, though, to analyze situations like this and to realize that there are very few if any constituents who are pleased with the President’s performance and leadership. All have different reasons – to far left, not left enough, etc. – but almost all seem to agree he’s provided little if any leadership during his presidency.
As for the CBC and their constituency – they’ll still vote for Obama and will support him to the bitter end, which many hope is January of 2013. However, like many communities of voters on the left, their enthusiasm isn’t at all what it was when it was Candidate Obama they were supporting. And that lack of enthusiasm could be fatal to Obama’s reelection hopes next year.
It sure seems to me to be how many Democrats view it. If in trouble, ethically challenged, or just doing a miserable job, blame Bush. It has become the all purpose, "get out of jail free" card for Democrats, or so they seem to think.
The latest example? Why the Democratic Representative from Los Angeles, Maxine Waters. Instead of answering direct questions concerning her role is obtaining TARP funds for a bank in which her husband had an interest and sat on the board of directors, we got this:
Embattled Rep. Maxine Waters on Friday blamed the Bush administration for her ethics problems — saying she had to intervene with the Treasury Department on behalf of minority-owned banks seeking federal bailout funds — including one tied to her husband — because the Treasury Department wouldn’t schedule its own appointments.
"The question at this point should not be why I called Secretary Paulson, but why I had to," she said. "The question at this point should be why a trade association representing over 100 minority banks could not get a meeting at the height of the crisis."
Actually those aren’t the questions that should be asked. Instead they should be asking, “why didn’t you disclose the fact that your husband had a position in one of these banks when you came begging for money?” Or, “if you did nothing ethically wrong, then why is it this information wasn’t volunteered initially when you contacted Sec. Paulson?” And finally, “would you have contacted the Secretary if a bank in which your husband had an interest hadn’t been part of that association”?
I mean there were plenty of banks in trouble at the time – why that particular association? Why that particular bank?
This finger pointing and blame-shifting is getting old. When the meeting Waters demanded took place -surprise, surprise- the officers of only one bank showed up – OneUnited, her husband’s bank. Payoff (or ripoff if you prefer)? 50 million of your dollars.
Yet somehow it is the Bush administration’s fault. In fact, everything that is wrong in America isn’t the fault of the Democrats. Oh no. They – the masters of victimhood – are the victims of that awful and scurrilous George W. Bush.
Even a third-grader would have learned by now that trying to shift blame on someone else for something you’ve done rarely if ever works. Democrats have yet to come to that realization. But, as we’ve often noted here, the pubic certainly has, and for the most part are sick and tired of the whining, crying and attempts to duck responsibility for their actions.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
I ran across this today and got a good chuckle:
Liberal frustration started to boil over in the House on Tuesday as negotiations over healthcare reform with centrist Blue Dog Democrats dragged into a second week.
The delay prompted Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) to lash out at the Blue Dogs as hypocritical and even hint that more liberal Democrats might challenge them in primaries.
Apparently Ms. Waters doesn’t quite understand why they’re called “Blue Dogs”:
Asked if she would recruit more liberal candidates to run against Blue Dogs, Waters said, “That’s normally not done.”
But she added: “There may be people out there listening and observing all of this who may get motivated based on what they’re seeing and throw their hat into the ring.”
Yeah, well, unless they too are “Blue Dogs” its unlikely they’ll be able to take a conservative district. And the present BDs know that if they’re a party to a liberal government program being stood up on their watch and with their support they’re not long for DC either.
But I’m sure Republicans would love to see a more liberal type take on a BD and help spend their war chest in the primary effort. It would only make the mid-terms a little brighter for the GOP in those districts.