Blue Dogs get to meet with the president...Progressive Caucus..not yet.

[madfloridian]

Almost a month ago the Progressive Caucus sent a letter to the White House requesting access. They have not gotten an answer yet.

Today the Blue Dogs are meeting with the president.

From Talking Points Memo DC

Blue Dogs Get the White House Access, But Progressives Aren't Silent

The House Blue Dog Coalition continues to wield outsize political power, thanks to a canny willingness to leverage its votes on key issues, while the Congressional Progressive Caucus must fight to be heard.

Case in point: the Blue Dogs are meeting directly with President Obama this afternoon on the stimulus bill. The Progressives have yet to hear back about their request for a meeting, which was issued almost a month ago.

But the Progressive Caucus is trying to be heard.

But that doesn't mean the Progressives are staying silent as the Senate proposes stimulus cuts to education and health insurance for the unemployment. Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), co-chairs of the group, have fired off a letter to the House Speaker protesting the Senate's cuts. Here's an excerpt:

We are especially concerned that the Senate package does not invest in jobs - be they focused on "green" technology, veterans, or sustaining the local prevailing wage. ... As the House and Senate bills move towards conference, we urge you to stand strong and advocate for the above-mentioned House-passed funding, because a bill modeled on the Senate version could be very difficult for many progressives to support.

Will they be heard. I doubt it. I remembered what the present White House chief of staff was doing in 2006 and later.

Rahm said not to let liberal wing have much say...2006...WP

"The complexion of the Democratic presence in Congress will change as well. Party politics will be shaped by the resurgence of "Blue Dog" Democrats, who come mainly from the South and from rural districts in the Midwest and often vote like Republicans. Top Democrats such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) see these middle-of-the-road lawmakers as the future of the party in a nation that leans slightly right of center.

In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year. Democrats will hold 30 or 35 seats that went for Bush in the past, meaning that Democratic candidates such as Brad Ellsworth in rural Indiana are likely to face competitive races again in 2008. Still, their interests are likely to collide with those of veteran liberals such as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) and John Conyers Jr., (Mich.), who will chair committees."

His influence is showing, methinks.

I recall this column from 2006 by Kirsten Powers, centrist spokesperson and Fox consultant.

Election signals decline of old school liberalism

Yet, without centrist Democratic candidates, it would have been President Bush and GOP strategist Karl Rove celebrating last week. More than half of the new House members will join the New Democrat Coalition or the Blue Dog Coalition caucuses, known for their fiscal responsibility, business-friendly stance and generally more socially conservative views. While most criticized the war, few have called for an immediate withdrawal.

In addition to running fiscally responsible candidates, the Democratic Party appealed to the vital center by slaying a few of old school liberalism's sacred cows: aggressive secularism and intolerance of anti-abortion views. Yes, the war was a major issue. But it was critical that Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York — who ran the campaign committees — recruited candidates palatable to conservative or moderate voters who wanted to send a message about the war, but who didn't want to compromise on beliefs about abortion, gay marriage or the role of religion in public life.

Earlier this year, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., found himself on the receiving end of left-wing rage when he urged the party to be more open to people of faith and their views. He was on to something. Many successful Democratic candidates spoke about their faith.

If progressives are shut out of the conversation, there will be consequences down the road. Excitement dies off if only one wing of the party is included in the decision making.

[Selatius]

1. The Democrats lost everything in 1994 precisely because liberal voters stayed home.

They did not like Clinton's stance on NAFTA or the direction of the party, and they felt ignored, so they stopped bothering to vote. It was only the war in Iraq and the economic downturn that made them come back in large numbers, but that was because it was down to McCain possibly being president.

[mmonk]

13. 2010 stands a good chance for a little Deja vu

[madfloridian]

49. That's a scary thought but a true one possibly

Especially if they shut out progressives and activists, making a mere pretense of listening to them.

[yurbud]

67. how many times can they shit on the people who do the phone banking and precinct walking?

[Tesha]

98. As many times as we'll let them. But maybe "times up"? (NT)

[Greyhound]

24. Once again the NewBlueThirdwayDLC corporatists hissed the point entirely.

This election was not their win, it was the Republiks loss. Even Harry fucking Truman even knew that, "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time", why do these asshats still not get it?

The corporatists have successfully bifurcated the nation for over two generations now, just look at the percentages in the last election. The states that flipped did so just barely as one would expect, and the red and blue states remained about 60% - 40% in their preference. If they get their way again, 2010 could well end as a repeat of 1994.

Of course this assumes we still have a nation in 2010.

[madfloridian]

42. Yes, the corporatists in both parties.

You are right.

