Obama may have a Democratic Majority, but he doesn't have a LIBERAL majority

[CTLawGuy]

The fact that a legislator is a Democrat doesn't make that legislator a liberal who is going to automatically support liberal ideas. The Democratic party has been, and is, a mix of liberals, moderates with a few conservatives.

This is especially true in the US Senate where low-population conservative states have disproportionate influence.

For example: ND (Kent Conrad-D), MT (Max Baucus-D; Jon Tester-D), NE (Ben Nelson-D), SD (Tim Johnson-D), AK (Mark Begich-D)

Of course there are a fair share of Dems who represent conservative southern constituencies:

For Example: AR (Blanche Lincoln-D; Mark Pryor-D), LA (Mary Landrieu-D), NC (Kay Hagan-D), VA (Mark Warner-D; Jim Webb-D), FL (Bill Nelson-D)

And finally, there are the oddball conservatives/moderates:

For example: CT (Joe Lieberman-I), PA (Arlen Specter-D), IN (Evan Bayh-D), CA (Dianne Feinstein-D)

That leaves at most 43 actual liberals in the US Senate, hardly a majority.


So forgive the president if he isn't getting it done as fast as you would like it. He is not a king and he has to deal with moderates and conservatives in his own party who are the key to getting ANY reform passed.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. Sadly, he does not. And we all continue to get screwed as a result. n/t

[Cant trust em]

2. I'm glad that someone here understands the political realities of our party. nt

[vi5]

3. Bush didn't either...never stopped him....

....at best he had 51 republicans in the Senate, then you throw in the Specters and the Snowes and the other random "centrists" and he had about as much if not less than Obama does, and he was still able to ram through a ridiculously conservative and regressive and anti-liberal agenda.

So explain to me how that works?

[TTUBatfan2008]

6. Republicans towed the line even if they disagreed with him...

They are the party of Lockstep whereas the Democratic Party is filled with people who are willing to disagree with their own leaders.

[vi5]

7. I would submit that it's poor leadership....

All it would take is for Reid to get people to understand that they can vote against the bill itself but vote for cloture and not support a fillibuster. But he won't do that.

I understand that we're not lock step and I'm o.k. with that. But if our "individuality" is at the expense of actually getting anything done then I'm not sure I like that trade off.

I don't think it's an either/or situation and that dems have to be lock step but I think we do need MUCH better leadership.

[Cha]

20. I would submit the Democrats aren't the republicons

and to say it's poor leadership is just a stupid blanket cop out.

[mzmolly]

35. The Republican Party is a cult.

Democrats think individually.

[vi5]

43. Well that's a relief....

...I mean we may get nothing done and have the country continue to be in shambles and never be able to fully fix many of the messes that Bush and the republicans left for us....

....but at least we're individuals.

[mzmolly]

62. Still feel that way

after tonight's speech?

[vi5]

63. I absolutely do....

..it was a great speech. And when Reid and Pelosi have issued tough words and stern warnings, they make me feel warm and fuzzy inside as well and I think that maybe, just maybe we'll be able to get something done.

But until the words translate to either action, or actually making people who aren't on our side change their mind either through persuasion or through concrete consequences......then it's just words. It really is.

If after the speech all or some (or ANY) of the Blue Dogs change their tune and support a public option, or say that even if they won't vote for the bill they won't support a fillibuster....well then I will be right on here apologizing and saying I was wrong.

So....get back to me when anything actually changes because of the speech. I'm really not trying to be difficult, I'm just very cynical and pessimistic at this point and the time for simple speeches and rhetoric has long past. I'm all for differing opinions but at a certain point the will of the majority of people in a party has to hold some kind of sway.

[mzmolly]

64. I will not get back to you but I'll expect you to get back to us

with a thread stating how pleased you are with the progress we're making. ;)

Peace

[vi5]

65. I most definitely will....

I'm not being snarky at all.

I want to be so friggin wrong that it makes my head hurt. I want to be embarrassed for myself for ever doubting.

It's a post that I will happily make if the occassion should arise.

[mzmolly]

66. No need to be embarrassed

politics can make the best of us cynical.

