Conyers v. Obama: The “Demeaning Team”

I wasn’t going to post on this–I was going to let John Conyers and Barack Obama to have their public spat in peace.

According to [John Conyers], the president picked up the phone several weeks ago to  find out why  Conyers was “demeaning” him.
Obama’s decision to challenge Conyers highlights a sensitivity to criticism the president has taken on the left.

Conyers’s critical remarks, many of which have been reported on the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, appear to have irritated the president, known for his calm demeanor.

Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”

[snip]

“I’ve been saying I don’t agree with him on Afghanistan, I think he screwed up on healthcare reform, on Guantánamo and kicking Greg off,” Conyers said, referring to the departure of former White House counsel Greg Craig.

[snip]

The liberal Conyers has been an outspoken proponent of a single-payer healthcare system and a critic of U.S. involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He has also been at odds with White House policy on extending expiring  provisions of the Patriot Act, crafting legislation that is to the left of the Senate’s version.

But I thought it worthwhile to elaborate on what the Hill said about Conyers’ support for Obama–which reminds that Conyers was the first CBC member to endorse Obama.

Conyers played a pretty important role in the way Michigan’s Clusterfuck of a primary worked out. Recall that Jennifer Granholm–a very active Hillary supporter–pushed the primary, knowing it would cause all sorts of headache for Edwards and Obama. Leading up to the Clusterfuck, there were really just two main sources of ads: a bunch of Hillary supporters doing what was primarily direct mail in support of Hillary. And Conyers, with very little assistance, doing radio and robocalls in Detroit. (I think there as also some union support for Edwards/uncommitted, though it was not as public.)

Now, Conyers’ ads were a tough ask: unlike the Hillary supporters (who, after all, only had to ask people to vote for one of the only people on the ballot), he was working to convince a population that is not always reliable to not only come out to the Clusterfuck to vote, but to vote for this crazy-ass “Uncommitted” category.

When the votes were counted, “Uncommitted” won in only three parts of the state: a teeny county up north, Washtenaw (Ann Arbor), and Detroit (this never showed on national stories bc the results got reported for Wayne County, not Detroit).

The fact that Hillary lost in the Clusterfuck against “other” in Detroit, an area whose turnout can make or break Democrats in state-wide elections, was pretty significant to the urgency behind trying to find an equitable solution to the Clusterfuck.

So yeah, Conyers was the first to insist that African Americans might elect an African American President. And he was also instrumental (as far as Conyers can be without a machine) in making sure that Hillary’s efforts to game the primary here didn’t succeed. Conyers is far more than a disgruntled progressive falling out of love with Obama.

That said, he is in many ways the archetypal disgruntled progressive. The issues the Hill cites–Afghanistan, health care, Gitmo, and PATRIOT–are many of those that progressive everywhere split with Obama on.

Obama was always a hawk on Afghanistan. He was always a moderate on health care reform–though he did campaign on a public option. It’s the latter two issues the Hill cites–Gitmo and PATRIOT–that violate Obama’s campaign stance that “no one is above the law” and that he would revisit FISA immediately (the Administration has rejected such efforts now, including the HJC bill aiming to do just that). Conyers’ complaints with Obama are the complaints we all have.

Then again, unlike the rest of us, Conyers is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which just so happens to be the committee that oversees these “rule of law” issues.

And it’s on that level where the accusations of “demeaning” seem most important. Obama has asked Congress to roll over on issues and, in SJC at least, succeeded in getting top people (like Pat Leahy) to do so. On PATRIOT and Gitmo, Conyers has thus far refused to do so.

So who is demeaning whom? If the President demands that a Democrat who has served in Congress since Obama was four years old, one who paved the way on civil rights issues to make it possible to elect an African American man President, and one who played a key role in Obama winning the primary, just roll over on legislative issues, who is demeaning whom?

image_print
84 replies
  1. klynn says:

    …he is in many ways the archetypal disgruntled progressive.

    So who is demeaning whom? If the President demands that a Democrat who has served in Congress since Obama was 4, one who paved the way on civil rights issues to make it possible to elect an African American man President, and one who played a key role in Obama winning the primary, just roll over on legislative issues, who is demeaning whom?

    Nice post EW. Thank you. I sure hope SOMEONE puts this post in front of the President’s eyes and make him remember to be a humble leader and “return” respect. As of now, his policies have yet to reflect any respect for Conyers’ years of effort.

