Obama’s Afghanistan Decision Is Straining Ties With Democrats - NYT

New York Times

December 4, 2009
Obama’s Afghanistan Decision Is Straining Ties With Democrats
By CARL HULSE and ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan over the objections of fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill is straining a relationship already struggling under the weight of an administration agenda that some Democratic lawmakers fear is placing them in a politically vulnerable position.

The result has been a subtle shift in which Democrats in Congress are becoming less deferential to the White House, making clear that Mr. Obama will not always be able to count on them to fall into line and highlighting how Mr. Obama’s expansive ambitions are running up against political realities.

The troop buildup is stirring unease among Democrats at a time when they have been struggling to navigate crosscurrents of pressure from different constituencies. Democrats now face the prospect of enacting a health care bill that Republicans are using to paint them as fiscally irresponsible and intent on extending the government’s reach deeper into the economy and personal health decisions.

Mr. Obama continues to push for action to curb global warming and to revamp immigration policy, subjects that seem certain to expose new geographic and ideological strains in the party, even as Democrats in Congress press the White House to make addressing high unemployment its singular focus.

To a considerable extent, the strain stems from a calculation by Mr. Obama’s aides that it is essential to move early in the term. But there are political calculations as well: Mr. Obama has nearly three years to recover from any damage he suffers by pushing through legislation that divides the public. Members of Congress do not.

“They say you do the tough things early,” said Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York. “Early 2010 is early for the White House, but it is perilously late for members of Congress. I don’t know if it’s a new tension, but it’s certainly something people are talking about on the Hill.”

Some Democrats worry that the administration is willing to sacrifice some House and Senate seats in the interest of accomplishing its broader goals.

“There is a tension and a wariness about where everyone is coming from,” said Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona and co-chairman of the House’s liberal caucus. “We are being asked to be loyal soldiers, but I think what you are seeing now is resistance to going along to just go along.”

Mr. Obama’s aides and Congressional Democrats said that the reaction to the troop buildup had in fact been more restrained than they had expected, and that they were confident that in the end Democrats would rally behind Mr. Obama on the issue. Democrats will have to vote at some point next year on financing the troop buildup and many are likely to vote against him.

“The president made a courageous decision knowing full well that people in his own party would be the most vocal critics,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff. “But that won’t interfere with the things we agree on: the economy, health care and energy independence legislation.”

Still, this White House can ill afford even a slight souring of its relationship with Congressional Democrats at a time when it is calling on them to do so much. And some of the issues Mr. Obama is pressing could make Democrats vulnerable to attack not only by Republicans, but also by fellow Democrats in primaries.

In Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter has come out against Mr. Obama’s Afghanistan policy, setting up a clash against his Democratic primary opponent, Representative Joe Sestak, who backs the escalation of the war. His move gives Mr. Specter, who switched parties earlier this year, a chance to win some support from the left, which has been the base of Mr. Sestak’s support.

Some groups on the left have threatened to run candidates in primaries against moderate Democratic incumbents who do not vote in favor of including in the health care bill some form of a public insurance plan to compete with private insurance.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have refused to cooperate with advancing a major overhaul of federal financial regulation out of frustration with what they see as the administration’s inattention to the economic struggles of members of minorities.

“There are voices here that have information pertinent to the administration’s program, but many of those voices are not being heard,” said Representative Alcee L. Hastings, Democrat of Florida and senior member of the black caucus.

And it is not just the progressive ranks where Congressional patience with the White House is wearing thin.

Conservative and moderate Democrats from swing districts and states are uneasy over the push on a health care overhaul, with some questioning whether the effort on health care should have instead been set aside for a singular focus on the economy and jobs.

“Whether it is at the end of 10 months or two years, the question in the minds of the American people is going to be, Has everything been done to get the economic engine running again, to put people back to work?” said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat up for re-election next year.

Many senior Democrats say the administration’s war strategy could divert scarce resources from domestic priorities in what promises to be a difficult budget year in 2010.

“I do not support the decision to prolong and expand a risky and unsustainable strategy in the region,” Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, told administration representatives appearing Thursday before the Foreign Relations Committee. “I do not believe more American lives should be risked for a war that no longer serves our most pressing national security interests.”

Mr. Obama remains extremely well liked among Democratic members of Congress, and that reservoir of good will could be critical in the months ahead. Even Democrats who are speaking out aggressively against the troop buildup emphasize that they strongly support Mr. Obama, demonstrating that lawmakers know their fates are tied to how successful the president is.

“We want this administration to be successful,” Mr. Grijalva said. “It is important to us and it is important to the country. But the loyalty issue is a two-way street.”