The only possible way to get the Blue Dogs to do the right thing would be for Obama to take charge

[brentspeak]

and use his bully pulpit and status as leader of the Democratic party to make sure Reid and Pelosi get an open-enrollment PO through Congress. He could even make sure that Kucinich' single-payer amendment is included in the final bill.

The evidence reveals Obama simply does not want to do that, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/30/opinion/main5462571.shtml">despite the Progressive Caucus' repeated requests. For all practical purposes, he's of the same mind as the Blue Dogs and the "New" Democrats on this issue.

[nightrain]

1. knr. I'm beginning to believe that O is a blue corporate dog... :(

As posted in another thread just now--O's high-flying hopeful rhetoric and his actions are at odds with each other. (And we are experiencing that conflict. It's very disconcerting and confusing. Leaves me with a huge sense of betrayal.)

[phleshdef]

3. No, high flying expectations and lack of understanding whats doable what is not are the problem.

Anyone that looks at Obama's record, not just as a politician but as a person and the way he has lived his life, could not in their right mind, accuse him of being a corporate blue dog. Thats just another excuse to be lazy when it comes to facing the political realities of the day.

[nightrain]

6. if Pelosi's corporate-protecting and enabling bill gets to him and

if O signs it, I think we'll know whether his actions are in line with his rhetoric.

Let's remember how exhorbitant those exec compensation packages are, which is part of the 30% the insurance corporations skim off the top. That's OUR money! It needs to go toward services, not their gilded lives, AFAIK.

THAT is a political reality. Who is letting that happen? Who is NOT stopping it?

[Vincardog]

12. The political realities of the day do not excuse him from campaigning as a Populist and governing as...

CORPORATIST.
WARNING if you lay down with Blue Cross Dogs you get up with Parasitic Capitalist fleas

[phleshdef]

13. People who accuse Obama of governing as a corporatist don't know what the word means.

And actually YES, reality excuses EVERYTHING.

[Vincardog]

15. Pray please enlighten us. What exactly is a corporatist in your mind?

[phleshdef]

17. Someone with an actual record of consistently putting corporate interests above all else.

And Barack Obama doesn't even have a record CLOSE to that. Aside from the necessary bank bailouts, he has done NOTHING to indicate a highly pro-corporate agenda. He opposed the bankruptcy bills, he voted against CAFTA, he signed off on auto bailout deals that mostly favored the unions and he turned down the chance to become a big Wall Street lawyer to instead become a community advocate in one of the worst areas of Chicago. Thats just scratching the surface, I could provide a billion more examples.

Obama doesn't hate capitalism but he certainly has proven to have a lot of other things higher up on the agenda.

Corporatist my ass. If you think Obama is a corporatist then you've never laid eyes on the real thing.

[Vincardog]

19. And allowing the Health CARE reform to devolve into a Health Insurance welfare bill fits HOW?

[phleshdef]

20. He hasn't "allowed" anything and we have yet to see a final bill...

...on top of that, many trusted voices for healthcare reform completely disagree with you that the healthcare bill has devolved into what you just said, Howard Dean and Richard Trumpka for instance do not feel that way. Their opinion means a lot more than yours to me and most reasonable people.

But go ahead and call Howard Dean a corporatist now, it wouldn't surprise me considering that you don't know what the word means.

[joeycola]

38. His silence did indeed allow the concessions. He also started from a weak

bargaining point by kicking single payer advocates under the table and not listening to them.

[phleshdef]

2. Its obvious that you live in a fantasy world if you think any Dem. Pres. can MAKE the blue dogs...

...do anything they don't want to do. Its unrealistic, period.

Then again, thats par for the course with your posts. A lot of critical blathering while ignoring the really, real world.

[brentspeak]

4. Even though there are

actual members of Congress who have been publicly imploring Obama to use his bully pulpit and get the Blue Dogs on board, some anonymous muppet claims he/she knows better than members of Congress do.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

7. I don't think that Obama can MAKE them do anything but he can sure make them WANT to

One simple phone call from Emanual to tell each and every one of the Blue Dogs that they can certainly vote against the party if they are determined to. That's our system. But then he needs to tell them that when each and every single one of them come up for re-election they can be assured that President Obama will personally campaign for their Democratic primary opponent (and there WILL be one). And for every dollar they receive from the healthcare industry and lobbyists he will personally help raise three for the other guy. That's our system, too. The Blue Dogs just want to hang on to their seat - country and citizens be damned - so we need to talk to them in the language of their hearts - money. And then do it. I don't care how precarious their damn seats are, they vote against the good of their constituents and in favor of their corporate and lobbiest owners then they need to be sent home.

Enough of the patty-cakes and kumbayas I needed health care two years ago, I really need it today and I certainly can't wait until 2013. And there are millions more just like me.

[onenote]

23. and if you're a blue dog in a district where you got more votes than obama

in the general election, you smile and say, go ahead and give it your best shot and when a repub ends up holding that seat, call me and tell me how well that worked out.

[Vincardog]

14. The head of the Democratic Party can le the Blue Cross dogs know they will got no funds from the

DSCC or the DCCC or the national party and no support in fund raising or campaigning if they don't support the party's platform.

Oh I forgot that is what a LEADER would do. Never mind

[phleshdef]

22. Actually thats how a tyrant would operate. If he engaged in such tyranny nothing would get passed.

...and the blue dog dems would just end up being replaced with Republicans that are even more conservative than they are. What a stupid way to get things done (in that nothing would ever get done).

Its very telling that you define leadership as tyranny, not only does it show how you have no clue what actual leadership is, but it also shows how elected officials would operate if you had your way. Thank God, Obama is President and not someone like you.

[dionysus]

30. they screamed and wailed that bush was a tyrant... and now they want a tyrant of their own i guess.