:hi:

[treestar]

48. LIke what? The same kind of claims to totalitarian power that

Bush/Cheney tried to assert?

[vi5]

58. Well then I'm confused...

as to what people such as yourself are saying? I'm honestly not trying to be snarky, and I am looking for any silver lining so by all means I'm open to any signs of encouragement. Is it your take that we should be happy with how things are turning out? That things are going well for Dems and Obama?

I think ultimately if we were getting great bills and a lot of progressive plans put into place, but the approvals for Dems in general and Obama specifically were in the dumper then....I'd be o.k. with that with the confidence that once things started turning around the approval part of it would turn around as well.

Or as much as I'd disagree with it, I could begrudgingly understand and be o.k. with the concept of putting through poor legislation filled with half measures that get very little done if it were popular with a lot of people and engendered a good deal of positive feelings and approval for the democratic party and/or Obama specifically.

I just think that we're getting neither. Approvals have plummetted and ideas which people supported months ago are now unpopular even though little has changed. And the legislation that has come through on the economy, the stimulus the wars, and now healthcare are not particularly good and in many ways are making things worse.

Do you think we should all just throw up our hands and say "Well, that's just the way it is. Can't really do anything about it."

I don't think asking for clear and concise ideas and plans, and having leaders out there selling those ideas and plans at every step possible is asking for lock step tyrany. There are a group of core ideas and ideals that the majority of elected Democrats agree on and support. I'd just like to see our leaders and reps and Senators out there selling them and being somewhat aggressive about it, even if in the end not they don't necessarily demand or insist that every dem vote for those ideas.

[CTLawGuy]

9. gladly

you are flatly incorrect. Bush had a conservative majority. Nearly every Republican was a conservative who supported him, also every conservative Demcorat from those conservative areas (a lot of those senators I listed have been around for a long time) supported him, and he got some moderates, (and even liberal dems on some things - John Kerry for example on the war) as well.

Furthermore, Bush used fear-mongering and lies to get what he wanted. Hopefully you do not want President Obama to stoop to that level as well.

Bush also had the conservative noise machine blaring 24/7 in support of him. Obama has what exists of the left wing equivalent spending most of its time whining at him and wringing its hands.

[vi5]

11. I don't want fearmongering and lies....

I want the truth to be told about these issues and honestly and the harshness which they deserve. Unlike what Bush frightened people into, these are real issues that require real action and I honestly and seriously feel Obama has not done that to the degree that he could have.

I'm no firebrand and I'm no radical and I'm no "leftist" by any stretch of the imagination. I'm really not. And if I felt that Obama was handling this and other issues with the decisiveness and the bluntness which it requires then I'd be o.k. with losing. But I just don't think it's there. If I felt like Pelosi and Reid and Obama were all out there all the time saying the right things and pushing everything in the right direction and backing it up with fair but stern action and we still lost the battles then I'd be o.k. with that. My problem is I don't see that from any of them (if anyone Pelosi has come the closest but even she seems to back off when it comes down to brass tacks).

I guess my problem is there has got to be some middle ground between the GOP which is all attack dogs all the time and our side which is maybe some attack dogs, sometimes saying tough things.....sort of....if it's o.k. with everyone and doesn't really offend anyone.

[Jennicut]

17. Uh, Cheney sat in on their discussions and most likely bribed and threatened Rethugs

that got out of line. Just a thought...

[treestar]

47. Bush had 911

That was used to get Democrats under pressure too. Gimme a break, what did Bush "get" other than wars?

Only Feingold voted against the Patriot Act in the Senate. Gimme a break. Bush had 911. And he used it and used it, over and over again.

In his last term with 25% popularity, wth did he "get?"

the OP is correct.

[vi5]

50. In his first term.....

which would be the most direct point of comparison, he got a lot put through. Massive, country bankrupting tax cuts for one. Yes, I can agree to chalk up all the horrible post 9/11 stuff (Patriot Act, FISA, etc.) to him using that cudgel. But the tax cuts and corporate tax breaks were a HUGE thing and a massive, conservative win.