[certainot]

69. just end the radio monopoly and the US could have a democracy again

[Kaleva]

97. Twice as many moderates voted for Obama as did liberals.

If McCain had managed to split the moderate vote 50/50, he would have won the popular vote.

[fascisthunter]

2. the "tent" was never that big to begin with

conservative democrat's agenda..... do not give any Progressive any opportunity to prove the conservatives wrong and inept, so never give them access to the President. Cowards...

[madfloridian]

50. We just thought the tent was big enough.

We should have known better, IMO

[Taverner]

3. Maybe we should send someone a dead fish in the mail

Just sayin'

[madfloridian]

5. Someone already did that.

:rofl:

[Taverner]

6. Oh? I wanna see - got a link?

[madfloridian]

7. Rahm already did.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2007/4/29/in-rahms-gift-bag-dead-fish-and-elis.html

"When you hail from the town Al Capone made famous and play politics as aggressively as Chicago's old Mayor Richard Daley, then you've got to have a bag of tricks and treats for most every occasion. That's certainly the case of Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic dynamo who gets lots of credit for returning the Democrats to power in the House. We are just learning that he makes a good student of the Godfather. Example: Back when he was just a House aide, he sent a dead fish to a pollster he was upset with, according to a new bio, The Thumpin', by the Chicago Tribune's Naftali Bendavid."

Time to send him one? :evilgrin:

[Taverner]

23. No that's what I meant - send Rahm a fish

[madfloridian]

27. I know...I finally figured it out.

:rofl:

I'm a little slow witted today.

[Wapsie B]

96. I was thinking of a horse's head.

But a fish works too.

[MadHound]

4. And it is this kind of shit that will cost the Dems dearly in 2012

They'll either stay home or go third party in droves.

[madfloridian]

37. Yes.

It just might.

Leave out the ones who brought you to the dance, and there will be problems.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. This sounds like all of the dire predictions Democratic defeat in 2008 if there were no impeachment

[stillcool]

8. Yup...the 'all or nothings'

'my way or no way' of both sides of the political spectrum will never be pleased.



A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future.

Sidney J. Harris

[madfloridian]

9. TPM update: Doesn't sound like progressives will fight it.

"Late Update: Our own Andrew Golis was able to ask Grijalva today whether the progressives would back up their letter with a concrete vow to oppose any stimulus that too closely resembled the Senate version.

His response was understandable, but likely to take the teeth out of the effort: "I don't know. That gauntlet was necessary to throw down. Will there be the will to sink the package? I don't know."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/blue-dogs-get-the-white-house-access-but-progressives-arent-silent.php

Guess we all will go along. There are 70 plus members of the Progressive Caucus, I think. Aren't there fewer Blue Dogs? But if the Progressive won't fight...???

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Those with backbones (Blue Dogs) will triumph over those without (Progressive Caucus)

[MessiahRp]

52. They are in bed with Republicans and they have the media carrying water for them...

Add that with Rahm being a complete scumbag and it's not a matter of Progressives being spineless... actually quite the opposite. It's Blue Dogs who are too cowardly to stand up to Republicans and have been very accepting of whatever the GOP does even if it is illegal.

Rp

[certainot]

70. let's call blue dogs limbaugh democrats

most blue dogs come from red states where GOP talk radio rules politics- that's the pressure they feel more than anything.

[Mithreal]

101. The Blue Dogs aren't necessarily cowardly

They really do agree with Republicans. Take as an example how they voted on telecom immunity.

[DevonRex]

10. The Blue Dogs are the ones who have to be convinced. So duh. nt

[Enrique]

11. no, the progressives have to be convinced too

they hate the cuts the senate made.

[Mithreal]

102. I disagree. The Nation has an article about the Blue Dogs

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/hayes

It mentions not a single Republican or Blue Dog democrat vote is even required to pass a bill. I could do the math myself but I am gonna trust this statement unless someone wants to correct.

So, Blue Dogs do not need to be convinced too. They can be ignored if they do not support the President.

[anonymous171]

12. Rahm pisses me off sometimes. Ideas are irrelevant. It's all about the sales pitch.

Ronald Reagan got the working class to support Free Trade and other anti-labor initiatives. We should be able to do the same (but in reverse and for the actual good of the country.)

[madfloridian]

46. That's about right.

The reason is that the Democrats have written off a huge segment of their own party, they scarcely acknowledge them.

51 Blue Dogs bark and get all the attention. 71 Progressives seek attention and don't get it.

Concessions are made to Blue Dogs to keep them from voting with the GOP....nothing is made for the progressives with no place to go.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Anybody who actually thought that Obama was a progressive is easily fooled by style

He talked like a progressive, but his actions have been anything but.

In the campaign, he was like a blank slate, shouting about change and hope to crowds that were desperate for both, but rarely going into any specifics. People read into his candidacy what they wanted to see.