:shrug:

because, you see, the best way for obama to get stuff done is go to war with his own side...

[phleshdef]

32. Yea, next time we need to remember not to elect someone who respects balance of power.

[ShortnFiery]

34. You better believe that a strong leader, even a DEMOCRATIC leader can influence Congress.

President Obama has become, IMO, a pensive corporatist and is merely going through the motions to make us peasants BELIEVE that the ruling elites truly give a damn about the average wage-slave American.

Hint: They could care less. In fact, they joke about our gullibility during their high powered socials within the beltway. The ruling elite despise us but realize that they must present the well orchestrated Kabuki dance "dramas" with the M$M to keep us duped.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

5. K&R

[ProleNoMore]

8. As Is Oft Said, Actions Speak Louder Than Words

eom

[Better Today]

9. It appears OBAMA IS A blueDOG, so how's that going to help.

[majamay]

10. We will have a public option

Even Evan Bayh now says that he won't support a filibuster at the end, maybe.

[joeycola]

11. a compromised po at best!!

[andym]

16. At this point, he needs to convince blue dog senators (not just blue dog reps)

and some of his former senate colleagues won't listen to him, no matter what. So it doesn't really matter. He probably should have lobbied some of the blue dog House members, just to get a stronger bill out of the House. But that time is now past it appears.

Joe Lieberman is the current poster child. His own state favors a PO, yet he is strongly against. Reid has more power than Obama-- to take away his chairmanships-- but even that might not matter.

The real path to change is simple:
Replace blue dogs in liberal states/districts with progressives. But that won't be enough, because there are only a few of these (like Lieberman)

Replace blue dog voters with progressive voters. This is what is really needed. Blue dogs need to be primaried, but to this requires a progressive majority in each critical locality. Progressives need to move to critical districts/states. 300K new progressives in Montana could result in replacing a Max Baucus with a Gavin Newsom.

[Jennicut]

18. People here are missing the point on the blue dogs. They are not loyal to the Prez or to Dems.

They are DINOS. They were elected with the help and sometimes majority of conservative voters. Lieberman was elected by more Rethugs in my state then by Dems. Conservadems are only following who they are loyal to and it sure is not progressives. Obama cannot "make" them be loyal to him or to other Dems and progressives when they never were to begin with.

[andym]

24. You're correct

The blue dogs are loyal to those who voted for them-- moderate to conservative voters. Lieberman got enough moderates (+ conservatives) to win against a weak Republican candidate and a stronger but less well know Democratic candidate (who beat him in the primary).

Lieberman is trying to appeal to his new base which are conservative to moderate voters in CT. If he can keep enough moderates (and prevent the Democratic candidate from winning them) , he probably stays in power (barring a very strong Republican who would steal his votes from the right)

That's why real change requires real demographic change in many congressional districts and states. A progressive candidate can not win without a sizable number of progressive voters.

[Jennicut]

28. I'm glad someone actually gets it.

In CT, the Attorney General, who is popular with moderates as well as liberals, may run against Lieberman. But long term, there needs to be more progressive voters in certain areas or they will never change.

[timzi]

21. Good Post Brentspeak

I see that the "Un-Rec's" are after you. Good for you!

[treestar]

25. The "bully pulpit" theme is unrealistic to me

It represents a mere wish that the President could get whatever he wants by just stating it.

as for threatening them with supporting their opponent, that would be used selectively. A President can't alienate the entire party. Over four years, there will be many bills and reason to use this argument on everyone eventually and would become an empty threat.

It wouldn't work on Carper for instance, who is from Delaware, where people in the Senate get reelected over and over again - small state which will keep the same people so that their longevity gives them more power, like with Biden.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Agreed, the "bully pulpit" is powerful, but...

Its power is not what some people think it is. The President has the power to speak and be heard when he speaks. But when there is unified opposition on an issue (such as this one) they can be heard just as loudly. The bully pulpit is important but it isn't all powerful unless the President's voice is the only one.

[Clio the Leo]

26. How do you reconcile this logic against Article 1 of the Constitution? NT

[dionysus]

29. you really have no understanding about the 3 branches of govt, do you?

if only smoove johnny hedge fund was here... he could save us...
:rofl:

[joeycola]

31. What the WH can do is LEAD on a robust public option which they

did not do. Instead we get crumbs and the insurance and big phar industries will lap up tax money and we all suffer.

[dionysus]

33. so you're privy to any conversations Obama has had? amazing. would you rather he snipe dem senators

in the press? that'll sure help :eyes:

[joeycola]

35. I do not hear his public Leadership related to the PO. And

no, I am not privy to his private conversations.

[ShortnFiery]

36. They could have LED with "Single Payer" and SETTLED for a robust "Public Option.

How about the BASICS of Negotiations 101?

We have Neo-Liberals in the WH. On social issues they are much more enlightened but FISCALLY they are 100% CORPORATIST not to mention WAR-MONGERING to spread privatization to all impoverished countries with valuable natural resources.

[joeycola]

37. Right. The WH started from a weak point.

[dionysus]

39. i want to see where the blue dogs would vote for single payer. again, they never would.

i don't know why you can't comrehend that the blue dogs are never going to vote for that stuff. it has nothing to do with obama.

he can't make them do anything

:shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

40. Why do you believe it is strong position to start at a point that most of our own caucus

would walk out, much less anyone else that might have influence or a vote.

By this logic he really should have started with a national healthcare system and negotiated down but we all know that wasn't going to fly at all. The pretense that single payer was currently viable is pure imagination and wishing. I've never seen a soul that could even list 20 Senators that would vote for a single payer plan from the jump which means the game is lost before it began, certainly someone as fixated on cards as you understands that even a bluff has to be within the realm of possibility.