With control of the house, the Senate and the presidency I'd like just one unequivical victory like that was for Bush and the right.

Yeah, I'm dissapointed in a laundry list of stuff that hasn't gotten done in terms of the wars, gay rights, the economy, etc., and in an ideal world I'd want all of it. But I'm not naive. I'd settle for something. I'd really like just 1 thing to be as important to Obama and the Dems to push through and push through the way it should be done the way Bush did with a lot of things, but even if I'm just conceding 1 it would be the tax cuts.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong and health care reform will be it.

[WI_DEM]

54. First most of the GOP are conservatives and with Bush it was some moderate/conservative dems who

helped him along.

[vi5]

56. At the time it was 50/50.....

...when you factor in Collins, Snowe, Specter, and at the time Chaffee that's only 1 or 2 more tops than what the OP is claiming we have now.

I know the conservative Dems helped them along.

I'm not claiming they all have to vote lock step as others are implying. If a particular Dem senator wants to appear all tough and conservative for their constituents by voting against a particular Dem bill I can live with that and won't even hold it against them. And I can understand Reid not demanding that they all vote for the bill.

But he can make them put up or shut up with regard to cloture and blocking a fillibuster.
He could also force the republicans to fillibuster rather than running scared every time they may or may not fillibuster if we don't have 60.

[ProSense]

4. On edit: Eight of those 17 Senators will vote for a public option

Yes:

Jon Tester-D
Tim Johnson-D
Kay Hagan-D
Mark Warner-D
Jim Webb-D
Arlen Specter-D
Dianne Feinstein-D
Mark Begich-D


No:

Mary Landrieu-D
Joe Lieberman-I
Evan Bayh-D
Bill Nelson-D
Ben Nelson-D
Kent Conrad-D
Max Baucus-D

[LooseWilly]

21. 43 + 8 = 51

Hence, the issue is fillibuster/cloture.

I still say: make 'em get up there and talk. Make them go up to the podium and talk and talk and talk... make them talk until a replacement for Teddy Kennedy is elected/appointed. Even without that vote, it's 50/49... and there's always Biden to break a tie. If the Mods won't even vote for cloture... show that to their constituents... it'll help them with their conservatives, and it might get them replaced in a primary... so be it.

Make them get in front of the mic and talk.

[ProSense]

22. "43 + 8 = 51...Hence, the issue is fillibuster/cloture." No hence the issue is

reconciliation

[MadHound]

23. Once again though, reconciliation is simply an alternative to filibuster

I second the idea of forcing them to read the phone book and pee in little cups. If they want a fight, bring it, don't back down because you're afraid of a battle. Millions of lives depend on this.

[ProSense]

32. Read a phone book instead of pass the bill?

Screw that, pass the bill. This isn't a game.

[MadHound]

37. Ah, so we should give up the public option, consign millions to death,

Rather than force the 'Pugs to filibuster and in the process get true, meaningful health care reform.

Great, another Democrat who would rather chalk up victories than do what is right and moral.

[PVnRT]

55. But, it's, like, so hard to call their bluff

Plus, it's, like, totally mean and stuff.

[elana i am]

31. a portrait worthy of some asshats

[ProSense]

33. Damn

You should put that in its own thread with that title.

[elana i am]

36. ok i will

[jenmito]

5. Exactly. I said the same thing days ago. K&R. n/t

[MadHound]

8. Excuses, excuses, more bullshit blather

It isn't like past presidents haven't had to deal with such factors in their administrations. Yet amazingly they knew how to get the job done and push their agenda through. Obama and his hands off approach to this has allowed the debate to get out of control, and allowed the Senate to degenerate into a food fight. Real leaders roll up their sleeves and lead, faux leaders make up excuses for their failures.

[CTLawGuy]

12. Obama still has time

let's not lose sight of that. Also, you can't compare him to past leaders. Before around 1995 and the Gingrich revolution, and the existence of Fox Noise, the parties were both more moderate, civil and willing to work with each other. It is only recently that the parties have become ideologically polarized (esp. the republican party). For decades, the R party accepted the New Deal and accepted the role of government in helping us. Not surprisingly, it was during this era that social security, medicare, medicaid, the EPA, affirmative action, etc. came into being.