I also knew that the way the H. Clinton/B. Obama race had been played up in the media as a race between "a woman and a black man," with no reference to the issues, meant that the corporate media would be equally happy with either one. That's why I could never get excited about the primary wars.

My suspicions were confirmed when Obama nominated a bunch of usual suspects, including even Republicans, to his Cabinet and other major posts. Not one progressive. Not one.

He's better than McCain, but he's not a progressive and never has been, or else the corporate media would have found some way to derail his candidacy, either by finding some scandal or not giving him any press coverage.

The advice I once received about relationships operates well in politics, too: "Don't believe what (members of the opposite sex) say to you. Believe what they do."

[anonymous171]

15. I love your exclusion complex. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. So list the progressives he has appointed to the Cabinet then

or to any major federal post.

Now list the DLC members, Wall Street wheeler dealers, and Republicans he has appointed.

It's a longer list, isn't it?

[stillcool]

19. Perhaps you read into his candidacy...

what you wanted to. While I was volunteering I was constantly referring to his policy positions. Kind of hard for me to believe that you were so hood-winked. I think there are many of us who 'got' the 'change' as being something we were responsible for, and take it seriously, while others are quite content to watch tv and complain.


A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future.

Sidney J. Harris

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. I ALWAYS knew that he was a centrist

I was not hoodwinked.

I voted for him, but I could never work up the enthusiasm to campaign.

It's sad that so many people I know thought (still think) that they were getting Robert Kennedy when they really got Tony Blair.

[The Brethren]

100. Great analogy.

I voted for Obama, gave him my support from the primary on and my partner and I donated money to his campaign as well. But neither of us thought he was the best candidate for the job; nor was McCain. But those were the country's 2 major party contenders left.

I gave my support first and foremost to Obama to try and stop McCain, but esp. Palin. I wasn't hoodwinked by Obama during that time as well. Except, I thought he was an intelligent, decent person, who hopefully would do a better job as our President than I expected he would at the time. And now, since he has taken office, I'm amazed at how disappointed I am with him already regarding some of his decisions, including his appointees. If it were possible, I would be thrilled to have Kennedy as our President again instead of Obama.

[Mithreal]

103. Calling someone hoodwinked and a couch complainer

even indirectly, is so not cool. We have discussed things before, you and I, please focus more on the light than calling others dark, if that is alright?

You mentioned more than once the idea that a cynic is prematurely disappointed. I think that is a neat idea and it can be instructive, but how would you see the following example. President Obama campaigned on raising troop levels and continuing war in Afghanistan. Can't I be disappointed, believe that the President is wrong, and have hope for peace, or am I stuck being called a cynic who is prematurely disappointed in the future? I think I am having some cognitive dissonance. I campaigned for Obama, and I mean full time, but I knew what his plan was. Now I want to support him regardless because of the chess game argument, and politics is a game argument, but I still can't keep my conscience from imagining the horror of what we have done in these wars to innocents. I think people can be more complicated than your quote implies. And I think what you wrote bordered on insulting. Did you have a different intention. Anyway, take care and bye.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Yup. He ran as a centrist and is behaving as a centrist.

But, the "not as bad" apologists will continue (ad nauseum) to ask us if we preferred McCain.

Triangulation redux.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Those of us who were paying attention were not fooled

All you had to do was read the policy statements on his website to determine that he was a centrist. Low Information Voters were the only ones who were fooled.

[amborin]

44. exactly.....

but thankfully, he's pro science and pro environment (except for 'clean' coal )

[harun]

17. Killing off "aggressive secularism and intolerance of anti-abortion views"

is a good move and one of the reasons I voted for Obama. Smart cookies they are.

[madfloridian]

18. So you are not willing to stand up for womens' rights?

You would negotiate them away in the name of centrism? In the name of bipartisanship?

In the name of getting along?

How far would you go?

I am fast becoming an "aggressive secularist", and I blame the Southern Baptists for it.

You sound like you are very wishy washy on womens' rights.

[Greyhound]

25. Kick to see if any answer is forthcoming. n/t

[madfloridian]

35. Doesn't look like there will be one.

forthcoming that is.

[Greyhound]

41. One of the craftier freeps? Hit and run, don't draw too many alerts..

The choice of terminology is far from subtle. Still, why do they bother?

[Raineyb]

80. What do you mean aggressive secularism?

What exactly is "aggressive" about making sure our government keeps itself separate from religion? That's what the country was founded on! It is those who aggressively push religion on the rest of us who are the problem not the secularists.

I'm so fucking sick of people thinking that having our government get into bed with the theocrats of this country is a good thing.

Hello! If the church is the only entity providing services then our government is not doing its job!

