Bullying Congressional Progressives: Creepy, Revealing Quote from White House Staffer

[Better Believe It]

Bullying Congressional Progressives: Creepy, Revealing Quote from White House Staffer
by Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com
June 30, 2009

Jane Hamsher details the extremely aggressive tactics the White House and House leadership used to coerce liberal environmentalist members to vote for the cap-and-trade bill despite their belief that it helped polluters more than it did anything else (and remember their ability to do that the next time they claim that a bill they ostensibly support simply couldn't pass because it lacked the necessary votes). Jane quotes from a Politico article reporting on White House anger towards Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, due to an impassioned floor speech he gave arguing that the bill was so industry-friendly that it would do more harm than good. That article contains this quote:

The White House is smoking mad at Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who says he's voting against the climate bill - despite the lobbying of the entire First Family in the Oval Office last night.

If the bill goes down, Obama won't forget Doggett's role, Democrats say.

It's "stunning that he would ignore the wishes not just of his president, but of his constituents and the country," said an administration official.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0609/White_House_pressing_Doggett.html

This has been a emerging theme among both the White House and House leadership: that members of Congress have an obligation to carry out "the wishes of the President" (now, apparently, it's "stunning" when they defy his dictates). That was the same subservient mentality that led House Democrats who admitted they opposed the war supplemental spending and/or the foreign bank bailout to nonetheless vote for the bill: because they President favored it. The duty of Congress is not to obey the wishes of the President.

Note, too, that the sort of bullying tactics that were used for the war supplemental bill and now for the cap-and-trade bill are only directed towards the House progressives who want legislation to be less beholden to corporate donors; those tactics are never invoked against Blue Dogs who play a vital role in impeding progressive legislation and thus supply the perfect excuse for Democratic leaders as to why such legislation does not pass. Let's see if these tactics are used against Blue Dogs who impede a public option for health care, the repeal of DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and various issues relating to the closing of Guantanamo. Will we hear condemnations from Rahm Emanuel's underlings about how stunning and outrageous it is that they are defying the wishes of the President?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/30-8

[bluestateguy]

1. The Dog is in a safe district. He has no excuse

Bobby Bright in Alabama, on the other hand, needs to be cut some slack.

[Better Believe It]

4. Doggett should vote for a bill that helps polluters because he's in a safe district?

mmmmmmmmm Let me think about that one for a minute.

Shouldn't being in a "safe district" give him more backbone to vote against the polluters?

[Laelth]

2. This sux. Let the White house bully the Blue Dogs, not the Progressives! n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[DJ13]

3. "We cant pass REAL health care reform. We dont have the votes"

Remember this article when the WH says that next time.

[Better Believe It]

5. We just need 51 Senate votes, with or without reconciliation, to pass universal healthcare

Even 50 votes will be enough with Vice-President Biden casting the tie breaking vote to get a bill with a strong public option.

Don't let anyone b.s. you by claiming 60 votes are needed to pass a healthcare bill without reconciliation because the Republicans might threaten, or heaven forbid, might engaged in an actual Senate floor filibuster against the bill.

Let them! How long do you think they will obstruct the Senate by filibustering against a public option favored by a big majority of the people. The longer they filibuster the more they isolate themselves as anti-healthcare obstructionists.

All filibusters end. Make them get their cots out on the Senate floor, no phone in phantom filibusters will be allowed by the Democratic party.

We don't need the Republicans and even most so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats will have to oppose a Senate filibuster against healthcare with a strong public option.

We'll get the 60 votes quickly to end debate and than the Senate can vote to pass the bill with a simple majority.

[DJ13]

6. Good post!

:thumbsup:

I wish our jellyfish in Congress (and the WH) would understand what you posted.

[Better Believe It]

15. They do understand. That's the problem!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Greenwald makes it sound like this is a bad thing.

Isn't Greenwald always whining that Obama isn't aggressive enough?

Anyways, they did this to DeFazio when he voted against stimulus a few months ago. I love DeFazio, but still loved him seeing get owned.

This is politics. Don't hate the player hate the game.

[rvablue]

8. What a surprise....all based on Politico and CommonDreams....

I call BS on this based on the simple and blatant ridiculousness of this:

"despite the lobbying of the entire First Family"

Really, the President and the First Lady dialed-up some direct lines so Malia and Sasha could do some 11th hour arm-twisting.

Ridiculous.





ed: sp.

[anonymous171]

11. You didn't know? Malia and Sasha are capitalist shills.

[anonymous171]

9. lol Common Dreams and Politico.

It's a RW-LW loonie tag team.

[jefferson_dem]

14. True that.

n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

10. ZOMG, Obama is lobbying Congress to vote for his legislation!!!1111

What exactly did you expect the President to do? Give Doggett a pony for opposing him because in some progressives' opinion it was the morally correct thing to do?

BTW, Politico = gossip rag...

[Better Believe It]

17. Perhaps you should read an article before commenting on it.

Do you also write movie reviews without seeing the movies?

