The lines of battle over the economic salvation of America and our working class are now crystal clear. It is Republicans and BlueDogs together on one side, acting in furtherance of the same Corporatists who ran public policy under Reagan and the Bushs, versus the rest of us.
What was a back-room systematic undermining of anything remotely effective in the way of an economic stimulus bill is now an open threat:
"The time for talk is over, the time for action is now," says the president.
Unfortunately, key Blue Dogs are no longer on board.
Thursday's letter from leaders of the coalition called on Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, to abandon their support for an ambitious stimulus and its spending priorities.
Breaking with the House Democratic leadership and throwing their support behind a push by conservative senators for a bill with less spending, the letter from Blue Dog leader Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-South Dakota, and other key leaders of the coalition said of the proposed cuts in stimulus spending:
"We believe that's a highly worthwhile goal, and that there are additional provisions that would be better left for consideration in regular order."
Republicans have already declared that they will do what ever it takes to derail any attempt to do anything but continue the path of economic destruction launched by Reagan and perpetuated under the Bush family, including the use of Taliban tactics.
But aligned with the BlueDogs, all Republicans need do is act within the confines of our existing political system. Together, Republicans and BlueDogs command 54% of the House and 52% of the Senate. Together, they control the legislative agenda and the content of any bill that gets passed. It is the Republicans and the BlueDogs who are the enemy of the people. It is this cabal that is obstructing rational economic behavior, as well as much of other needed rational public policy. These are the people who Progressives must attack, not Pelosi or Reid or even Obama at this point. There is a time to critique, and a time to buckle up; you don't have to agree with the sheriff on everything to still want to round up the outlaws.
Unless Progressives align themselves with the president and the Democratic congressional leadership, there will be no serious counterweight to the demands of the Republican-BlueDog cabal. Continuing to assail Obama and Pelosi and Reid for that which they do not control is to attack the symptoms and ignore the disease.
Nothing will change the Republicans; they are functionally insane, greedy beyond redemption. But many, perhaps most of the BlueDogs can be persuaded to change their behavior by mass action, and that is what Progressives need to be fomenting. Instead of allowing the discussion to occur between the Republican-BlueDog coalition and the Executive, Progressives must take to the streets and demand the change in behavior that the last two elections were about and is long overdue.
Many times, the ballot box is not enough; this is one of them. Progressives and responsible Moderates need to flood the Capitol, overwhelm the offices of the BlueDogs, sit down and refuse to leave until the stimulus bill is passed as submitted in the House. Writing critiques will not be enough; phone calls will not be effective; letters will be ignored; nothing short of undeniable physical presence will be noticed.
Anything less and we might as well take MonkeyFister's advice. To survive you will need, at a minimum, a 12-gauge, a .22 rifle and a 9mm pistol - and plenty of ammunition.
- bringiton's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
BIO, at this point, what political capital and clout does Obama
have left? What can he be required to do?
I think we should kill this bill and start over, with clear direction from Obama as the actor and power behind what's being legislated. But...is it too late for that?
If it's going to take millions of bodies in the cold in DC, in tent cities, who will be the MacArthur who burns them down? Plus, it's hard for people without much money to afford to get to DC. But with the U-6 umemployment number at 15.4%, we do have increasing numbers of people with the time to spend there....
no need to travel to DC
Every House rep and every Senator has a home area office, many of them more than one. Fill up that office and don't budge until the vote is in favor.
Obama didn't have much capital when he came into office, and acting on the notion that this bunch of cuthroats could be reasoned with cost whatever little aura of authority he did have. They see anything less than brutal strength as weakness. Now they smell blood in the water, and will eat him up if he doesn't fight back.
If Obama punts on this bill, walks away, he is doomed and so are we. The correct course is to stand tall and demand - not ask, demand - that this bill be passed as it was first inroduced in the House. He needs to do that on national television, relentlessly.
Privately, he needs to go to the BlueDogs and threaten them - something Pelosi and Reid can't do. Obama needs to make it clear that he controls the machinery of the Democratic Party, and that anyone who opposes him on economic policy will be crushed by his hand-picked candidates in the 2010 primary. He holds a big stick; this is the time to wave it.
He has to either man up, now, or he will fail. It would be a good thing for Progressives to let him know that on this one we have his back. He isn't an insane monster, this guy; we can expect, should expect, some reward for our help. I believe that if he sees Progressives as his allies it will be easier for him to see Republicans and BlueDogs for what they are - his enemies as well as ours.
But what if Obama AGREES with the Blue Dogs? What do we do then?