Regards

[Mithreal]

106. The churches should take over the banks, jk nt

[Mithreal]

104. sarcasm? nt

[madfloridian]

21. CQ Politics leaves no doubt who is controlling the agenda.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003025981

"Blue Dogs supported the bill as an emergency measure — exempt from a House rule requiring offsets — and they are now pushing hard for Obama and party leaders to avoid any further legislation that would add to the nation’s deficit. They also want to toughen pay-as-you-go requirements.

“PAYGO will be Topic A, Topic B and Topic C in our meeting,’’ said Henry Cuellar , D-Texas.

“We want to make sure that bills are paid for,’’ added Charlie Melancon , D-La.

The group sent a letter this week to Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., hinting at possible defections if a final version of the stimulus bill returns to the House without being scaled back in conference negotiations. The letter noted that many Blue Dogs voted for the stimulus “with serious reservations and the conviction that the package should and would be improved” through negotiations with the Senate and the White House. It also singled out efforts by Sens. Ben Nelson , D-Neb., and Susan Collins , R-Maine, to broker a centrist compromise on the bill in the Senate.

Among those signing the letter were Melancon, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota, Baron P. Hill of Indiana and Heath Shuler of North Carolina. Two signatories were among the 11 Democrats who opposed the House version of the stimulus Jan. 28 — Shuler and Allen Boyd of Florida."

The Blue Dogs are why hubby and I have quit bothering to donate to candidates. They don't always run as so Blue Dog like....and they at once join the caucus.

We are done donating.

[defendandprotect]

22. Do we think he's telling the blue dogs to get their heads out of

the GOP's butt???

Doubt it --

However, whenever I can I'm calling a few Repugs to suggest that they begin

to consider the damage they've already done to the nation -- in blow surplus,

two insane wars, bankrupting the Treasury, deregulating Capitalism --- and

that they should start supporting the Stimulus and President Obama. That the

public supports Obama and the need for changing from the ugly agenda of the GOP.

Also like to mention the $8.5 TRILLION in bailing out capitalism --- again!!!

[madfloridian]

48. Check out Google news for all the publicity they got from this meeting.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&client=news&ie=UTF-8&tab=bn&q=%22blue+dogs%22&scoring=d

The Progressives...not so much.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. WAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...

[madfloridian]

28. How in the world...

updating my list...tired of the waaahhhh stuff. Tired of the snide stuff. no more. Bye

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. Buh Bye!!! Bye Now!!!

:hi:

[ogneopasno]

32. Obama was a marvelous screen to project on, but if one paid attention it was clear he wasn't running

nor would govern as a progressive. Anyone whose feelings are hurt wasn't paying attention.

[FLAprogressive]

34. the only ones allowed in the "tent" anymore are New Dems/Blue Dogs

[madfloridian]

38. Yes, I'm afraid that is true.

That was the signal sent by the choice of Rahm as CoS.

[madfloridian]

36. Jim Cooper talks arrogantly about their power.

There are I believe 71 Progressive Caucus members who can't get a meeting with the president. There are 41 Blue Dogs who can.

The Progressives indicate they won't fight, and the Blue Dogs are pampered.

What the hell does that say about our party?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123214833023191881.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"Barack totally gets it . . . He is smarter than Bill Clinton and disciplined." So says Tennessee Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper on the Thursday before Mr. Obama's inauguration.

Sitting in his office a stone's throw from where the festivities will take place, I ask about his role in the big transformation coming to Washington. He's one of the leaders of a gang of moderate Democrats called the Blue Dogs. They're meeting their first Democratic president in a while, and Mr. Cooper may have a big effect on the agenda. He smiles gently and says, "If we were to ally with the Republicans, we could swing any vote in the House of Representatives." He hastens to add, "We don't want to do that, we aren't planning on doing that."

With the victories of a number of conservative Democrats in the last election, the Blue Dogs have grown to 51 in number from 46, with more applications pending. "For a long time we had to limit our numbers because we actually need to be able to fit in one room," he tells me. "So it's been an increasingly popular, and I think influential, group."

Indeed, the way the Blue Dogs flex their muscle may become one of the defining issues of the Obama administration's opening months. If they are inclined to wrangle with Nancy Pelosi and the more liberal contingent in the Democratic Party, they will drive policy, especially as a check on spending. "Ideally the White House will see things our way, so they will present legislation on the Hill that we find acceptable," Mr. Cooper says. "If they stray too much from that or if a certain part of Congress strays too much from that, then we may have to object."

[New Dawn]

39. Lets re-emphasize this point: THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES!

The majority of the population supports universal health care and withdrawing 100% of US troops from Iraq.

