To "Protect" The Blue Dogs, Scrap Health Care Reform?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:40:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Digby gets it right:

According to Mike Viqueira on MSNBC, Obama told the progressives in congress on a conference call this morning that on health care, they need to worry about their fellow members in districts that voted with McCain in '08. I guess he figures that those conservative districts are going to be appeased by some sort of "trigger" or a plan without the public option and that those guys in tough districts will be rewarded for making that happen.

I think that's about as delusional as the teabaggers, frankly. If those McCain voters are upset about health care reform, the only thing that will appease them is total defeat. . . .

Yep. This is obvious. The strategy actually requires letting those Blue Dogs run as Republicans who can brag about stopping "death panels." Personally, I think this is disastrous for the Blue Dogs politically (and coincidentally Obama) also. For some reason, base intensity is a political concept not understood in the Beltway.

Speaking for me only

< Saturday Morning Open Thread | Obama Announces Plans to Spur Retirement Savings >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

To "Protect" The Blue Dogs, Scrap Health Care Reform? | 81 comments (81 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think the GOP understands base intensity... (5.00 / 8) (#1)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:42:51 AM EST

sigh.

: Yeah I was going to say (5.00 / 8) (#2)
by Faust on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:55:12 AM EST

I'm pretty sure right wing base intensity is understood pretty well. They've been showcasing it for the last month and calling it the "American people."

Can we call it the No We Can't (5.00 / 8) (#4)
by oldpro on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:00:37 AM EST

speech?

: you're on a roll today, oldpro! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:03:15 AM EST

: That's right (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by SGITR on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:38:45 AM EST

This protection of the Blue dogs, aka: give them all the power, which was predicted by many would happen if Obama were elected, isn't just a tip of the hand, it is an In Your Face of what Obama's full intentions are.
Last Hope = Deaf Eared House Progressives who stand proud (A lot of good their letters to him did huh?).
I would say that No We Can't is the underlying theme to the speech. But of course he is not going to say that out loud on TV. Even though we the base now know that his capitulation to the Blue Dogs is Presidential Seal Official he will stand up there like he has many times before "smiling and lying" to all of us in the most disrespectful of ways.
No We Can't will be the silent undertone during his speech. But overtly his speech will try to be in so many different ways, as usual, CYA.
Last night Obama officially gave us permission to give up on him. It's him and the Ben Nelson's versus us. Forget hopes of anything else.

What's the point in keeping em' around (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:08:59 AM EST

if the best we can say is they are ornamental and the worst we can say is they are obstructive to getting a liberal platform passed anyway?

It's swell to say we have majority. It doesn't mean bupkiss though if you are unwilling to utilize(and yes take some RISK) to get your agenda passed.

Well, actually there is a point (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by oldpro on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:19:53 AM EST

if you think back over the last 8 years and if you remember that Bill Clinton prevented all that for 6 years all by hisself...or put it off, anyway.

Having the majority means setting the agenda...if you dare...but it also means preventing the enemy from setting it.


But Blue Dogs aren't in the majority (5.00 / 6) (#10)
by Cream City on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:22:10 AM EST

since they're not voting with Dems. Why "protect" people who won't vote with the Dems? Why protect people who, therefore, really are Republicans?


As regards to our negotiation discussions, (5.00 / 4) (#34)
by ruffian on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:15:10 PM EST

what is Obama saying we even get in return for protecting the Blue Dogs on health care? Are they going to go along with stronger environmental protection legislation, liberal SCOTUS nominations, a Truth Commission? Anything at all that makes this worthwhile?

All the Senate majority gets us is guys like Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman retaining their committee chairmanships.


: We get to say we have the majority (none / 0) (#35)
by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:17:52 PM EST

Whoopee!

: Well, the Blue Dogs will, in turn, (none / 0) (#55)
by KeysDan on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:24:25 PM EST

support any war funding requests.

They 'make' the majority by (none / 0) (#12)
by oldpro on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:26:11 AM EST

voting with Dems on procedural votes...at a minimum. They also, by vitue of being elected, prevent some Republican from having a platform.