And my suggestion was not that Obama punt or walk away. My suggestion was that he say, as you do, that the Senate versions stinks and will not work; it's back to starting over, with clear, defined goals and objectives from Obama, OR go back to the House version -- but kill most of the stupid tax cuts.
But my fear, which I had back in the primaries and it influenced my vote, is that he is not any kind of lib/prog. He's not even a pragmatist, since a pragmatic pol would be dong what would work to improve the economy, not just the Big Bankster Boiz business and life styles. You said you see him as Center Right. Is he not acting in the manner by embracing the Repubs and Blue Dogs? The DLCers?
It's perhaps not a matter of "manning up," as he may be sticking to what he believes is best --Repub Lite, with some social and legal tidbits tossed to the Dems.
How do we change that? Change how Obama appears to be governing (or not governing...)? Guess that's why I thought you meant bodies on the streets of DC, bringing pressure on our president as well as Congress Critters. And it would take millions -- the MCM is not impressed with anything less. It would have to be something that looked like his inauguration crowds (was that merely 18 days ago?).
Somehow I don't see that happening, alas.
Demonstrating at a rep's office? Not sure it would do that much -- the numbers, again, would have to be so large as to merit MCM attention. And, based on reactions to small groups of anti-Iraq Invasion protests, big, big numbers are necessary.
But you do bring urgency to these past few posts. What brought you to a tipping point, if one has been reached?
What brings the urgency? Surely you jest.
If something doesn't get started, NOW, we will within six months have passed the point of no return. Pouring money NOW into the economy, even a mixed bag like the House stimulus bill, will help soften the downturn; it won't stop with this little, probably we need another trillion and a half to actually turn it around, but this bill will at least buy some time and slow the pace of decline.
Without it, the whole world - not just the USA - will undergo collapse that could easily outstrip the Great Depression in both depth and duration. I'd rather that didn't happen, and I'll make some compromises in the short term to ensure that there is a long term.
The media love a conflict story. Unemployed, uninsured, soon-to-be-homeless doing a sit-in at some BlueDog's home office will get covered if somebody makes a couple of phone calls. March around outside until the press shows up, then invade.
Unless you're truly homeless and hungry, disperse when the cops show up; on the other hand, three hots and a cot may be looking pretty good to some people. Repeat the next day, and in short order the crowd will grow making more fodder for the local news.
Get somebody with some tech smarts to video it all and put it on YouTube. Write to Rachael Maddow and yes, that dastardly Keith Olbermann (sp?), with links to the local news coverage and the YT vid. Don't stop until you get what you want.
If Obama wanted exactly what the BlueDog/Republicans wanted, he would have started with that; he didn't. There is no way to read this but that he believed he could co-opt the BlueDogs with some tax cuts and a promise of future fiscal restraint, and peel off a couple of Rs with an appeal to the best interests of the nation.
Any other interpretation requires me to believe that he deliberately set out to damage his image within the country and internationally, setting out on one course with the secret intent of caving to the opposition in the face of clear public demand, thus squandering what little power he brought into office only to get to where he really wanted and could as easily have proposed at the beginning. That simply doesn't add up for me; it does not pass the common sense test.
Obama screwed up with this bipartisan shtick and it has blown up in his face, as many including me said would happen. Now what? Do we kick him while he's down? What good will that do for us? I say we offer a helping hand, grit our teeth and wipe off the worst of the slime, and through those clenched teeth enunciate clearly: "Don't ever fucking do that again!"
But that's just me, and MHO.
marching orders
ok, i can do the video part, and the media contacting. assuming [and it's a big assumption] i can rustle up sitter-inners, should i be targeting my senator or my congresscritter first? or both?
Whoever is closest, hipparchia
But IIRC you have an R in the House. You won't change his mind no matter what you do, Martinez is retiring so he doesn't care what you or anyone thinks.
Nelson has been semi-sorta helpful, at Reid's request. None of the R's are even talking to Reid, since he had the temerity to say no to them for a change. Not sure how far out in the panhandle you are, but Jacksonville may be the nearest office of his and that's a haul if you're out near Destin.
Some people just won't have a geographic opportunity to go after BlueDogs, and you may be one of them. Still, there are many topics in the list of things that have been cut and one of them might be something you can tie to a local landmark. How about the healthcare cuts to COBRA and your local House reps office? You can talk about UHC at the same time.
Have fun; that's the most important part.
The money party...
VS the people party.
I would argue...