      • selise says:

        re peanut gallery. i don’t have a second source yet for the single payer part, but here’s sara robinson on ian masters 9/22/09 (my rough transcription):

        sara: …he [obama] went to left wing activists and said, “don’t you push for single payer and don’t go leaning on the blue dogs. and if you do, we’re going to go to your funders and have your funding cut. he went to all the liberal think tanks and media outlets and they said we hold your purse strings and if you cross us on this, if you don’t come over to the center with us on this, we’re going to cut your funding. that was horrifying, i work for couple of those left wing think tanks.

        but it was a sign that rather than let their left flank take the edge of the window and drag it all the way over and talk about really radical things like single payer. and then obama could cut a deal that was somewhat to the right of that but not very far and get a lot more. we were a strong negotiating thing that he had going on and they cut us off on at the face [i’m not sure about this sentence, hard to hear –s]. jane hamsher has written about this.

        ian: i was going to say just to follow up on the fdr analogy, fdr said to the liberal activists, “make me do it.”

        sara: obama says, “get out of my way.

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s not that Obama is trying to “reign him him.”

      Obama is trying to sustain the expansive executive power that Cheney accrued. Remember, Conyers was the guy who wrote a 400 page report cataloging all the abuses involved.

      I thikn Obama is trying to get Dems to acquiesce to abusive domestic surveillance on the ridiculous notion that Dems wouldn’t abuse their power.

      • ThingsComeUndone says:

        I thikn Obama is trying to get Dems to acquiesce to abusive domestic surveillance on the ridiculous notion that Dems wouldn’t abuse their power.

        Thanks for a good working theory. So if not reigning him in whats the play he’s making calling out Conyers is risky.

      • Kassandra says:

        Interesting. A caller to Malloy last night said he thought Obama, being a “constitutional scholar” and all, was backing off from the Imperial Presidency. “HUH”, I thought…I somehow doubt it.

      • scribe says:

        As a professor of constitutional law, Obama should have remembered that the fundamental animating princple behind every instance of checks and balances built into the Constitution and statutes – both as written and in practice – was a distrust of the probity of those in positions where they had some power, to use it in ways not designed to increase and perpetuate their power.

        In other words: “trust me” was a;ways and remains the worst wrong answer.

        But, of course, since the Obama DoJ and WH just can’t seem to shake all those wonderful Bush/Cheney precedents, I suppose a man who chose politics over law can be excused for forgetting that.

        I just get a bit of a twinge when I move Obama’s choice into ther, logical extensions. Imagine, for a second, the inscription over the entry to the Supreme Court, reading “Equal Justice Under Politics” instead of “Equal Justice Under Law”.

        And, FWIW, I see that Conyers is not afraid of speaking a it of truth – that Greg Craig got kicked out, not of his own accord.

      • mamazboy says:

        Nice post, Marcy, as always. I don’t see any good coming from Obama expanding presidential power a la Cheney if Obama is not going to pursue progressive policies. Much of what he’s doing on issues of transparency, LGBT rights, even healthcare is about as bad the Republican approaches. I applaud Conyers for calling Obama on his bullshit. And notice that Obama usually ignores progressives (“too much on my plate”). While he’s spent significant time kissing the asses of the Republicans, he can rise to the occasion of insulting one of the best Democrats we’ve got. Sickening.

  2. i4u2bi says:

    Clusterfuck, hmmmmm….yeah, me likey. I can still remember when I loved Mi. Soapy made life worth living.

  3. Kassandra says:

    Interesting ( and ominous) that Obama is especially “sensitive to criticism from the Left”, when he’s getting the most flagrant abuse from the Right.
    Makes me think that he’s paying more attention to the Right and his actions certainly bear this out.
    I also notice that Cheney has shut up now that Obama has escalated in Afghanistan. Makes me wonder if Cheney still has control of this government ( in a shadowy way, of course)

    • demi says:

      I’ve wondered that very same thing. Just a big ruse, to let us Think we have some choices in big matters.
      I hope I’m wrong. Really wrong.

