Obama is getting ready, in the words of an Associated Press article, to "launch a political counter-offensive" this week, even pre-empting the GOP hopefuls' weekend barrage of criticism with some of his own. According to Obama, it was the Republicans running for president and serving in Congress who were at work crushing voters' hopes and dreams, adding, "some in Congress would rather see their opponents lose than see America win." (FYI, S&P happened to agree with him) After sustaining attacks from the left and the right, and a ferocious campaign by nearly every mainstream news network, he seems to have had enough. However, this throws him into a ring of partisan rhetoric and scrappy back-and-forth that is greatly distracting from the more serious political endeavors coming up. So why is Obama really forced to do this? Not from Republicans, we would all expect them to slam Obama any chance they got. It could be partly in response to the mainstream media, whose ability to influence public opinion in the direction of the sensational and insipid is well documented (Weinergate, anyone?). No, the real reason Obama is forced to come down to the playground with everyone else is because a sizable chunk of his left-wing base is abandoning him over perceived weakness and appeasement.

     The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has already pulled its support, threatening to no longer donate or volunteer should he cut entitlements like Medicare and Social Security. As Obama wrestled with the intransigent Tea Party influence in the House, he was further threatened by other liberal Democratic groups on the topic of entitlements. Instead these groups want to see dramatic tax revenue increases on the wealthy and corporations. Tax revenue increases absolutely have to be part of the settlement that the new bipartisan super congress will come out with over the holidays. Our tax rates, particularly for the most wealthy in this country, are lower than they have been in three generations. The Bush Tax Cuts, which were primarily for the wealthiest taxpayers in the country, have cost the country $1.7 trillion in lost revenues. However, entitlement reform with spending cuts is just as critical to the success of this budget deal as tax hikes. As a nation that spends in the deficit 10% of their annual GDP to try to keep those unsustainable entitlements afloat, if we don't make those cuts we will be back in this predicament in another 10 or 15 years. And no, just slashing defense is not going to "cut" it. You can cite all of the fiscal defense spending growth charts you want to, but it doesn't change the circumstances we're in now.

     For liberal groups to abandon President Obama and to actively campaign against his re-election is cutting off their arm to spite their face, and a very Tea-Party-like move in my opinion; the idea that it's better to act on your principles, even if it is to the detriment of the greater good, than to concede the tougher decisions and act in a manner that will ultimately help. Abandoning Obama in the midst of a concerted effort by radical conservative opposition is the short-sighted and reactionary trademark of the Tea Party. Volume over Values. In fact, now progressive and liberal blogs are asking for a liberal challenger to oppose Obama as incumbent in the Presidential race. Liberals, it seems, want to make an already contentious and partisan political race even more so by adding a challenger from their own party. In fact, they want to create the same problem for their own Democratic incumbent that the Republican party is dealing with right now; a schism between ideologies that may cripple their chances for the general election.

     This is an appeal to Democrats, liberal, moderate, progressive, or otherwise: please don't continue this internal offensive, if for no other reason than to preserve the Democratic base in the White House. Look at it this way: what's the alternative? Whether you believe Obama's attempts at bipartisanship is appeasement or simply revealing the man's true moderate politics, for liberals to hamstring his campaign and our party's potential to keep some power in government is irresponsible and vindictive. Democrats have never been the party of reactionary recidivism: that's a Tea Party Republican ideology.

     In any case, judgement should be reserved until the super congress convenes on Thanksgiving with the new budget deal. Democrats have stacked the committee with left-to-moderate lawmakers who are hell-bent on tax revenue raises and jobs creation, and you're not going to like this, but some substantial cuts as well. The Republican right is likewise well-versed in the economic realities of the markets and fiscal spending. Whatever the reason for Obama consenting to this committee, complaining that he should never have let it get to that point is now irrelevent. You're absolutely right if you're thinking this goes against his promises of greater government transparency, but when the issue is out in the open look at what happens to it? It gets completely muddied by public rhetoric and network news sensationalism. If this was his attempt to take a very serious issue, move it out of the public eye so it can be resolved, and turn to jobs; then by the holidays we'll be praising his bit of political judo. If not, we'll need to look at whether we still want a tentative Democratic moderate in the White House, or we're willing to sabotage everything and let the Republicans handpick his successor.