Why Obama Should Have Pressured Conservative Democrats Instead Of Progressives

All Democrats in Congress (4.00 / 1)

are more, only some are better.

As always.

Dems have a much bigger tent than the Republicans now, but that inevitably means that the Dems' tent includes non-liberals/progressives.

LIEberman is the worst example of that (and a special case), but he's not the only one.

NY has several Members of Congress who are less liberal/progressive than we would like, but they are representing districts that had until recently sent Republicans like John Sweeney, Vito Fossella, and Randy Kuhl to Washington like clockwork.

For example, NY-20 -- Scott Murphy voted against the House version of HCR, and we did not like that.

But Murphy has generally supported President Obama and voted with the Democratic leadership, which we well know that Tedisco would not have done.

So he deserves to be cut some slack, and to get whole-hearted support for re-election from Democrats more liberal/progressive than he is.

Because the alternative, Tedisco or whoever, would be much worse.

Guaranteed.

---

by: devtob @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:11:37 AM UTC

That's all true dev... (4.00 / 1)

But this is less about Murphy and more about Blue Dogs and the conservative senators who want health care reform their way. Of course, their way means no reform at all. They want it to say, essentially, the way it is. There are some minor changes they desire, but nothing that will actually change the way health care is provided.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:20:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What card does he honestly have to pressure Lieberman? (4.00 / 2)

None. Zero. Nada. Threaten to take away his chairmanship? Not in the cards as that would require a reorganization resolution which would be filibustered by the Republicans. He either has to take the half loaf or take nothing at all since Lieberman was a self absorbed dickwad who has no reason to be rational.

Reality has a well known liberal Bias-Stephen Colbert

---

by: pierredude @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 04:35:19 AM UTC

Well... (4.00 / 1)

He might have included something in his Peace Prize acceptance speech about the importance of honest, uncorrupted public servants serving the people, rather than being bought-out-by special-interests, self-serving tyrants, loyal neither to those who voted them in, the parties that supported their political rise, or the country they run (or ruin), let alone the planet.  Then subjected the Senator from Aetna to international media scrutiny by mentioning him as an example.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 20:05:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How does he pressure them? (4.00 / 1)

They don't fear him, they don't like him and they have the media defending them.

You're saying that by threatening a conservative Democrat that they'll be defeated by a conservative Republican, this will get them to vote for us. But they're conservative, right? So what do they care if a Republican replaces them. They agree with them on healthcare. Meanwhile we're the ones who lost the majority and control of the agenda.  

Unless Conservative Democrats can be replaced by Progressive Democrats, which you've pointed out they can't be, we have no leverage. Zero.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 04:42:57 AM UTC

How does he pressure them? Simple. (4.00 / 2)

The leverage is clear: Don't support health care reform - the president's health care reform bill - we won't support you in 2010. Period.

Since all of these individuals are worried about their own electability in 2010 (the main driver of most representatives, unfortunately), then they will have two options: Either oppose the health care reform and push for their "reform" or lose in 2010.

What has happened now is just the opposite. The progressives are told to roll over and we really don't have anything to lose but plenty to gain. The conservatives have a lot to lose. Their poll numbers aren't looking too good right now.

Sometimes it's not about replacing a conservative Democrat with a progressive one. Sometimes it's telling a conservative Democrat that yes, in fact, a Republican can replace you. So if you aren't with us, good luck in 2010.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:23:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But only Lincoln is running in 2010 (4.00 / 1)

and doesn't want the President's support, he's toxic in her state.

Sometimes it's telling a conservative Democrat that yes, in fact, a Republican can replace you. So if you aren't with us, good luck in 2010.

You know, this reminds me of what J. William Fulbright supposedly said to Lyndon Johnson about Civil Rights. LBJ supposedly told him he could expect to be defeated didn't support his agenda. Knowing there was no way of ousting Fulbright with a more liberal Democrat on the issue, Johnson warned him he'd just let the seat go to the Republicans. LBJ told him he could expect to be defeated in 1968 if he , to which Fulbright said "who would you rather have in the Senate, me or Arkansas' answer to Goldwater?"

Needless to say Fulbright voted no and got reelected

Their response is "You'll rather have me than a Republican, at least I'll vote for your leadership to set your agenda and at least I'll vote for some of your bills"

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 13:12:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if we had 65 (4.00 / 1)

I'd take this seriously.

Unfortunately, right now, the Republicans have said "we're not going to play ball, no matter what you do."

There are one or two, tops, who are taking as liberal a position as Lieberman's position.

That creates an ugly situation in which Dems just plain don't have the power we think we should.  That hurts.

I'd rather see us do something and move on from there than do nothing and let the Republican stonewall win.  What's proposed is a major change, and something we can build on.

I knew progressives would be disappointed with Obama's presidency - that's just the nature of progressives and Democratic presidencies.  I didn't expect progressives to dovetail so neatly with the conservative stonewall, though.