[madfloridian]

40. This upcoming summit with the Blue Dogs sure got my attention.

http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11674580

" Obama is calling for a fiscal responsibility summit later this month, which will include representatives of the 49 Blue Dog members of the House. At that summit, he will discuss possible reforms to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are all on unsound financial footing.

"We also need to look at the rest of the budget as well and really scrub it," Matheson said".

I am fearful the Democrats are going to try to do the same thing Bush wanted to do...private accounts, personal accounts, whatever.

I wonder if the Progressive Caucus will be invited?

[madfloridian]

43. Progressives make up a third of the House...hold chairs of 20 committees.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/Struggling_for_control_on_the_Hill_012609.html

There are 71 of them. There are either 49 or 51 Blue Dogs, but they win because they threaten to vote with Republicans. It's intolerable.

Yet it does not sound like the Progressives will fight that very hard for the items to be put back in.

So that makes the Blue Dogs with Rahm as their intermediary....in control of the party's agenda.

Infuriating.

[MessiahRp]

53. Blue Dogs are traitors to the party... and that's because they were never Dems anyway

Rahm and Schumer recruited rich Republicans to run as Democrats and helped railroad Progressives out of Democratic Primaries. The DCCC and DSCC should have never gotten involved in a Democratic Primary but they did it... repeatedly because both of those corporate tools are too connected to the same masters the GOP swears to.

Rp

[madfloridian]

59. Exactly right. Read this article.

http://www.truthout.org/article/special-report-democratic-house-officials-recruited-wealthy-conservatives

People like Rahm have slowly been turning us into a Republican lite party.

[madfloridian]

47. Apparently they got the assurances they wanted at the meeting.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/32278-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

"Fiscally conservative Democrats emerged from a Tuesday meeting with President Barack Obama reassured that he is committed to the same level of fiscal responsibility as they are."

The rest is subscription.

I now want to see the Progressive Caucus which has 20 more members than the Blue Dogs...get an audience as well.

[hangman86]

51. I'm not trying to excuse the Administration completely but...

I can see why they're still afraid to work closely with liberals. The whole Fascist talk radio argument that liberal=communist/socialist/drug-using hippie/terrorist argument worked for a long time in America. And it wasn't just talk radio hosts but elected officials that used this dogmatic bullshit. Hopefully as time goes on they'll begin to realize that the American people finally shut out those voices back Nov. 4th.

[yurbud]

54. your last line is on the nose--in a lot of places, blue dogs win by shutting out competition in

primaries and raking in the bucks from business and the rich, not because they have better ideas or are more loved.

If we had real campaign finance reform and the MSM had less influence on voters, the DLC would join the GOP in the political graveyard.

I did a poll once here asking ''What kind of Democrat are you?'' and DLC and moderate Democrat combined barely pulled 11%.

The DLCers only response is that we are far left freaks on this board and that people who don't follow politics closely vote for them, which is an odd thing to brag about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5567638

[Kaleva]

55. Moderates are a small minority here at DU while in the real

world, moderate Democrats are the majority.

[FLAprogressive]

56. and where do you get the numbers for this?

Just because most Dem politicians are "moderates" (some who masquerade as liberals using issues like choice and LGBT rights) doesn't mean that most registered Dems are.

[madfloridian]

58. There are no numbers for this. They are just making that sh** up.

The centrists here just spout numbers that they think make people who really ARE moderate look bad.

It's just how they play the game.

[Kaleva]

61. After a google search..

"The 2008 Electorate
Liberal Democrats: 15 %
Moderate Democrats: 18 %
Conservative Democrats: 5 %
Liberal independents 5 %
Moderate independents 16 %
Conservative independents 8 %
Liberal Republicans: 1 %
Moderate Republicans: 10 %
Conservative Republicans: 21 %"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/01/the_real_electorate_moderate_a.html

"Liberals vote mostly in favor of the Democratic Party constituting roughly 43% of the Democratic base.<4><7><8><9>"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States

If liberals make up 43% of the Democratic base, who then makes up the remaining 57%?

[madfloridian]

63. Numbers that mean nothing except how people identified themselves.

The Blue Dogs are really Republican in their hearts. They are proud not to be too associated with being Democrats. They take pride in it.

Those 51 of them nearly control our country because they are nasty enough to threaten to give the power back to the Republicans if we do not give them their way.

[Kaleva]

64. I was asked for numbers.

After some more Google searching, I found the following:

"A majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaners describe themselves as moderate or conservative ideologically, and 70% of these voters favor the party pursuing a more moderate agenda.

About a third of Democratic voters overall describe themselves as liberal, and most want the party to move further to the left."

http://people-press.org/report/471/high-bar-for-obama

[FLAprogressive]

83. just because they "identify" as moderate doesn't mean they actually are

The "moderate" politicians are much much different than the "moderate" voters.

