WaPo:
Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas is not likely to bring Barack Obama many votes on Nov. 4. Neither is Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee or Rep. Allen Boyd, a farmer from the Florida Panhandle.
But the three could play a big role in the success or failure of the next president, one reason Obama took a break from campaigning last week to call each of them, among the leaders of the "Blue Dog Coalition," a group of conservative-leaning Democrats who are committed to balancing the federal budget. The group's 49 members already wield significant power in the House, and their ranks are expected to expand in the next Congress.
"He said he planned to be the next president and he wanted to work with us," Ross said in recounting his conversation with Obama before the House approved a $700 billion economic rescue package. "He also recognized that we had the numbers to block or clear" legislation coming from the White House if he is elected.
Took a break from campaigning?
Funny, I thought that was the reason Obama couldn't help out homeowners until after the election -- his busy campaign schedule. Did I not get the memo?
Good to see the Blue Dogs don't even have to mention holding Obama's feet to the fire before the election. Progressives! Oh, progressives! You can come out now!
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
President Ouiji Board
Or maybe the "None Mandate
Mandate
".
It has been slowly dawning on me why Obama is such an attractive leader to so many in power. He is an omnibus bill. Like a Ouiji board he glides around mysteriously from central position to central position: his movements are at the same time clearly understood and vague enough to mean anything. Ask a question, an answer comes: ask the exact same question again, you get a different answer, but vague enough to not necessarily be conflicting.
This means he has no real mandate, no real agenda and can't dictate one to the powers that run Congress and the Village
. He can't run against what Reid, or Pelosi, or the Blue Dogs want because he has no strong, independent mandate of his own. His only mandate is to "work across the aisles to get things done". Now that is some damn attractive language if you are a congressional leader and all you want to do is get re-elected through pork, through fund-raising, through "constituent service". It means there is no real leadership, except that of how you herd the other hands on the Ouiji board.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
HTV, you summed it up beautifully, everything to everyone.
I love this job!
I love this job!
About that memo
L: "Funny, I thought that was the reason Obama couldn’t help out homeowners until after the election — his busy campaign schedule."
Surely you haven't forgotten already? Obama's schedule had nothing to do with failure to pass the unemployment benefits extension; that was entirely the fault of the Republican Senate Caucus, as I so thoroughly documented the last time you made this false charge. There is no truth to what you wrote then, and there is no truth to it now.
The enemies of Progressivism are the Republican Party and the BlueDog Coalition, not Barack Obama. For someone who foolishly championed and was then betrayed by Steny Hoyer, I should think you'd be clear on that by now. Together they have enough votes to control the House, and that indeed is a reality that a President Obama will have to confront and deal with. I can only hope that he will be as successful at managing them as has been Speaker Pelosi.
Together, The Republicans and BlueDogs will hold about 230 House seats in the 111th Congress. If there were enough Progressives around to control that many seats, the path of governance would be quite different. Instead of attacking Obama for things that are not his fault, a more Progressive approach to the problem of not enough Progressives in government might focus on how to elect more of them to office.
Step 1 in doing that is to drive Republicans from office. Step 2 is to elect more Progressives in safe Democratic districts. Step 3 is to use that political muscle to drive a Progressive agenda. Meanwhile, by all means lobby Obama for more Progressive behavior and rail against him when he falls short; as a center-right politician he will provide plenty of opportunity for both.
But false accusations will not be likely to sway him, any more than they charm any of us, and by creating enmity will in the end prove to be counterproductive of Progressive aims. You are not helping with this line of attack; please stop.
Speaker Pelosi was successful?
I am not that intelligent, but do you really mean that our dear Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" "Thank you President Bush, may I have another" Pelosi was success at managing the House?
Given what she had to work with, yes
Long conversation, eh? Short version, she is the leader of a two-part coalition with one arm - the BlueDogs - that constantly betrayed her and with whom she had to repeatedly compromise both to move legislation forward and to keep her position.
Had Pelosi faltered, we would now be facing the prospect of Speaker Hoyer and that, believe me, would be a very bad thing indeed.
Yes, yes...