      • Kassandra says:

        I hope you’re wrong too, but I suspect that the Democrats are just as willing to steal elections as the Republicans were. The mechanisms are in place and the corporate media seems to decide WHO we will vote on anyways….
        I don’t feel like a citizen anymore, I feel like a useless appendage about to be cut off.
        The American people are being kept ignorant of how well the rest of the world is recovering by helping the people and reining in the banks….except US and UK which refuses to give up the robbery.
        Now Bernanke wants the $$$$$ in Social Security and he’ll prolly get it.

        Red team/Blue team, we’re still just as screwed.

        • ShotoJamf says:

          I suspect that the Democrats are just as willing to steal elections as the Republicans were.

          With Rahm at the helm, what else can we expect? Fucking gangster.

        • Kassandra says:

          First, the Texas oil cartel; now the Chicago School Machine.

          Hatch is on MSNBC lying his ass off, whining how the Republicans haven’t hand “any input” into the health care bill. What was the “Gang of Six” then? And recently, the “Gang of Ten”???

          Wait’ll Comcast takes over NBC and MSNBC, any progessive voices will be silenced

        • Rayne says:

          The right OWNS the discussion on health care, they just don’t want it to look like it.

          Who owns insurance companies? Who takes down the most executive pay? Who makes the most PAC donations to candidates? Who made the most calls on the White House this year in terms of numbers and size?

          And then they whine about it on the media machine they own.

          Gimme a break.

          The guy that’s in office now is there because the people managed to get around the corporate machine just once. But he stays in office only because they continue to get their way.

          There are glimmers of hope — like the paying back of TARP monies because the terms are too ugly to keep it over-long — but the places where glimmers appear are where there are weak spots we have not figured out how to game in order to widen the advantage.

          Did anybody hear much push back yesterday after the EPA’s ruling on the dangers of carbon emissions? There’s one of the advantages, a place we press home and hard; it’s one of the places where the administration managed to get around the machine, because it was too pre-occupied with health care.

    • bobschacht says:

      I also notice that Cheney has shut up now that Obama has escalated in Afghanistan. Makes me wonder if Cheney still has control of this government ( in a shadowy way, of course)

      Hi, Cassy!
      Unfortunately, Cheney just won’t shut up. Today he’s on the news, essentially accusing Obama of treason (giving aid and comfort to the enemy).

      The only way to shut Cheney up is to put him on the dock in a court of law.

      Bob in AZ

  4. ShotoJamf says:

    “I’ve been saying I don’t agree with him on Afghanistan, I think he screwed up on healthcare reform, on Guantánamo and kicking Greg off,” Conyers said, referring to the departure of former White House counsel Greg Craig.

    Hey Rep. Conyers: While you’re at it, can you throw in a little something on the $Trillions that have been sucked out of the treasury and into the coffers of the “financial services industry?” And maybe that whole “infrastructure” thing that’s being essentially ignored?

    If BO is miffed enough to give the gentleman a call, then perhaps “the left” is (finally) starting to hit a nerve. GOOD!

        • demi says:

          I was looking for some lyrics for you, but can’t. You remember the song when we were younger? Just wishin’ and hopin’, etc. Do the things he likes to do. Wear your hair just for him….

        • prostratedragon says:

          Thanks (and fatster downthread). EW’s post combined with a similar one from Glenn Greenwald reminded me of this Marvin Gaye classic:
          Distant Lover (ytube) (lyrics):

          As I reminisce, oh baby, through our joyful summer together
          The promises we made
          All the daily letters
          Then, all of the sudden
          Everything seemed to explode
          Now, I gaze out my window
          Sugar, down a lonesome road
          Distant lover (lover, lover, lover) …

          It would be particularly important for other prominent AfAms to address Obama’s progressive shortcomings, especially on the core law, constitutional, and economic issues. Not that a racial qualification is needed: we’ve moved past less in this country than we sometimes think, but I certainly hope we’ve moved past that one, and he is all of our president, and this all of our country.

          But there’s a straight line between the matters at stake in the 1950s and 60s civil rights struggle, and also the means under law that were exploited to achieve those victories, and the matters that are currently on the table now concerning habeas corpus rights, spying on citizens, and the impunity of officials. Et cetera. Conyers, and John Lewis and maybe a few others of the CBC, are among the last black people in public life who actually shouldered some of the burden of the earlier movement. Therefore they can speak with some authority.

          It is unfortunate that their epigones of my generation who are in visible positions have become such an accomodating lot for the most part. Tragic, really. Maybe a few of the dads can shake some of us up.