---

by: simonstl @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:53:38 PM UTC

The bigger picture... (4.00 / 1)

...which most people miss is HOW majorities are built. It requires...yes...REQUIRES centrist members. It doesn't matter if you're talking left or right here.

And Senator Lieberman was not the only Democrat balking on Reid. He was just the one who made the most noise about it.  

---

by: Waterloo Native @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 13:06:40 PM UTC

There's a difference between "center" and "industry man" (4.00 / 1)

That difference is often hidden in arcane language deep in the bill, which we don't even know about for a couple of months after it is enacted.  A lot of very bad meat (and other things even grosser) is getting added to this sausage.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 20:09:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the pressure has to come from Congress to the President (4.00 / 1)

And I think that this is how that can happen.

I'm not saying it's likely. But I don't see any other path to success at this point.

---

by: davesnyd @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 13:48:36 PM UTC

Why are there so many conservative Democrats? (4.00 / 1)

A lot of conservative Democrats got elected because progressive Democrats organized and put boots on the ground.  Conservative Democratic voters are far less likely to be involved in campaigns, so it's up to the progressives to do the legwork.

The other view:  Conservative Democrats got elected because wealthy special interest groups saw which way the wind was blowing and switched from supporting Republican incumbents to supporting Democratic opponents.

I believe that both scenarios have validity, and the truth lies somewhere in the mix between the two.  Certainly special interest donors made a huge difference.  Just as certainly, it was progressive, activist Democrats who supplied the workers needed to win.

The key to winning after the win (and to keep winning) is to make conservative Democrats understand that it's the progressive wing that determines which way the wind blows, and that if they don't start pushing a more progressive agenda the wind will shift and their special interest money support will disappear.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 14:17:54 PM UTC

Glenn Greenwald yesterday presented the case (4.00 / 1)

that Obama is getting exactly the bill he wanted all along. He never pressured the conservadems precisely because they helping shape the legislation into what he wanted, despite all his campaign rhetoric to the contrary.

It's a pretty depressing read.

http://www.salon.com/news/opin...

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:51:37 PM UTC

If this were true (4.00 / 2)

he would've passed this bill six months ago and not wasted all his political capital on it.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 20:56:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Personally, I think there's a flaw in your reasoning (0.00 / 0)

While I completely agree with your argument. You seem to be directing it at Obama, Rham, Democratic leadership.

If you lose progressives (and by extension, the netroots), you lose the people fighting most passionately for you. You lose the people doing the work.

If you're talking to the Dem PTB, I'm relative sure they think when the specter of President Palin, or Huckabee, or whoever, raises itself the base will jump back on board like no one's business. And they're probably right unfortunately.

President Obama and other Democratic leaders owe progressives a lot.

Agreed. I just don't think THEY see it that way. The dots they can't connect is repaying the debt they owe progressives means going out on a limb. Means coming down on Nelson as hard as you came down on Dean.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 15:18:41 PM UTC

Personally, I think there's a flaw in your reasoning (0.00 / 0)

While I completely agree with your argument. You seem to be directing it at Obama, Rham, Democratic leadership.

If you lose progressives (and by extension, the netroots), you lose the people fighting most passionately for you. You lose the people doing the work.

If you're talking to the Dem PTB, I'm relative sure they think when the specter of President Palin, or Huckabee, or whoever, raises itself the base will jump back on board like no one's business. And they're probably right unfortunately.

President Obama and other Democratic leaders owe progressives a lot.

Agreed. I just don't think THEY see it that way. The dots they can't connect is repaying the debt they owe progressives means going out on a limb. Means coming down on Nelson as hard as you came down on Dean.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 15:18:42 PM UTC

I don't view the non-passage of HCR as a DEM... (0.00 / 0)

negative.  I think that when it fails it will be noted that it failed with zero support from Repubs and a handful of dems.  The people want HCR, and in 2010 I tghink dems can look foward to running on that notion.  Think about it, 60's not enough, we need 70+ senate.  You may think it is hard to lie to yourself, it's not.  It is all this progressive has left.

---

by: MomoInRhinebeck @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 19:02:43 PM UTC

must take exception with the claim that (0.00 / 0)

the netroots has elected a "progressive majority" in the U.S. Senate. There has never been a majority of progressives leading the U.S. Senate. Never. Unfortunately.

In fact, perhaps if political prognosticators were to look at the Senate a little differently, it would have saved us a lot of trouble regarding health care reform and other legislation.

Democrats do have more progressives in the Senate than at any time in history, depending on how you define a progressive. By my count there are somewhere between 40 and 42 progressives Democrats in the Senate, including Independent Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats. The rest of the Senators are moderates, at best, or even center-right (i.e. Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and perhaps a couple of others).

Had the people running the Senate realized that there were only a solid 40-42 votes for health care reform with a public option, not 60, then Reid could have avoided the current mess by planning for an alternate route (i.e. reconciliation).

---

by: paco @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 20:20:26 PM UTC