This relative partisan harmony lasted until Reagan and Gingrich and the Fox Snooze crew came in.

[MadHound]

15. Go check out your history

There is no mythical "back in the day" where the parties were more willing to work with each other. Yes, there have been periods of time when that is true, but there have also been periods of time when fist fights broke out on the floor and Congressmen were just as vicious to each other as they are now. This is nothing new.

And yes, the right wing hate talkers have had an effect, but hell, FDR had to deal with Father Coughlin, and frankly the Birchers and others were no piece of cake either. And let's not get into Henry Ford who had his very own national newspaper to spew his bullshit across the nation, much like Murdoch has his very own TV network.

Sorry, but again, no excuses. Rush and the right wing hate talkers have been around for twenty years now, Faux, fifteen years of meaningful influence. If the Democratic party hasn't figured out how to take on these people head on and deal with them, then they are a sad excuse for a party and they deserve to go the way of the Whigs.

You would think that Democratic backers would, after all this time, have figured out that they need their own media force. Instead, they've got a couple of shows on MSNBC and Air America on satellite. They haven't restored the balance to public broadcasting that Bush took away, so PBS, and especially NPR have drifted hard right. Hello, McFly!

I realize that Obama has time, but he has squandered his political capital badly, and unless he hits this over the fence, then he's going to be another worthless waste of space in the White House, much like Carter was. Worse, he'll take the Clinton road, who after his health care debacle, took the corporate side time and again so that he could stay in office, the little guy be damned.

I'm tired of having real change being put off to the indefinite future. We now have the best chance in generations to put through meaningful change and reform in so many area. If Obama can't get his party behind him, then he's worse than worthless, he'll simply rubber stamp this handcart ride to hell. We can't afford to wait, we can't afford excuses, our country, our people are in really dire straits that are only getting worse. If Obama isn't up for the job, then he needs to get out of the way for somebody who is.

[CTLawGuy]

42. You look at YOUR history

up until the 1980s the Republicans were a moderate opposition party akin to the DLC. They accepted the role of government in improving our lives, even if they hated taxes and spending. It was Nixon who created the EPA, for example. Only when Reagan came along (who was considered an unelectable radical by the PTB in the party) did R party begin its ideological shift to the right. Today's republicans hate all government and reflexively attack anything involving a greater government role as SOCIALISM.

And to compare the reach and pervasiveness of Father Coughlin and Henry Ford's newspaper to the reach and pervasiveness of Fox News, and the army of lockstep conservative talk show hosts is silly.

Everyone attacks Obama, but where is the activist base putting pressure on these right wing Democrats, esp such Democratic activists from their states? Why is it that the right comes out in droves to these town hall meetings but the left does nothing but sit on their asses and whining about President Obama? No wonder we can't get anything done. Do you think this type of reform is easy?

[Zodiak]

45. Um.....the left has been putting pressure on right-wing Democrats

...and Rahm Emmanuel called it "fucking stupid" and put pressure on the groups to stop...which they did.

Or did you miss that?

[rug]

10. Health care should not be defined as liberal or conservative.

He who defines the argument wins the argument.

[CTLawGuy]

13. regardless of how you define it

conservatives aren't going to support a public option or single payer: what they call "socialized medicine"

[Becky72]

14. The blue dogs don't have a majority either n/t

[Laelth]

16. You're right, of course, but I still blame the DLC ...

... for funding these DINOs. They all need liberal primary opponents.

In fact, I think the President should just give up on "health insurance reform" due to the obvious fact that he doesn't have the votes to pass a good bill. Passing a bad bill will be worse than doing nothing.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Hutzpa]

19. I don't

because we sat and watched them fund these nut jobs, feeding us the idea
that anything but a Republican would work, we all bought it.

[Laelth]

52. Howard Dean didn't buy it.

That's why he's been driven out of the party.

I'll be following him if the Democratic Party doesn't start representing the people instead of the corporations.