    • eCAHNomics says:

      Warren was on cnbc this morning. Apparently O’s plan to use part of the TARP for a jobs program is illegal. What else is new?

      • ShotoJamf says:

        Yeah, that’s the angle that Fox was using to bash it. The administration line is that they’ll (presumably modify the docs in some way that allows them to) put the money back into the treasury, and then (draw up something that allows them to) take it right back out again.

        Shell games aren’t just for carnivals anymore…

        • eCAHNomics says:

          Warren intends to be a fly in the ointment. I suspect she’ll be relieved of her job monitoring TARP.

        • ShotoJamf says:

          I hope not. She’s arguably the most visible person out there calling bullshit when such is clearly indicated – but I wouldn’t be surprised. I’m guessing she’s taken copious notes along the way – which just might prove embarrassing to some…although these sonsabitches seem completely impervious in that regard. Just as long as the cash keeps flowing, who gives a shit, right?

        • eCAHNomics says:

          U.S., Brits, Danes just deep-sixed the climate summit, according to leaked document to a British rag, and discussed on democracynow this morning.

        • ThingsComeUndone says:

          The Danes bailout out but the Danish government own Vestas possibly the best wind company around? I think that the Danes don’t want America investing in wind power they want to keep their edge over us.

  5. ralphbon says:

    When push has come to shove, Conyers could always be counted on for nothing less, and nothing more, than the sternly worded letter. His snipefest with Obama strikes me as just more of the same.

  6. Mary says:

    It shows a bit of the GWB side of Obama, doesn’t it? His response to criticism of what he is doing as “demeaning” him. He barely finds time to meet with, and certainly no time to work with, Conyers on the issues – but there’s always time for a personal call to chastise Conyers for not being reverential when he talks about the President’s decisions.

    • ralphbon says:

      “Demeaning” was Conyers’s word, and it’s unclear from context whether he was directly quoting the president or just giving his own assessment of what Obama was saying. I agree with Conyers’s critiques of Obama’s policies and actions but have learned the hard way not to regard him as a reliable reporter.

  7. justbetty says:

    It;s hard to imagine anyone being more demeaning to progressive Democrats than Rahm Emmanuel, but, in any case, I hope Rep. Conyers tells the President, “Look, I was here long before you came and I’ll be here after you leave. I know what my principles are and I’m still trying to figure out what yours are.”

  8. Eureka Springs says:

    IIRC, Conyers was the only progressive who was finally allowed to attend early WH meetings on health care. But he had to promise not to say anything in support of the bills he sponsored (HR 676).

    The fact Obama is just now noticing criticism from the left says so much about his entire administration. The fact Conyers seemingly is alone at this point (where is the chorus of the entire progressive caucus in support of Conyers?) says even more.

  9. gnomedigest says:

    Conyers better be clean as a whistle. If that conversation didnt go well a scandel is sure to be brought to light to discredit his efforts thereby burying his opposition. Spitzer learned that lesson the hard way.

  10. tsuki says:

    I like Conyers. I stayed home to watch the Ohio hearings and was impressed with him.

    ObamaRahma, not so much.

  11. eCAHNomics says:

    I have to go do something else to save my sanity. Big snowstorm outside, so it’s an inside day. I think I don’t have any light books that I haven’t already read, but I’ll hunt thru the piles. Maybe bake some cookies. BBL.

  12. sdrDusty says:

    RE:

    Obama was always a hawk on Afghanistan. He was always a moderate on health care reform–though he did campaign on a public option. It’s the latter two issues the Hill cites–Gitmo and PATRIOT–that violate Obama’s campaign stance

    Really, that’s why I’m thoroughly pissed off with Obama.

    The Afghanistan thing should have been expected by anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to Obama’s stated goals.

    But his handling of health care reform has mirrored his handling of the financial crisis- doing everything he can to maintain the status quo: providing massive profits to the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and finance industries.

    Throwing that in with his administration working against the very gay rights he’d supported while campaigning, He’s pretty much lost me.

    I was under no illusion that Obama was a true Progressive, but I’d certainly hoped for a lot better than this.

    So much for Hope.

  13. TomWells says:

    I wrote a diary on this at Daily Kos and got a real reaction from Dansac and others. I think this goes to the brand they constructed about Obama. Seeing Obama as just another politician is such a threat to many.

    Good post.