And they also (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:41:17 AM EST

prevent Democrats from passing bills that are actually GOOD for people as opposed to the poison that the blue dogs propose....so back to CWaltz' point.

Not that I really blame the blue dogs. Obama (I almost said Bush) is the blue-dog in chief.


Not really. Do the math. (5.00 / 4) (#58)
by oldpro on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:40:46 PM EST

Do the Dems in both houses have working majorities without the blue dogs? In the Senate, probably yes. House? No. Hence, some compromise.

But the House blue dogs only number 52 while the House progressive causes numbers 81...57 of whom have rattled the White House cage with a threat to vote NO nuless there is a strong public option...with no more concessions.

So...this is a staredown.

Which is why we need an FDR or an LBJ or even a Hubert Humphrey. It's called leadership.


Maybe it's part of my 2008 Obama love (none / 0) (#42)
by magster on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:43:54 PM EST

but I think Rahm Emanuel has been a much more pernicious influence on Obama and how Obama picked his cabinet, advisors and legislative strategies.

It's hardly an excuse for Obama since Obama picked Emanuel, but I would bet Obama's picks were Emanuel's recommendations, and Emanuel has had his own agenda all along that was not simpatico with Obama's campaign promises. Now Obama relies on bad advice while Obama's agenda has been slowly eroded away over nine months into this joke of an already lame-duck administration beholden to the Blue Dogs.

Ultimately, it's either that Obama is weak, or he is disingenuous. Which is worse?


Ahhhhhhh it harkens back (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 01:11:54 PM EST

to the good ol' days when my choices were corrupt or clueless. Gosh, how these past months have flown by.


And (5.00 / 6) (#49)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 01:29:48 PM EST

Bush was a good guy he just had that dastardly Cheney makin' him do bad stuff. Bush is forgiven, right?

Or as they say on Laugh In: "The DEVIL made me do it!"


: The Devil Made Me Do It, (none / 0) (#56)
by KeysDan on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:37:46 PM EST

was also Alexander Haig's (Reagan's first Secretary of State) line in the Iran/Contra episode--even funnier (without the ha ha's) than Laugh In.

Yeh, and Haldeman (5.00 / 4) (#52)
by Cream City on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:06:49 PM EST

made Nixon do it, too.

You wanted Chicago politics, you got it -- Obama and Rahm Emmanuel. Maybe you just didn't realize that rough-and-tumble Chicago politics is not the way it works in D.C.? (I recall JFK's great line on D.C. -- but he had been in the Senate for a long time so knew how it works there.)


Mistakes were made? (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by Spamlet on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 03:28:54 PM EST

Why use the passive voice ("Obama's agenda has been slowly eroded away over nine months")? Rahm serves at the president's pleasure, as you pointed out.


Picks for his (5.00 / 4) (#68)
by cal1942 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:15:06 PM EST

economics team were made by Robert Rubin's son.

Beyond that Obama is 100% responsible for everything in the White House. Blaming advisors simply means that he's not qualified to be President.

His staff is what he wants.


in other words (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:00:22 PM EST

they are ornamental. They are going to stand in the way of any real reform just like the opposition party(heavy on the opposition portion) but they aren't REAL Republican opposition so somehow they should get a pass for standing in the way of real reform.

I'm not anxious to spend years in stalemate(and I daresay the 40 million odd people without healthcare and the other portion of the electoraTE that has it but is waiting for the other shoe to drop would disagree) just to get out of a debate with the GOP on the merits of prioritizing problems(Let's face it there were something like 3 flag burning instances in 365 days I think its safe to say a flag burning amendment is a waste of time when you have 40 million instances of people without health care and another lord knows how many who have it but will go bankrupt anyway) By the way, we WON that debate which is why the Dems have the majority(and for bleepin sake the Presidency).


If you are unwilling to (5.00 / 8) (#20)
by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:42:56 AM EST

use the majority then your opponent is setting the agenda anyway. The electorate is not going to tolerate inaction or handwring where the Dems opine "If only we had 100 Senate and 435 House votes." They are perfectly aware that the GOP get things done with a SLIMMER majority. Heck, Bush got things done when his party was the MINORITY in the Senate and the House.