:dem:

-Laelth

[fadedrose]

59. I'm leanin' that way too...nt

[Hutzpa]

18. You know

he can just line them up and shoot the hell out of em'.......:evilgrin:

[polichick]

24. Plus, Obama isn't a liberal. I'm glad that the left is energized and active...

...but I think Lawrence O'Donnell is right when he says the prez just wants a bill.

[Oregone]

25. Yeah, a bill...

With his name attached. :(

[polichick]

26. As someone (?) on msnbc said today, "A president gets credit for doing stuff." nt

[jenmito]

28. David Gregory said that. Obama has already done more "stuff" than most presidents in this amount of

time. Here's an example of some of his legislation passed:

FEATURED LEGISLATION

Cash for Clunkers Extension

Signed: Thursday, August 6, 2009

Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

Signed: Monday, June 22, 2009

Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009

Signed: Friday, May 22, 2009

Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act

Signed: Friday, May 22, 2009

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act

Signed: Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act

Signed: Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act

Signed: Wednesday, April 21, 2009

Omnibus Public Lands Management Act

Signed: Monday, March 30, 2009

Small Business Act Temporary Extension

Signed: Friday, March 20, 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Signed: Tuesday, February 17, 2009

DTV Delay Act

Signed: Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act

Signed: Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Signed: Thursday, January 29, 2009

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

And this doesn't include how he has improved our standing in the world...

[polichick]

29. I guess it's true - a president gets credit for doing stuff. nt

[thucythucy]

27. JFK and LBJ

Reading this post and the accompanying thread reminds me of an anecdote I read about JFK and LBJ. It's been years now, so I can't quite pin down where I read this, but I think it might have been in one of Taylor Branch's books on Rev. King. Anyway, as I'm remembering this it was 1963, and the Kennedy brothers and LBJ and some other big wig administration types were meeting at the White House. JFK was griping about how he wasn't able to get senators in his own party to support the Civil Rights Act of 1963 (which eventually was passed as the Civil Rights Act of 1964). LBJ was generally cut out of these sessions, as he and RFK hated each others' guts, besides which the Kennedys tended to think of him as something of a rube. According to this account, LBJ said something along the lines of, "I can tell you how to get Senator so and so's vote." JFK, intrigued, asked him how. "You call him up and say, 'Now Senator, you've got a great big US Air Force base in your state that employs so many thousands of your constituents. I was just sitting here looking at the budget, and talking to my good friend Secretary McNamara, and I'm afraid we might have to shut that base down. Wouldn't that be a shame? But you know, if I just had the feeling that I could count on your support on this bill here--this bill that's so important to my administration--well, maybe we just might be able to figure out a way to keep that base open.'"

The others in the room supposedly were just slack-jawed. JFK said, "Could you really do that?" To which LBJ replied something along the lines of, "Just let me try."

As I recall, JFK never turned Lyndon loose, but after the assassination this was exactly the type of tactic Johnson used to get his agenda through. You think of his achievements: the Civil Rights Act of 64, the Voting Rights Act, VISTA, the Job Corps, Medicare, Medicaid... An amazing train of progressive legislation which, of course, was derailed by Vietnam.

The point is, Johnson was willing to play hardball when his core priorities were involved (and, sadly, when his own political interests were at risk, like when he squelched the Mississippi Freedom Party at the '64 convention--whole other story). He also knew--and let's be blunt here--how to scare the shit out of those he felt weren't on the team. My first twinge of apprehension with President Obama came when Lieberman got off with less than a slap on the wrist for actions that would have had LBJ (and even the Kennedys)out for his political hide. This no doubt sent a signal to Baucus et. al, that they could defy this administration and pay no political price whatsoever.

There's a time for building consensus, and a time for using every legal tool at your disposal to get the job done. Here's hoping President Obama is able to do what needs to be done to get this country headed back in the right direction.

[here_is_to_hope]

38. Well put! eom

[CTLawGuy]

40. I know

Obama could threaten to kill their families! What a great idea, and then he can tarnish his relationship with Congress forever. :eyes:

[Zodiak]

46. You'd have a point if LBJ threatened families

But he didn't, which makes your point a lame strawman.

