More and more, it's looking as though the other shoe is about to drop with a resounding thud. It's too early to say with certainty, of course, since the Congressional permutations of health-care reform have permed and muted many times over since that august body launched its elected quest for the perfect boodle, but, according to the Politico, matters appear to be taking a rather nasty turn in the House.
The arithmetic is simple enough: Speaker Pelosi has 255 partisan friends, of sorts, of whom she requires 218 to vote yea. But among her total 256 are 50+ conservatives, who, when not whining about the intolerable specter of millionaires paying mildly higher taxes, are whimpering about the ghastly prospect of a government-run plan paying government rates. (And here Uncle Joe Stalin thought he was iron-fisted -- the piker; he knew not of the 21st century's socialist madness run amok.)
Plus, after the speaker "put her rank and file on notice Wednesday" -- telling her fair-weather friends to prepare for a vote on "a combined House health care bill by the end of next week" -- an even broader rash of neurotic over-the-shoulder glancing broke out.
"Why can’t we look at how they’re doing it [in the Senate] instead of making us vote on a plan that seems unlikely to go anywhere?" asked the freshman Virginia Congressman Gerry Connolly.
And, as the Politico noted, "Connolly’s not alone." In fact, far from it. Because two recent historical factors are in play, only one of which the Politico pointed out: "After voting for a controversial climate change bill during the summer, Democrats in more conservative seats are reluctant to cast another 'yes' vote for something that might not see a vote in the Senate -- but could get them in trouble back home."
Yes, there's that. But looming even larger in their little self-preservationist minds is that lesson learned from the Clinton era. Most House members who bucked their home districts' sentiments on, say, Clinton's massive 1993 budget bill, were involuntarily erased from the Congressional scene in 1994.
That vote -- and its office-depriving aftermath -- was a sorry watershed in modern American politics. Clinton applied the pressure he as president was supposed to apply, and, lo and behold, for the greater public good more than a handful of conservative House Democrats succumbed -- and then found themselves unemployed. Ever since, their like-minded successors have vowed, Never again.
Indeed, here's a representative statement of the attitudinal sloth that now prevails: Said Blue Dog Marion Berry, from Clinton's home state, "Sending David Axelrod over here to tell us how great they are doesn’t melt my butter."
Obviously there have always been tensions between liberal Democratic presidents and their conservative caucuses and between conservative Democratic presidents and their liberal caucuses. But the devastating freshness of that 1993-'94 experience haunts with exceptional poignancy. It has weakened this progressive president's hold on his lesser allies and has emboldened "Me first" members to forsake, whenever personally advantageous, the nation's greater welfare.
All of which means, as the Politico so aptly framed it, and presented here with only the most modest of my input, "This hand-wringing is [now] commonplace for Blue Dogs." As a consequence, according to one of their members, Allen Boyd, of Florida, there may not be "218 votes for any bill." Then, even more emphatically, in the sense that he departed from the subjunctive, Boyd added that Pelosi "can’t do this with just Democratic votes."
If that's true -- and granted, that's a big "if," since Boyd's observation may be nothing more than a flanking maneuver to muscle a floor bill to the right -- then there would be no House health-care bill at all.
As home-district references made above might indicate, this issue is as geopolitically pressure-cooked as it is ideologically heated. And that combination makes me marvel over media progressives who are forever belching about what Democrats -- as though they're speaking of one holistic entity -- should or should not do; and, even more puzzlingly, who call for President Obama (or Pelosi, or Harry Reid) to somehow just order up party unity.
One would think that after all this time, the most universally held knowledge is that there is no singularly identifiable creature known as a Congressional Democrat. Hence insisting that "Democrats" do this or do that on health care or any other matter is the surrealest of political hallucinations. They, each and every one, will take care of Number One first, which means they'll maybe -- just maybe -- listen to a president or caucus leader, second.
Sure it stinks, and, you bet, I believe that caucus discipline should (indeed, possibly could) be sharpened: that on some political products the Democratic label should genuinely stand for something, not to mention that candidate-recruitment efforts should be conducted more narrowly to better reflect Old School Liberalism's cohesive family values. But the odds of those two developments ever coming about are exceedingly slim.
One often hears the progressive cry, What gives? George W. Bush got (nearly) whatever he wanted from his Congresses, so why can't Obama?
Do we really need to persist in asking that question, when the answer is so remarkably conspicuous? Rare is the day that a right-wing president hits a bump on the trail to corralling his ideologically unified right-wing Congress. Progressive presidents face an altogether different bunch of lil' doggies.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that having a "pub
Another day, more Carpy angst
Once again, Carpy reframes the argument into a big pile of nonsense.
Carpy cut-n'-pasted:
'Democrats in more conservative seats are reluctant to cast another 'yes' vote for something that might not see a vote in the Senate -- but could get them in trouble back home.'
Too bad Carpy doesn't like to read Buzzflash:
Schumer and Rockefeller Plan to Push for Public Insurance Option 9/26
Rockefeller is from West Virginia, a conservative state, or it used to be, like so many others. The real danger to the Blue Dog DINOs is NOT voting for a public option. Progressives proved last month that they are financially ready to challenge the DINOs in next year's democratic primaries by raising over $500,000 in one day and then giving it all to progressive incumbents. But they could just as easily give it to upstart progressive candidates ready to challenge the DINOs, and there is nothing Rahmbo can do about it.
Yes, Carpy is wrong about blaming Clinton's failure to pass meaningful health care reform fifteen long years ago on our present day struggle. The current disarray within the Democratic Party is 100% the fault of K Street lobbyists who legally bribe enough representatives into becoming DINOs (who represent former conservative districts) in Congress to vote against the wishes of WE THE PEOPLE.