I believe I did say... (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by oldpro on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:06:42 PM EST

"...if you dare..."

Daring requires leadership. Obama is a few quarts low. He has the votes but can't seem to bring himself to use them.


Leadership? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:53:35 PM EST

Hmmmmmmmm Do you suspect he didn't realize he wasn't solely applying for a marketing job and would need more than a good slogan for 4 years?


i dont think obama is quarts low (5.00 / 4) (#45)
by sancho on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:58:46 PM EST

on leadership. he's an able blue dog leader. maybe even a fierce one. that's his political agenda.


Could be that Obama standing with (5.00 / 9) (#57)
by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:39:50 PM EST

the Blue Dogs is not Obama failing to lead but rather him leading in the direction he wants to go.


: Nothing else makes sense (5.00 / 4) (#62)
by ruffian on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 03:01:25 PM EST

given all the facts. I think you nailed it.

: Could be. n/t (none / 0) (#60)
by oldpro on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:43:19 PM EST

Yeah (none / 0) (#22)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:46:21 AM EST

but Bush passed bad policy, Obama wants to pass good pol....oh woops... ;-).


Heh (none / 0) (#43)
by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:50:28 PM EST

Apparently, he's content to pass NO policy if it means he has to take a calculated political risk.

And this isn't even a huge risk considering a solid majority suppot a public option.

As I said yesterday, can someone from the circular firing squad shoot me and put me out of my misery already. ;)


Slightly disagree (5.00 / 5) (#69)
by cal1942 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:30:39 PM EST

As a man of no conviction he'll sign whatever piece of sh!t crosses his desk as long as he can disingenuously label it reform.

He doesn't care if he throws the 'base' under the bus. He doesn't like the 'base' anyway.

So far as good policy is concerned it should be clearly understood that he has no regard for actual policy content. His only regard is process. To Obama, bipartisanship is an end not a means. When that's understood every act is clear and the outcome of every issue is unsurprising.


We'll see (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:04:28 PM EST

He strikes me as a guy who wants to have his cake and eat it too. I'm sure they are strategizing with how to toss enough under the bus but not "too many" that it might have a cost for him later on down the road. This is going to be about how cohesive the base can be IMO. If he senses a fracture somewhere in the public option folk he'll exploit it of that I have little doubt.


Exercise in futility... (5.00 / 4) (#74)
by NYShooter on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:40:31 PM EST

Trying to figure out who, or what, Barack Obama is; or what, if any, base values he holds.

C.E.O's, 4-star Generals, or committe chairmen, aren't necessarily the best choices, but rather are people who never stand out. By simply keeping their heads down, taking no risks nor making any controversial decisions, when the time comes, they're the last one standing.

I will never forget the contribution that "great American," Sean Hannity, made during the primaries, when addressing a live audience of rabid Obamabots he asked, "name me one thing Obama has done." The utter silence was so thunderously deafening Hillary should've used the clip in every one of her ads.

Governing was simply never his goal.

And it shows.


That incident you describe (none / 0) (#79)
by cal1942 on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:44:15 PM EST

The silence in response to what has Obama ever done.

I can see it all now ... after a couple of minutes of embarassing silence a guy in the back stands up and proudly shouts out

'he backed down to the nuclear power industry when he was a State Senator'


: "I know, I know!" (none / 0) (#80)
by NYShooter on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:54:04 PM EST

In its 104 year history, Obama was only President of the Harvard Law Review to have NEVER written a paper for peer, or any other review."
What's that? Oh, you meant what he did do."
"Sorry."

: As I recall, he was right about the Iraq War (none / 0) (#81)
by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 05:29:04 PM EST

without ever actually being personally responsible for a vote on the AUMF, and what he would have politically endured because of that same fictional vote :)

And Obama is allowing the enemy (none / 0) (#39)
by sallywally on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:26:35 PM EST

to dictate nearly everything - and they're still screaming bloody murder about him.