The writer cleary pointed out that it seems Obama pushes hard for pro-war and other legislation opposed by progressives/liberals while Rahm Emanuel and company aren't nearly as aggressive in pushing for progressive legislation such as the Employee Free Choice Act, a foreclosure "cramdown", credit card interest caps, a strong healthcare public option, etc.,

That was the central point in the article and it just blew on by your head .... swoosh?

I don't think so.

It seems you just prefer to dodge the real issue because you apparently support the waste hundreds of billions of dollars to continue that war that was based upon a mountain of lies (which Doggett refused to for vote for). Will you ever forgive him and other Democrats for refusing to fund an illegal unjust war?

That money could be use for human needs include universal quality healthcare at home .... but funding the war is far more important and only a tiny minority of "politically correct" progressives in your opinion oppose that war funding.

Well, you can support the war and even favor pouring another trillion dollars down that rathole if you like, but please don't support a pandering White House approach toward "centrist" Democrats who functioned as Bush enablers and now work with Republican obstructionists.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. If Greenwald seriously believes Obama hasn't pressured blue dogs, I have a bridge to sell him

Fact is that the blue dogs have more bargaining power than the progressives do and they always will. That's inherently the way that congress works, the center holds the bargaining power. The center is too far to the right for my taste and certainly for your and Greenwald's taste but the fact is that Obama didn't elect this congress, the American people did. The White House can do a lot of things but it can't change reality.

[Better Believe It]

20. Why do you think the so-called "blue dog" Democrats have more power than "liberal "Democrats?

They have greater numbers?

They have superior skills?

They have greater influence in the White House?

They can't be influenced or pressured by the President and liberal Democratic congressional members?

They are immune to the public demands or progressive organizations and the wishes of most people?

They are all paid political whores who will always do the bidding of Wall Street and corporate America no matter what anyone thinks or does?

All of the the above?

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Because the leadership has an interest in maintaing a majority

And the blue dogs can hold out and say "look I can't vote for this bill unless you moderate it, because my constituents will throw me out of office and you will lose the majority". Progressives can't credibly do that because for the most part they come from democratic districts and nobody is going to throw them out for voting for a democratic bill.

Yes in some cases the Obama Administration calls the blue dogs' bluffs "Look, your district isn't all that red you can afford to vote for this bill and if you don't I may not be willing to raise as much money for you next time." But sometimes they really aren't bluffing and their seats could be in serious jeopardy for not voting the certain way. The White House isn't going to pressure them into voting for a bill that will lead to a Republican taking their seat because the White House wants to maintain a Democratic majority.

Progressives, at the end of the day, don't have the strong credible incentives to hold out on voting for a bill that the blue dogs do. Ideological purity isn't strong enough of an incentive to be credible except maybe when you're bargaining with Dennis Kucinich. Most progressives will cave when the White House calls their bluff or when the White House starts to exert pressure on them. Also, progressives are ambitious just like any other politicians. Many of them hope to be Speaker of the House or President themselves some day. Towing the party line gets you there. Ideological purity doesn't.

[bvar22]

22. No. You got it wrong.

The Blue Dogs say, "If you don't give us exactly what we want, we're going to vote with the Republicans !" They couldn't care less what their constituents want.
DiFi said so yesterday.

On Obama's Money for MORE WAR Bill, Progressives who were resistant to voting for the bill were told by the White House, "You will be locked out of the White House. We will come to your districts and campaign AGAINST you".
(BTW: That is a Rahm strong suit. I witnessed it in Minnesota in 2006.)

I don't believe THAT kind of pressure has been used against the Blue Dogs to gain support for EFCA, DADT, or Health Care.

[Better Believe It]

24. There has been little or no pressure on the so-called Democratic "centrists"

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Its used more than you think, it just doesn't yeild the results you want

The blue dogs' default bargaining position is: "It would be more politically advantageous for us to be Republicans given the nature of our districts. You should be kissing our asses merely for the fact that we have a D next to our name let alone that we sometimes vote with you." When you are dealing with that default bargaining position, you don't have a whole hell of a lot to work with. The White House called bullshit on them with the stimulus arguing that their constituents can't possibly be against recovery and the blue dogs knew they had been called out and caved.

On EFCA and DADT it's not that simple. Many of their constituents are homophobic bigots and many of their districts' large employers are anti-union. The White House can't call bullshit on their bargaining position in cases when it actually is true.

As far as health care goes we have yet to see the outcome of that. For some blue dogs the White House will certainly be able to call bullshit because their constituents don't have health care and certainly want it. On the other hand, some blue dogs represent districts where a lot of their constituents are employed by big health insurance. You won't see a single one of them cave no matter how much pressure the White House puts on them.

Di-Fi is a poor example to use. She is indeed somebody who is not particularly representative of her constituents but that's due to the fact that she's basically become an institution in California. It would cost far more money than anybody can possibly put up to beat her in a primary and thus she can do whatever she wants.