That Obama screwed the pooch by not training the Blue Dogs to bark a different tune. He (and has been since June, if I may use such a word) is the head of the party, and the greatest communicator since Aaron, y'know. He had two years of mostly great press, in a period in which Republicans have been staggeringly unpopular, to reinvigorate the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. But he couldn't get it up for that. Shame, really.
So I guess that makes him more like WJC
than FDR.
We don't differ you and I on Obama's strengths and weaknesses, or not by much. The question before us is what do we do going forward, and who do we align with. I argue that Progressives attacking Obama now on the stimulus bill does nothing but drive him further into the arms of the BlueDogs and Republicans.
He is a Conservative Centrist, another point on which we agree. He didn't "get it up" for Progressive causes because he isn't a Progressive. He isn't going to embrace Progressive policies beyond what it takes to ease a return to sanity, unless he sees that move as his best available option.
I'd like to offerI am offering support now for the House stimulus bill, since anything the Republican/BlueDog coalition forces on him – and us - will be worse - much worse - than what we get from the original.I'm not a happy camper, VL, but I am a worried one. I think we would be wise to remember that Less Evil is still better than Evil, just as was true in the election. Call me an accommodationist, call me impure, call me a coward, but I'd rather huddle together in a small stinky cabin with someone I don't much like than stand outside on principle and get eaten by grizzlies.
What if "he has no place to go"?
Obama was pretty firmly "in the arms of" the conservatives and the Republicans as it is. And look what they did to him -- fucked him sideways in the first 10 days of his administration.
Leah says, and I agree, that if there's one thing about Obama, it's that at the end of the day, he doesn't want to be the one left holding the bag. (And he's been pretty successful at avoiding that so far.) That may yet save us.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Didn't mean to ignore you
Just puzzling on your question and I still haven't figured it out - don't know what you mean by "no place to go".
Obama is a lover not a fighter, as the song goes, and so that was his first approach. He wants to be in the middle, balanced, and in every other place in his life he's been able to find that sweet-for-him spot.
Bad news, with the Rs there is no middle possible and the BlueDogs sense the ability to control the agenda as they had planned since last summer. Nasty people, all of them, and they would sure as hell rather slit Obama's throat than cuddle.
Leah [whom I miss and hope is doing well] is correct; he does not seem to be able to tolerate being the bad guy but wants to be loved by all. The more hostile the R/BD cabal, the more we have to gain by being friendly. As President he has no choice now, the bag belongs to him, but he still wants assurance that he won't have to hold that bag alone. I think we should find a way to extend our hand in help.
The young man is getting what we call an education. In the past, he's been a quick study and when he has a setback he has ended up making moves that benefited him. In our current situation and with an eye to his legacy, he will have to move leftward or end up written off as just another failed hack. I would like us to be helpful in that, moving the agenda leftward, without giving up the right to be critical when it serves our ends.
Won't you be Obama's snuggle-bunny, just for a while? C'mon, lambert; take one for the team.
"If only the czar knew...."
Seriously ...
It just seems to me that Obama's the schwerpunkt, not the Blue Dogs. (Or, to put this another way, Louis, not the nobility).
FWIW (and I'm a writer, not, thank God, a "Democratic strategist" such as one sees on the teebee) I have a feeling of "If it were going to happen, it would have already happened" feelling on this one. There are a lot of Blue Dogs that didn't bark in the night, as it were:
1. Obama never worked to isolate or diminish the Blue Dog's effect from June on. (Indeed, with a strategy of attracting Republicans, he could not have.)
2. Obama "pre-compromised" the bill. But surely, if he wanted to end up at $800 billion, he knows enough to ask for (say) $1.2.
3. Obama hasn't mobilized the email list.
If not passing the bill will lead to "catastrophe" (if that was his word), then Obama didn't take measures that were easy enough to see to prevent it (see point 1), and isn't even exerting all his "capital" to avoid it (see points 2 and 3).
Leading me to the conclusion that on this one, what we're seeing is what we're getting. So if Obama's the problem, I'm not getting why it makes sense to attack the Blue Dogs in particular.
What I meant by "He has no place to go" was this: Cynical as I am about Obama (probably not enough, it's never enough), these first 10 days can't have been good for him. Shit, they took out Tom Daschle, and now they're trying to take down Solis on a tax lien of $6,400 (three zeros, for pity's sake). And by "they," I mean all the Republicans, some of the Democrats, and all of the press. It's worse than the assholes who stabbed Clinton right in the chest on gays in the military! Nobody can enjoy that, not even Obama (and I'm not cynical enough, I guess, to think that all this is kabuki). There's exactly one place where Obama can get the love he craves based on policy outcomes, and that's the left. Everywhere else, they'll backstab him as soon as look at him. The 18 million stuck with Hillary through thick and thin (a) because they wanted her policy outcomes, based on history, and (b) they liked the boring bullet points, and (c) they didn't believe a word that anybody in the Village
said about her, and for very good reason. I don't believe, in other words, that they fell in love with her at all; it was the pure pragmatism of who offered the better deal based on performance. If Obama could win those 18 million -- and he still can, with policy -- then he can tell the Village
to fuck off. Now, that may be true of the OFB
also, we don't know.