Where can this ultimately go? They're practically fomenting revolution.

I wonder if they'll try to impeach him at some point. Maybe then he would "get it."


Base intensity (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:17:18 AM EST

Every time I see one of those PHRMA ads telling me I should thank my Democratic senator for supporting "bipartisan" reform, I have to change the channel. Oh, freaking please. Are Democrats trying to turn off the Democratic base? Because that's exactly what those ads do.

Did PHRMA know they would undermine base intensity when they "agreed" to air ads for Democrats? Me thinks so. It almost feels Machiavelian. Did President Rahmbo know?

No. But President Snowe did. n/t (none / 0) (#9)
by oldpro on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:21:48 AM EST

So many presidents . . . so little (5.00 / 7) (#11)
by Cream City on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:24:01 AM EST

power for Dems. Huh, I guess that elections don't have consequences . . . or not quite as expected, unless all the presidents use their power, not just some of them.


To govern is to choose. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by oldpro on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:28:10 AM EST

Channeling (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:41:38 AM EST

Jean Edward Smith.


: I try to be selective...only the best. n/t (none / 0) (#36)
by oldpro on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:22:16 PM EST

Film at 11: Dems hate the left (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by lambert on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:01:36 PM EST

If the Blue Dogs didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them.

: One word: Primary nt/ (none / 0) (#73)
by Coral on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:46:17 PM EST

Delusional is right (5.00 / 7) (#29)
by ruffian on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 12:04:46 PM EST

No Dem, in any district, gets helped by passing a crappy plan. That's what the WH seems to be missing. It's like they really are playing chess-like political games, and forgetting there is real policy going on here, that people are either going to like or hate, and all Dems are going to get the credit or blame either way.

Just frickin' do what is right and the elections will take care of themselves. I think the WH is showing just as little faith in government at the Republicans are. Maybe they know something I don't.

The insurance industry gets quite a bit of help (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:44:54 PM EST

if Congress passes legislation that contains mandates, subsidizes and no cost controls.

IMO without government intervention and funding, the current private insurance and employer based system is not sustainable. Bad legislation will keep a very bad overpriced system alive longer at taxpayer expense.


Sadly, I disagree. (none / 0) (#50)
by ghost2 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:00:05 PM EST

No Dem, in any district, gets helped by passing a crappy plan.

Unfortunately, the politics works differently, and the WH knows it only too well. That's why the plan starts taking effect only after 2013. By the time, its flaws are known, the midtern elections of 2014 are passed.

Meanwhile, no matter how ridiculous a plan it is, expect Democrats and the WH to shout about it as a major legislative accomplishment. The media will repeat it, fawn over Obama yet again, and the democrats are in good shape for 2010 and 2012.

The democrats in congress and Obama will be fine. People not so much.

The press hated Hillary, because she was a champion for the people. Same concept applied to Gore.


I expect them to shout about it and try to (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by ruffian on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 03:05:02 PM EST

make it sound like a great accomplishment, but I don't expect it to work with voters, especially if, as you say, there has been no benefit from it yet in 200 or 2012.

I guess we'll find out.


: They might even (none / 0) (#75)
by NYShooter on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:47:54 PM EST

be planning to parachute Obama into the Coliseum, while reciting the accomplishments, bullet point style, through a bullhorn on his way down.

Maybe - maybe not (5.00 / 3) (#65)
by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 03:44:51 PM EST

Lot of variables in play.

Will the WH shout about it as a major legislative accomplishment? Of course they will. OTOH the Republicans will not be silent about it. As we have seen, the media is more than happy to regurgitate their talking points no matter how ridiculous.

If it is really bad legislation, it will not take the Republicans much effort to prove to the American people that the Dems will force them to purchase junk insurance.

Also, I think a lot depends on how much insurance premiums increase and coverage deceases between now and implementation. Heck, I could write the script for Republicans. "The Democrats spent $700 billion - $1 trillion dollars of your taxpayer dollars. Has this saved you even $1 on your health care. No today you are paying X% more than you were paying before th