[debbierlus]

32. Until people realize that the Obama administration are corporate servants, this will not change

Obama is the new corporate frontman.

The corporate bottom line dictates policy over the people.

The bank bailouts, the continued war funding, the health care reform written by insurance lobbyists all prove it.

They don't even try to hide their contempt for us. The people who point it out are downers on the feel good crowd who desperately want to believe Obama is change.

The best thing that could come out of the Obama corporate dictate is that the people finally wake up to realize we truly have a ONE party system of government. Until the public understands this point, no radical change will happen.

And, radical change is what we need.

[Better Believe It]

23. So why do you support "centrist" and bi-partisan purity?

[Hippo_Tron]

26. I don't support it, I merely accept political realities that you don't

America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. That is an economic and political reality. Lots of Americans have their livelihoods tied up in the coal industry and, not surprisingly, many of them live in districts that elect blue dogs to congress. A global warming bill free of concessions to the coal industry cannot possibly pass given the current makeup of congress no matter how much "spine" the White House shows.

[Better Believe It]

27. So the political reality is that the Democratic Party can never successfully challenge big coal ....

Wall Street and other corporate interests.

You don't think the Wall Street/Corporate political and economic hold on this nation can be ended.

Well, I appreciate your political honesty in that you didn't try to pretty things up.

So following your lead, we just need to accept that political reality and welcome with a warm smile whatever little crumbs, if any, the economic powers throw our way.

What an inspiring and uplifting political strategy and agenda you've proposed!

I think I'll take it pass on it if you don't mind.

You see, here's the real problem with your political "theory".

It doesn't take in consideration the real radical political/economic history of this nation and its people. It seems you've been unduly influenced by the conservative political ideology of the ruling rich .... they always preach that challenging their political domination is futile. Resistance is futile! Kind of like the reactionary Borg if you're into science fiction. :)

At best I'd have to call your attitude defeatist.

Other less charitable people would label it appeasement of or surrender to our enemies.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. You're conflating Wall Street and Coal, they're two entirely different problems

Wall Street is a powerful lobby, but they're also not a popular one. The same goes for health insurance. Popular sentiment is such that if the White House fails to get a public option or fails to make some serious regulatory changes on Wall Street, I will be pretty damn disappointed.

Coal is a different animal entirely because the environment has always been an issue that has been framed as a fight between the working classes and the environmentalists. Coal means jobs in places like Appalachia, that's what it comes down to. The popular sentiment to get a pure global warming bill just doesn't exist. Sure, people believe in global warming and they want to do something about it. But they don't want to make the drastic changes that people feel are necessary and they certainly don't have the will to push their legislators to take on the coal industry and a huge chunk of rural America, for that matter.

[Better Believe It]

29. They are all part of the same problem. It's all about class.

The big corporate and financial interests run this nation.

They call the shots.

They act in solidarity against the interests of working people.

And they always falsely "frame" issues to serve their economic interests.

They always try to divide us on all major issues in order to maintain their political and economic control.

Nothing new at all!

And it should go without saying, that Wall Street and the insurance industry have a lot more clout than coal mining companies in Washington, D.C.

[debbierlus]

30. Amen.

[Jennicut]

12. This is bullying? No, Cheney bullied the Rethugs in Congress. Obama lobbies and pressures for votes

on the things he wants passed. I thought some wanted him to get a spine.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

13. well, they want him to be spineless, unless its their fav issues, then he should have one n/t

[asphalt.jungle]

16. and I love this quote, "The duty of Congress is not to obey the wishes of the President."

That doesn't apply to their favorite issues. For those it's "Why isn't he making them do it?" ... "If the president supports it congress will get in line." and so on.

[SteveM]

19. Ahh, the myth of the Left (marcus registrada)...

The "Left," so bandied about by MSM, is now used to describe rank 'n' file Democrats in TEXAS! What is left of the "Left" has been so supremely defined by the RW, that centrist Democrats (and Obama is one) avoid them like the plague ...or bully them. Besides, didn't Karl Rove and Dick give us all a lesson in how to bully successfully?

THIS is the political spectrum:
1. Centrists
2. The Right
3. The Far Right
4. The shit-in-your-pants-and-go-to-heaven Right

[Peacetrain]

31. Now no one gets to have this both ways..

The President needs to lobby congress... The President should leave congress alone...

[debbierlus]

33. The point of the post is that Obama STANDS with the corporatists

It is about whom he chooses to lobby and for what reasons...

Obama is the one trying to have it both ways.

He essentially claims impotency when policies that go against the corporate dictate, but he seems to muster his voice to pressure the politicians who serve the peoples' will over that of the corporate system.

This isn't complicated.

Obama is betraying the people right in front of their eyes and he gets away with it.

We should not let him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. Any congressman who considers that bullying is too much of a pussy to serve in public office

Real bullying would include threats such as supporting an opponent to run against the Congressman, or withholding finding for his district.