[Kaleva]

92. Many here identify with the Democratic Party but I...

think they are more in tune with the Green Party. Kucinich is very popular here but he's never been able to make much of a dent in the primaries. Cindy Sheehan is another popular figure and she left the party in disgust. In her race against Nancy Pelosi ( a Democrat despised by many here), she only managed to get about 17% of the vote in what can only be described as a liberal district.

[FLAprogressive]

93. It's called (1) Low-information voters (2) MSM shutout of progressives

These voters might share views with Kucinich, but they are fed crap by the MSM.....

[Kaleva]

94. Your arguement is that Democrats are low-info voters....

who are soon fed by the MSM.

[madfloridian]

57. I AM a moderate. The Blue Dogs are almost Republicans. Tired of the putdowns here.

And some like Shuler of NC and Boyd of FL actually could be Republicans. Easily. Rahm convinced Heath Shuler to run as a Democrat by calling him every day several times....otherwise he would have been a Republican.

I am a moderate, I was raised moderate.....it is the New Dems and Blue Dogs who are hurting our party by trying to cater to the Republicans.

[yurbud]

66. so they want their job to be shipped overseas, education to be cut, & insurance companies to choose

what kind of health care reform we get?

The majority might be moderate on culture war issues, but not economic ones and common sense social spending.

[unkachuck]

60. they haven't met with us....

....because they fear us, they can't control us, they can only try to minimize us....

....the corporatists' are struggling hard to keep this party center-right; the country and it's policies, center-right....but it's not going to work....

....Obama was perceived to be Liberal, Leftist, Progressive, that's one major reason he got elected....it would serve rahmbone well not to get too cocky or brazen and begin treating us with respect....

....listen rahmbone, you guys are rolling the dice big on all these spending packages....the pukes will have a field-day with your ass in 2 years....you just might need us....you may have Obamas' back, but who has yours?

...we've just finish 8 years of the bush regime, the most unAmerican, fascist and destructive administration we've ever had....I can do 8 more if I have too....

[Kaleva]

65. "Obama was perceived to be Liberal, Leftist, Progressive..."

Was he or is that just a personal opinion?

[Mithreal]

107. Limbaugh called him a lefty liberal, Obama self-identified Progressive

However, Obama's policies were a mix. On some things he is very conservative. Obama supported giving telecoms immunity, he supports escalating Afghanistan, he supported Bush's stimulus, he talks about moving forward rather than investigating Bush's crimes, he is not for a single payer healthcare system, he seems to blindly support Israel and ignored Hamas. There are so many things we are still learning about his presidency, but he is most like a centrist in that he does not agree with Progressives on the big issues despite some stirring rhetoric and he is very accommodating of those on the right.

He is not a progressive, although we may find he will occasionally surprise. Hopefully? Politically, he is centrist even though I can't stand that term.

[madfloridian]

62. Pelosi concedes...stimulus passes as the centrists want it to be.

Pelosi Drops Opposition, Stimulus Set To Pass

51 Blue Dogs, 71 Progressives. No matter at all....the Blue Dogs won.

Moving with lightning speed, Congress and the White House agreed Wednesday on a compromise $790 billion economic stimulus bill designed to create million jobs in a nation reeling from recession. President Barack Obama could sign the measure within days.(...)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Reid's partner in negotiations over more than 24 hours, initially withheld public approval in a lingering dispute over federal funding for schools. But her spkesman, Brendan Daly, said more than two hours after Reid's announcement, "We are moving forward with this legislation, which will create or save more than 3 million jobs."

[certainot]

68. time to rename the blue dogs- limbaugh democrats because

their parts of the country are permeated with RW talk radio at the local and national level. that is the pressure they feel- that is their 'constituency'. US politicians need to b reminded regularly that they are being jerked around by jerks who have been given the biggest soapbox in the country.

this country would be quite different if reagan had not killed the Fairness Doctrine.

[AtomicKitten]

71. The meetings with the Blue Dogs were herding cats on the stimulus bill.

They were the ones stomping their feet. The progressives were already on board.

I'm not seeing how you went from that to your conclusion that this in some way was dissing the progressive caucus. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

73. Did you read this link I posted?

I am sorry you don't understand my post.

I tried to be clear.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/blue-dogs-get-the-white-house-access-but-progressives-arent-silent.php

[AtomicKitten]

74. Yes, I read it.

I believe I do understand, your condescension notwithstanding, the implication among all the extraneous stuff you've thrown in there. First of all quoting Emanuel from three years ago serves the purpose of being inflammatory, but I think he is a red herring in this.

I think the implication is that Obama is ignoring the Progressive Caucus, and I just don't see that leap in rationale. Obama has had his hands full herding the Blue Dogs who have been a colossal pain in the ass, trying to keep the Democrats in a cohesive voting block on this important piece of legislation.

