Punditry: Right or Wrong?

Paul Begala and many of the pundits keep saying that the Democrats lost because they were too radical in seeking too many changes. I think the opposite is true. President Obama won because he promised to make changes. His party lost in the midterms because he did not make the changes his supporters sought. To go to the middle as Begala says he should have, means keeping the status quo. That is exactly what he tried to do and failed. People wanted changes to weed out the corruption that the large corporations and lobbyists have forced on our congressional representatives. Democrats were as guilty of accepting corporate money as the Republicans.

Our President did not change the Afghanistan and Iraq policy that he said he would. He did not fight hard to end Don't Ask, Don"t Tell, as you were led to believe he would. He did not go to bat for seniors on the COLA issue. He did not go to bat for real regulation of Wall Street. He did not even fight hard enough on his big issue, Health Reform. He caved in on single pay immediately. He tried too hard to go to the middle with Republican and Blue Dog support and failed. He even supported Blue Dogs in the primaries. His policy on Israel was ambiguous. He also kept on his economic team the Wall Streeters who were partly responsible for the Bush economic policy. In short he was elected to make sweeping changes and used a poor broom.

If you look for the middle ground as a bargaining position, the only place you can compromise is a losing position especially if your opponent's position is not to give in.

Unions have learned one lesson. If you are seeking a 10 cent wage , you do not ask for a 10 cent wage you ask for a 20 cent wage and settle on a 10 cent wage. He can change things in his favor if he really uses the power of the presidency to fight for meaningful changes. You cannot put a bandaid on a problem if it needs a tourniquet.