Anyhow, FWIW.
Oh, I forgot. It took about three years, 2003 - 2006, to remove the mandate of heaven from the Bush regime. I'd expect a similar time frame and level of effort with Obama -- if policy outcomes go the way I, and the other Cassandras, think they will.
UPDATE Again, FWIW, when Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he said: "That's where the money is" (more or less). Obama's the one with the political capital. So...
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
hasn't mobilized the e-mail list?
dude! they're holding stimulus bill house parties this weekend. it's another a top-down messaging thing, like the healthcare house parties were, but i'm expecting to see results next week.
I got one single piece of mail
Not like the primaries at all. "Catastrophe"? Though if you want to go out on DK and find a field report, be my gyest, seriously. (The Daschle house parties didn't come to much either, did they?)
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
What did Obama know, and when did he know it?
Can't really argue over what is in Obama's heart, or what his agenda is if it is somehow a secret; that will all come out sooner or later. But like you, I can't see this as some sort of kubuki; the cost to him is too high and if he wanted a completely crappy stimulus bill he could have just written it that way himself and sent it down to the Hill to start with.
I think he is getting his ass handed to him, and that's probably going to be an all right thing for us if we can figure out how to work with him. I don't mean we should give up our goals, not at all; I mean we need to find a way to help him find his better self. I do believe he has one, unlike Bush who was probably crippled emotionally from birth.
When you say he's mishandled things, that is surely true. I think the problem he has is his pride. They all are prideful at this level, can't get there otherwise, and his shows pretty evidently. Maybe you didn't see him during the debates, but when he was criticized on a point that he felt was unfair he would purse his lips, squint his eyes, look down and then raise his head and stiffen his posture - he became literally "stiff-necked."
That pride led him to do what he said he would try, to develop bipartisanship (or more acurately, non-partisanship) and govern from a position of amiable compromise. Anyone with a lick of sense could see that would never work, but he couldn't because he had invested himself and his pride will not let him see clearly or back away. He's going to be confused by this turn of events, and hurt, and looking for some comfort.
As well, there are some practical aspects. Both houses are split in a way that Pelosi and Reid can't control; I know that isn't a popular concept, but it is true. Obama and they have to appease the BlueDogs plus a couple of Republican Senators to get anything done. Even if he wanted to push a strongly Progressive agenda, he and the leadership have no idea how to go about it. They've had to give away a lot in the stimulus bill to the Right, just to get not very much.
Sooner or later he will have to give in to reality, that the Republicans will not be "bipartisan" unless he does everything their way and the BlueDogs will play their power as swing votes for all it is worth. I don't want that. I want him to have the option of reaching Left and forcing the BlueDogs to chose between working with him or being shamed in the public square and marginalized in the 2010 elections. He can do that, move Left, if he believes that the Left will support him. He will need to hear that first though. Otherwise, his "safe" move emotionally will be to swing Right and call it bipartisan; that way at least he gets to keep a deception, to satisfy his pride.
I'm not fixated on the BlueDogs as protest targets. I'll take any demonstrations of public unhappiness, any where against any one. Christ, what will it take for the public to get fed up and off its collective ass? But I suggest the BlueDogs because someone complained about not being able to get to DC and not knowing where to focus, and the BlueDogs help both of those issues. Furthermore, they are the swing votes that can move Obama's and our agendas forward if they fear a revolt that will cost their seats. The R's are crazy, you know; they won't listen even if we show up with pitchforks and tar.
Lastly, if we want to press a real Progressive agenda we have to move to Step 2 - Better Democrats. We can't, with a few exceptions,* replace Republicans with Progressives. But we can replace BlueDog Conservatives with Moderates and that would make a huge difference. Demonstrating against BlueDogs will perhaps serve to encourage more Moderate
competitors to step up for the primary; every candidate wants to know that there is unhappiness with the incumbent.
I can't claim any special knowledge of Obama; your guess is as good as mine. But I do think he's sane, which is a big improvement, and I think he's controlled enough to be thinking in a deliberate way about his legacy. It won't do to nibble and take small bites; if he wants to be a great president, he will have to be bold and make great decisions. He'll need allies for that; good allies, if not good friends.