I will be glad to amend my impression if he doesn't meet with the Progressive Caucus. I just can see no reason why he wouldn't and see no evidence that he won't.

[madfloridian]

76. Not being condescending at all. The progresssives asked for a meeting.

They did not yet get one.

Yes, I am flat out saying that someone, probably Rahm is ignoring the progressives. It's a fair statement and why I put the quotes in from 2006.

If you think I am not correct, I have much more.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. I think you are not correct

AtomicKitten correctly pointed out that Obama met with the Blue Dogs because they are being a pain in the ass and leveraging their votes in order to get a meeting with him. If the situation were reversed and the Blue Dogs were willing to vote with the President no matter what while the Progressive Caucus was leveraging their votes to get Obama to listen to their demands then Obama would be meeting with the Progressive Caucus and not the Blue Dogs.

At some point every Congresscritter and Senator has to make a choice about whether or not to be a team player or to leverage their vote. Leveraging gets you a lot of attention from either the President or the leadership in the short run. In the long run if you leverage enough, they aren't going to reward you. Likewise party loyalty doesn't get you jack shit in the short run but it helps advance your career in the long run.

For example, Susan Collins is probably the most powerful person in the US Senate right now because she has chosen to leverage her vote. But after this week she will go back to being 1 out of 100. Not only that but Mitch McConnell will remember that and every other time she voted with the Democrats and she will never have a shot of rising to a top leadership post within the GOP caucus.

[madfloridian]

78. Aren't we saying the same thing after all? The progressives ASKED to meet with him, though.

And perhaps it would be nice for him to include them? Many simple gestures that would make a lot of us feel more comfortable have gone by the wayside.

Acknowledgement and respect is a very powerful tool.

Yes, Susan Collins is the new boss now along with Ben Nelson. I agree.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. No, we're not saying the same thing

You're asserting that the Progressive Caucus didn't get an invite to the White House because Rahm Emanuel hates them and doesn't care about what they have to say.

I'm asserting that the Progressive Caucus didn't get an invite to the White House because people don't get invites in these kinds of circumstances unless they leverage their vote. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives and Obama doesn't have time to meet with every single one of them every time an important vote comes up. Those that leverage their votes get a meeting because the White House doesn't have any choice but to meet with them, not because Rahm Emanuel loves them and thinks that they should get to dictate policy.

And yes this week Susan Collins and Ben Nelson are the boss. Next week they go back to being nobodys with no major issue that they can champion, no prospects for a leadership post, and no chance in hell of ever getting their party's presidential nomination all because they are turncoats who nobody likes because they leverage their vote every time something important comes up. Loyalty has its perks too.

[madfloridian]

81. Not what I said. I just think progressives are being ignored.

They are. Agree or disagree, but don't exaggerate what I said.

71 members in the progressive caucus, one of the largest. They deserve an answer to their request.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Sure they are being ignored...

Just like the other 200+ caucuses in the House of Representatives. I'm sure the Right to Life Caucus, The Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children, the Transit Caucus, The Hispanic Caucus and everybody else would love an hour with the President to talk about what they think should be in the stimulus.

Just because the Progressive Caucus requested a meeting and Jerrod Nadler's staff leaked it to the press that they requested a meeting doesn't make them special. Obama isn't holding a meeting with the Blue Dogs, or Susan Collins for that matter, to solicit their advice. He is meeting with them to bargain. If the Progressive Caucus wants to bargain then they should threaten to vote against the stimulus. They will be summoned to the White House within the hour of making that announcement, I'm sure.

The equation is really simple. 60 Senators + 218 House Members + President's Signature = Law. If you do not effect that equation in some form or another, you don't get a meeting with the President on the eve of a crucial vote. It's really that simple.

[madfloridian]

88. So they only need us at crucial times. Remember the famous words of Steny Hoyer?

That's the problem. The Blue Dogs did not win this election, but they will surely lose the next one for us if they threaten this on every big bill.

Remember the telecom immunity bill? Remember this words?

Steny Hoyer admittedly went for a bill with immunity to keep the Blue Dogs from jumping ship.

How about that? They really are powerful.

Hoyer said that if House Democratic leaders failed to reach a FISA deal with the White House and GOP leaders, as many as “30 Blue Dogs and another 20 to 30 members” could have signed onto a Republican discharge petition calling for a floor vote on the Senate version of the FISA bill, which was even more anathema to House Democrats than what eventually passed. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) confirmed that “there were a lot of Blue Dogs getting anxious” and “a lot” of them would have signed a discharge petition.