You quietly dropped the ludicrous and indefensible "busy campaign schedule" talking point, which orginated here; one of those potential gifts that keep on giving, just as much as this one.
So, do remember, before accusing others of lying, that it's not always about you. Thanks so much.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Well aware of where it originated
Right here.
That was your misrepresentation, one that you continue to cling to in spite of thoughtful and thorough correction from multiple people. In fact, nothing was to be gained and much would be lost by Obama staying any longer in DC, and nothing more at all to be gained by working the phones in what was a lost cause.
He'll be back in DC right after the election for the lame duck session, when there will be a series of votes covering not just extension of unemployment benefits but a whole host of ground-upwards economic stimulus and support measures. For myself, I am expressing my small voice directly to those in the system who might be able to move that agenda along - including Obama.
As President-elect he'll have a stronger voice than he did during this Trillion Dollar Rip-off and I expect much more of him. How to manage a Progressive relationship with this new administration entity is certainly open to discussion, and I'm not at all suggesting that you, ah, curb your enthusiasm for the manner in which you choose to influence him. Each of us is certainly free to do as we think best.
I very carefully did not use the word "lie" because I feel you are sincerely - and unhelpfully - wrong rather than willfully deceitful. That's a clear distinction, Lambert, and I'll thank you in advance to not put such words in my mouth again. If that’s what I decide to say, I’ll be clear about it.
Feh
Your guy has his priorities. One of them was taking "a break from campaigning last week to call each of" the Blue Dogs, which contradicts the point made in the comment I cited, and which you re-cite, that Obama had "a schedule laid out that isn’t easily changed." Priorities, like I said.
I understand that you want to defend your guy; it's step one for you, IIRC. No harm in it, really; it's just that I'm defending my interests and values -- and those like me -- where your guy doesn't.
UPDATE I know Antony's speech, and his tactics, just as well as you do. Thank you very much.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Three phone calls is a "break"?
That characterization, "break from campaigning", was the reporter's not the Obama campaign and it seems to me a gross exaggeration. How much of a break is required for making three phone calls? These aren't lovers; maybe an hour and a half total at most, and while we aren't told they could well have been spaced out between other efforts.
Additionally, when the Trillion Dollar Rip-off was being thrashed through Obama was neck-and-neck with McCain, so the priority of winning would have certainly loomed large. Since then, Obama has surged or if you will McCain has tanked and the gap is much larger; what makes you think that with this change in status has not come a change in focus, one that allowed a factoring in of time to make some phone calls to people he now has a reasonable expectation of having to deal with?
I do appreciate your expression of understanding for my position. We are not much different in our goals, if at all; so far as I see we only disagree on matters of immediate strategy and that in turn creates differences in tactics. This divergence will likely pass.
The calls were zero-time tasks!
No prep, no briefing, no phone time, no followup, no staffing, no schedule!
I completely agree!
Whatever you say!
So, maybe we can get some of those zero time tasks for HOLC, now that the calls to the bankers and the blue dogs are over?
Or some other zero time tasks for what used to be the base?
Instead of major economic speeches that are three-quarters warmed over?
Priorities!
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Obama's a quick study?
Since we're being flip.
Perhaps you read in haste; I wrote that it may have taken an hour and a half, m/l. These would be reach out and touch conversations, not detailed policy discussions. Can't imagine any of them wanting to stay on the line very long at this point in time.
L: No prep, no briefing, no phone time, no followup, no staffing, no schedule!
He has an existing transition staff, led by Leon Panetta, whose job it is to take care of all of this sort of thing completely separate from the campaign effort.
How much briefing would it take? Maybe two pages double spaced, scan through in a minute or two, couple of questions, then have it at hand when the call is made. No more difficult than that.
So try again if you like, this time without mischaracterizing what I write thanks in advance.
Antony?
You're seeing ghosts. I've never been anything but straightforward in dealing with you, and by now you must know me well enough to know that I don't hand out praise casually. When I come at you I come straight ahead; no need to look for hidden meaning.
I'm not a Progressive
I'm and Independent Liberal
and I really don't care.