  14. dick c says:

    I’m getting tired of the constant stream of BS from politicians. I’m starting to think that violating an Oath of Office should be regarded as perjury.

  15. nick1936 says:

    Look Obama has yet to show some Leadership he has allowed the Repuk’s to block his every move his response is to keep kissing their asses and getting his kicked. He promised change we could believe in and what has he done failed to get a Public Option, We gave him the House and the Senate and expected him to be bold like FDR,HST and LBJ instead he is acting like a wimp

    • dick c says:

      Look Obama has yet to show some Leadership …

      I’m concluding he’s doing just what he’s been asked to do by the big money that got him elected.

  16. WilliamOckham says:

    I’ve been too swamped at work to comment much lately on all the great stuff that ew has been writing, but she’s been on a roll. I do want to say that I think this little episode between Obama and Conyers is a good thing and I wish it got more publicity. We need to see more of Obama’s supporters willing to oppose his bad policies. Obama needs to learn that criticism from the left isn’t demeaning, especially compared to what’s coming from the right. Obama would be much better off to start courting the John Conyers and Jay Rockefellers of Washington instead of the Olympia Snowes and [blech, gag, puke] Joe Lieberman (no plural because nobody else could ever be in the same category).

  17. sdrDusty says:

    All this makes the old “NAFTA-gate” fracas sound not just plausible, but probable.

    Obama saying one thing publicly, while all the time working behind the scenes for just the opposite.

  18. Gitcheegumee says:

    Perhaps Obama would prefer the Sancho Panza attitude of GONEzales and his ilk?

    O/T but an interesting admission for AGAG, just off the press at Esquire,courtesy TPM:

    TPMMuckraker
    Gonzo: We Should Have Known We’d Get Caught Purging US Attorneys
    Justin Elliott | December 9, 2009, 9:11AM

    Esquire’s interview with Alberto Gonzales
    :

    Alberto Gonzales has taken a break from his teaching load at Texas Tech to give a remarkably unselfconscious interview with Esquire, saying the Bush Administration should have dropped its plan to purge U.S. attorneys in 2006 because “at that point we could really not count on Republicans to cut off investigations or help us at all with investigations.”

    By Gonzo’s reasoning, the problem was not the firings themselves, but rather the prospect that the Bush Administration would get caught:

    • Gitcheegumee says:

      Gonzo: We Should Have Known We’d Get Caught Purging US Attorneys …Dec 9, 2009 … Alberto Gonzales has taken a break from his teaching load at Texas Tech to give a remarkably unselfconscious interview with Esquire, …
      tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/…/gonzo_we_should_have_given_up_us_attorney_firing_p.php – 1 hour ago

  19. fatster says:

    Who’s demeaning whom? What’s happening to our Constitution? What the heck is the point of the escalation in Afghanistan? Why are there so many unemployed while the fatcats on Wall Street and big banksters everywhere are enjoying life better thanks to the raids on our Treasury? Why are the majority of people wanting a strong public option getting the back of the presidential hand? And so on.

  20. earlofhuntingdon says:

    This non-reform of health care will strengthen the hand and profits of insuresters, in combination with an anti-reform regulatory scheme and legislative momentum, while costing taxpayers so much, they will sour on future, legitimate reforms.

    The silver lining of this infuriating non-reform is that it reveals to a wider public the egocentrism and egotistical corporatist priorities of Barrack Obama, the super achiever.

  21. earlofhuntingdon says:

    A call from the president to tell the most senior black Congressman to STFU and toe his line? That’s a mind fuck. No one, including Obama, misunderestimated who was demeaning whom. That was his point. Mr. O is working hard to be a one-term president.

  22. KarenM says:

    So who is demeaning whom? If the President demands that a Democrat who has served in Congress since Obama was four years old, one who paved the way on civil rights issues to make it possible to elect an African American man President, and one who played a key role in Obama winning the primary, just roll over on legislative issues, who is demeaning whom?

    A great closer!

  23. HarryWaisbren says:

    Obama’s statements say a lot about how he views even constructive criticism.

    Get FISA Right, a grassroots organization specifically founded to show Obama the way on privacy and civil liberties concerns, feels like the “demeaning characterization” most definitely would apply to us as well. Sad state of affairs to see this descent compared to the Obama from the campaign trail proclaiming that we should believe in our own ability to bring change to Washington…

    More here at our blog.

Comments are closed.