“You can take a position and be a purist and sort of sit around yelling at each across the divide and nothing gets done,” Hoyer said. “The American people, they want us to get this done. That’s the whole thing to me.”

Meanwhile back at the ranch, all us "purists" were writing, calling, emailing, publicly speaking out against immunity. They passed it anyway and thumbed their Blue Dog loving noses at us.

They need progressives at election time, and that is it.

[Mithreal]

111. Obama voted to give telecoms immunity

Sounds like he has a lil blue dog in him.

I don't know what to think of the excuses made for his vote but I am inclined to ignore them.

[Mithreal]

109. I read not a single Blue Dog or Republican vote was needed

so why negotiate things away?

If Blue Dogs aren't going to follow the lead of the President, let them vote against jobs.

I mean it, just let them.

[Mithreal]

110. 60 senators is a myth being used a lil too frequently

It is a simple majority for a bill, right?

All this 60 vote talk is about giving Republican's the ability to filibuster-lite allowed by Reid.

It is very empowering for Republicans.

[Mithreal]

108. Letting our elected representatives have access to the President

Omg, outrageous. If the Progressive Caucus wants to meet with the President then they need to throw a tantrum like the Republicans or Blue Dogs. I am just kidding.

I can't believe people here think it can be rationalized away the President delaying meeting with the Progressive Caucus. It sends a signal to Progressives.

[DFW]

72. Guess what else Rahm was doing in 2006?

He was screaming at DNC Chairman Howard Dean that Dean's 50 State strategy would never
work, and that Rahm's own DCCC strategy, despite its not having worked up to then, was
better. Howard was right, Rahm was wrong, and Rahm has never forgiven Howard for that--
nor has he ever admitted (to my knowledge) that he was ever wrong. That, it seems, does
not appear to have changed.

[PurityOfEssence]

75. Note the new trend: now the cry isn't that he'll go progressive, but that people weren't listening

As I've said before to nasty rejoinders: all of his brightest and most progressive accomplishments are ahead of him, and always will be.

I'm actually fine with those who knew that he was a Clintonian somewhat-to-the-right of center corporatist, it's the pompous and snotty slamocrats who insisted over and over again that as soon as he was through with his brilliant chess-playing, he'd suddenly burst forth as the butterfly of glorious leftism, instead of the careful crawling of middlin' moderation. This fantasy is borne of absolutely nothing; his entire political history belies it.

This is going to hurt him if he doesn't watch it; it's getting to be fairly standard criticism that he tries to be on all sides of many issues. (He's NOT going to prosecute the Bushies for lying us into war or war crime, GET IT?) He's not going to really rattle Medicine Incorporated. His financial team is the "in" crowd that helped get us here. Afghanistan? Let's see how that sorts out.

He's smart, and he's the best we could have managed to get, so that's about the size of it. He's NOT a lefty, though, and he's going to stiff-arm us until he sees some consequences from doing so. I do not advocate obstruction, but we should speak up and let our feelings be known. We're seriously in the soup here, and people have to back off and pull together. I don't LIKE a lot of this, but this truly is a crisis.

[aikoaiko]

84. Politics is often not fair. And I still like my Blue Dog, John Barrow.

[FLAprogressive]

95. That says more about you then it does him.

[aikoaiko]

99. Yes, it does, of course.

:shrug:

[a kennedy]

85. President Obama hasn't met with the Black caucus either.....

[Mithreal]

112. I could be wrong but I heard the scuffle about the census and

commerce secretary had to do with a meeting with the black caucus. Think I heard it on Thom Hartmann, Thursday but am not completely certain.

[mmonk]

86. This was a reply I did in another thread. It applies here as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5034404&mesg_id=5035922

[Time for change]

87. This is disappointing

What needs to be considered is that, although the blue dogs occupy the center in Congress, the progressives in Congress are probably much more in tune with the bulk of the American people. Furthermore, George Bush didn't get elected by ignoring his base. Progressives were much more important in electing Obama than were middle road Dems. Ignoring them will be very bad for the Democratic Party and for our country.

[madfloridian]

91. Exactly. The progressives are "much more in tune with the bulk of the American people"

That is correct. And you are right. Bush never ignored his base, he cherished them.

It will be a problem if it continues.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

90. Oh, yeh, I saw your post about Katrina in my other thread. I'm speechless.

:eyes:

[democracy1st]

105. K & R

[Two Americas]

113. k and r

I don't think it is "progressives" who are necessarily being shut out, nor the activists. The divide here and in the country is between the haves and the have-nots. Those advocating for the have-nots are being shut out, and the "winners" smugly march on toward their glorious gentrified future.

Feeling a little left out? The response is one big FU - "quit your crying or we will give you something to really cry about, you losers." You cannot complain about the FU, because you are told to be grateful for the crumbs you are being given.