The DINOs need to get with the program, or they need to just git!
The same to Carpy.
BREAKING--this is not 1994
The main reason Bluedogs were wiped out in 1994 had little to do with the budget bill you reference, except to the extent that the Dems did what they always do--lose the messaging war. Instead of emphasizing reducing the deficit (in the age of Perot no less) and improving the economy, the dems allowed the repugs to make it all about their having raised taxes.
But just as important was the fact that Clinton's poll numbers were below 50%, because the 1st 2 years of his term can only be characterized as miserable (vetting problems for appointees, hightailing a retreat out of Haiti, etc). Dems in swing districts cannot survive that performance by a democratic president no matter what the year.
So--as we bring this argument into the 21st century where it belongs-- to the extent that Obama can sign a healthcare bill into law that most democrats and independents can support, his poll numbers will remain high, and that is the single-most important thing that can happen to protect the Bluedogs' precious bacon.
If Obama signs no bill or a bad bill, the Bluedogs are toast either way.
On the other hand, if he signs no bill because the liberals stuck to their principles, the liberals will be safe. But if he signs a bad bill, any liberal that voted yes without a public option is in danger of being primaried.
What does this mean? It means the liberals have no incentive to vote for a bill without the public option. And it means the bluedogs have no fucking leverage to persuade them to do so.
It is in the Bluedogs' interest to vote for a bill that DEMOCRATS support. If they side with the repugs, they will lose next November. If Obama's poll numbers fall below 50%, they will lose then as well. They and Obama not only need a bill, they need a GOOD bill, a popular bill.
Therefore: IT IS IN THE BLUEDOGS' POLITICAL INTEREST TO VOTE FOR A PUBLIC OPTION.
Logic 101.
This aint 1994, dude.
Taking care of Number One
"They, each and every one, will take care of Number One first, which means they'll maybe -- just maybe -- listen to a president or caucus leader, second."
An articulate and courageous president, speaking truth to the constituency of every representative in the country, can fundamentally affect what it means to "take care of Number One". Both President Roosevelts knew this and did it! They railed directly against the "malefactors of great wealth" and the "economic royalists", and both made great strides in chaining down the political power of corporations and vast family fortunes. Our Democracy was undeniably stronger for it.
But Obama is simply "taking care of Number One" in precisely the same way as the scumbag congressmen you deride. Should he actually start to lead, and stop worrying about a re-election greased by corporate blood-money, you would see all those "Blue Dogs" step back into the Democratic line.
Poll Request
Here is a my request for a real poll on healthcare that might actually enlighten the political calculations and my guesstimate of the polling results.
Do you understand main issues of the healthcare debates?
People lie and also have inflated opinions of ther knowledge. So the results would be:
Yes - 40%
No - 60%
That's right about 20% of the people generally understand the basics of the healthcare isues, and another 20% are lying. Of course the second 20% are the most certain of us all.
Are you already committed, as of today, to voting against any senator or congressman who votes for healthcare reform?
Yes - 20%
No - 80%
Are you already committed, as of today, to voting for any senator or congressman who votes for healthcare reform?
Yes - 20%
No - 80%
Do you plan to wait and see how the healthcare reform works and then decide before you decide how to vote?
Yes - 60%
No - 40%
Of course this assumes the polling reflects the opinions of the 25% to 50% of eligible voters who might actually vote, and also reflect smaller subset of those voters who will vote based almost exclusively based on healthcare.
Assuming these polls are correct, passing something is good for Democrats. Passing nothing is bad is bad for Democrats. Passing something ambitious probably doesn't change many swing votes in the next election. Passing something ambitious and is STRONGLY disliked 2-3 years down the road might impact 2012. elections.
If Obama Were A Progressive
Since 2006, the Democratic Party has held majorities in the Congress, and yet what they accomplished wouldn't amount to a dose of anthrax sent through the mail. They are too beholden to those who seek to exploit the nation for personal enhancement. The only way a Democratic president can overcome the corporatization of his party is to go to the people. But every time Obama does so, it is only to tell us to sit down, shut up, and accept what is coming as it is the best he can do. He might as well save his breath and profitable corporate air time, for by doing nothing he could achieve the exact same results!
So why does he put himself out front as if he is truly leading? Pittsburgh is the answer. Because of the UN meetings and staged media events attempting to prove that Obama is a leader, he had no time to go to Pittsburgh prior to the G20 meetings and massage the people there into quiet complaisance. He couldn't be shown on the local evening "news" kissing babies and patting service dogs to reassure us that he knew our pain. We again didn't get the word that resistance to the corporate new world order was futile and that we would in the end be assimilated. We were out in the streets facing Free Wealth Corps and causing trouble. We were exposing the lie that the US is still a functioning democracy instead of the plutocracy it has become.
Obama's job is to keep the rabble (we, the people) quiet so that the corporations can continue on their quest to economically enslave us all for the betterment of a very select few. He's not doing such a good job of it, so we can expect that the economic elites he works for will be seeking a prelacement for him as soon as they can engineer it.
If you don't know what that means, you might ask that Kentucky Census worker.
We must have a vote!
We must have a vote on the public option, so we can who the Blue-Dog traitors are. We can then vote them out of office next election, and THEN get a decent health-care bill.
If Pelosi doesn't have a vote, then she's a co-conspirator with the Blue Dogs, and should herself be replaced next election.
truth spoken
I agree with alan 8.Its time the progressives stop taking the crumbs that the conservatives toss us and start standing up for what will really help this country.I just read in the washington Post donations are down to the democrats and I hope this is the case,maybe then they will finally get the idea they are serving the people and not their business friends