Intellectual dishonesty will not move this issue forward.

[treestar]

49. And that threat could be followed through on today? This is 2009.

That also is not a good faith tactic.

Sounds like a tactic Bush/Cheney would have used. It's OK if it's a Dem President?

what if Obama actually had to close that base? Which of the Blue Dogs has such a base in his constituency?

and does the President have such power (to open or close military bases at will?)

[thucythucy]

57. You're being too literal

I'm not saying that President Obama should use this exact same tactic--I don't even know if LBJ actually used this line, or just tossed out the idea. For one thing, as was mentioned, it probably wouldn't work in this day and age. Times are different, obviously.

What I'm saying is that sometimes in politics you have to make it plain that you stand for something, and that members of your party (of which the president is supposed to be the leader) simply can't announce that they oppose most everything you were elected to do, and not suffer any political consequences at all. As for not being "a good faith tactic"--I don't think it's in good faith to be elected on a progressive platform, and then start "negotiating" with the same folks who oppose that platform top to bottom. If faith is to be kept, it should be with the voters, not with members of your party simply because they happen to be members of your party.

If at the beginning of this term Lieberman had been stripped of his committee chairs, if he'd been relegated to the far back bench, I bet President Obama wouldn't be having nearly this much trouble with the Blue Dogs. If he'd said, even privately, "I will veto any legislation that comes to my desk without a public option, and I'll campaign in the primaries against any Democrat who bucks me on this," I think there's a good chance we would have had a bill before the recess. As the saying goes, "Politics ain't beanbag."

Then again, opinions are a dime a dozen. We'll see what happens tonight, and in the weeks ahead.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

30. I thought we were mad at Bill Clinton for the same reason in the 90's.

:shrug:

And we used it against Hillary in the Primary.

:shrug:


Have we changed our minds now that it is Barack facing the fucking DINO's?


:shrug:

[CTLawGuy]

39. Bill Clinton signed Republican bills that

sent us backwards, e.g. DOMA, welfare reform, Gramm-Leach-Bliley. That's why I wasn't his biggest fan.

But Clinton did run into the same problem-a conservative majority. However, he had tried to "force" his own bill through, but Congress tore the bill to shreds, and it ended up passing nothing. Clinton took the "tough guy" approach that some people around here want and it failed miserably. Thus, Obama is letting congress write its own bills, although expressing what he wants in them, and he will let the final bill come out of conference.

[mzmolly]

34. An excellent

point. Sad but true.

[TheKentuckian]

41. Recced but I'd have to adjust that liberal count down to 35 at most

probably less and the difference is where you find actual moderates.

People also ignore the crap out of the fact that even LBJ did not always get his way, that he was able to leverage JFK's assassination to pass stuff they had failed to get through in past years, he had more wiggle room in both sheer votes in the caucus and more reasonable Republicans, no national noise machine, no 24 hour news cycle, and a rapidly growing economy.

I also find the bar to be pretty fucking high sense it seems to be the best mix of FDR, LBJ, and oddly W.

[ShortnFiery]

44. I hope and pray that our liberal/progressive representatives say to Obama:

Public Option or Bust!

If there's no public option in the final democratic plan, VOTE IT DOWN!

[dionysus]

51. correct. which is why is puzzles me that ppl are going batshit blaming obama for everything, when he

has got to deal with not only the rethugs, but the conservadems. He only signs the bills folks, he doesn't micromanage what get's voted on on the senate floor.

[WI_DEM]

53. Thanks for talking sense but a few around here think Obama can wave a wand and get a public option.

[grantcart]

60. Correct and that is why we compromised away from single payer

The Public Option is our line in the sand.


If the rest of the party can convince enough Republicans to agree then they can pass the legislation.


If they cannot then they will have to agree with our compromised position.


Since the Republicans are not going to offer any support under any condition they have in fact given us more power.

[TheKentuckian]

61. That's true. If the Republic weren't so hell bent on obstruction

they could save Murika from us awful libs, "rescue" Obama and "get him on the right track" while getting a bill their masters would dig the most but they aren't smart enough for all of that.