There are other big issues coming up, including a huge nuclear arms deal with the Russians that has extraordinary implications for military budget reductions, outflanking Iran diplomatically, and perhaps bringing some stability to the energy crisis slowly heating up between Russia and Europe. It will be a huge deal, and will enrage the Right; they will, pun intended, go ballistic. If Obama feels he can count on the Left for support he will be bolder and stronger on this deal and a lot of others. Or so I think.
[* Darcy Burner is one Progressive replacement for a Republican that has a chance. I hope she can be persuaded to run again.]
Really.
I argue that Progressives attacking Obama now on the stimulus bill does nothing but drive him further into the arms of the BlueDogs and Republicans.
Because that will surely help him get reelected in 2010, because people are so in love with failed republican policies that got us into this mess in the first place.
Don't see it.
I don't see whatever you're getting at
Obama is not up for re-election in 2010. So...what's your point?
2012.
Get it now?
Although 2010 could be bad for the dems if he doesn't start acting like a democrat...
and a leader.
No, I don't
Can only go with what you write. No need to be snippy with me over your own error.
2012 is forever from now, and hardly on his radar. Even 2010 isn't likely to be a problem from a control of Congress standpoint, since the Dems can afford to lose some House seats and are all but assured of at least three and maybe five net Senate pickups.
From a standpoint of political posturing, Obama is better to accept a flawed bill - and the House bill is a flawed bill - rather than do nothing. The farther he goes in compromise towards the BueDog/Republican position, however, the more it costs him in stature internationally - the Russians are no better than the BD/R cabal to negotiate with, and Iran is another tough nut. He needs to be seen as flexible but strong, to bend but not break. If he caves completely, it will mean the end of any possible accomplishments for him, ever. He will be dead in the water, and that will cost him in 2012 and in the history books.
But if he looks around and everywhere he turns he's getting chewed on, he will take the least immediately painful path and compromise as much as he needs to in order to get something passed. If Progressives will stand with him, hold our noses and stand in opposition to the BlueDog/Republican traitorous cabal, he may find enough spine to stand up to them. If he does stand firm, I believe a couple of Rs will cave in the Senate; they are the ones staring a 2010 extinction in the face, not Obama.
The last thing he wants is to get written up as the first black president who failed. We need to play off that, and help him find a path to success. Anything less is, for us as Progressives, self-destructive.
Really.
2012 is forever from now, and hardly on his radar.
Surely, you jest. He's running for reelection as we write. He got to fly in his shiny new plane. He's not giving that up without a fight, er, whatever it is he's presently doing.
"A week is a long time in politics."
Harold Wilson, and oft repeated by many others.
Your estimation of Obama is what it is, and you are welcome to it. I'm comfortable with my own, which is that he's not so much interested in shiny planes and perks of the office as he is with his legacy. But that is just MHO.
When did he ever act like a Democrat?
His not acting like a Democrat is what got him elected. Why would it hurt his chances and/or the Dems chances in 2010 and beyond? The people that were engaged for this election were NOT Democrats. They don't know what they are beyond that they like Obama. If Obama doesn't tell them what to do they listen to what they hear on TV - the Republicans.
Obama does not respect labels of Democrat or Republican - he says it over and over and over - he's for bipartisanship - what that means is that we need to get over this b.s. of believing that either party is for us (the people, not the corporations) and only vote for those representatives that are behind the policies that we support. Don't just go to the Blue Dogs offices, go to the Republicans offices, go everywhere - fight for your issue - not for a political party.
Is it really a victory for the Dems when we get Blue Dogs elected? I say not.
Well, he sure fooled a bunch of
dems who voted for him. Obama's going to learn respect before he's done, I'd guess, because his way isn't working.
the BlueDogs are the weak link
which is why I make that suggestion. By all means picket Republicans if that is all you can do, but other than a couple of Senators the rest of both the House and Senate caucuses are either retiring or secure.
The point when time is short is to focus on the maximum amount of benefit for the effort expended. That would dictate a focus on the BlueDogs; it is for me a matter of practicality, not of party.
And Julene, you have a very narrow view of the Democratic Party; only a fraction of the congressional caucus is Progressive, less than the BlueDog Dems. As a party, to the extent it can be called one, The Democrats are less than 50% self-described liberals. Obama is as much a Democrat as Bill or Hillary Clinton or Jimmy Carter. None of them were Progressives either, when it comes to their actual behavior in office.