The Next Progressive Fight? What Fight?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:27:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The normally astute Digby must be dreaming when she writes this:

I have never been particularly sanguine that congressional Democrats would ultimately vote against Obama on health care if it didn't contain a public option and I'm not even sure how many people in the progressive coalition would want them to. . . . But that doesn't mean that they will never vote to defeat their president. In fact, I believe it could happen on at least two important upcoming issues on the agenda: financial reform and the war.

(Emphasis supplied.) Digby must be joking. After all the letters and stances and pronouncements, if the Progressive Block folds on the public option, they may as well just close the thing down as no one will ever take them seriously again. Hell, the only reason they are being taken somewhat seriously now is that they pushed back against every Obama trial balloon on the subject.

It's now or never for the Progressive Caucus. If they can not buck the President on health care, then they will never do it and they will go back to being a bad joke.

Speaking for me only

< From The Nobody Could Have Predicted File: President Snowe Wants Less Money For HCR | Friday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Next Progressive Fight? What Fight? | 54 comments (54 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Chicken or the egg question (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by MO Blue on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:06:19 PM EST

Do the Progressive activists fold because the Progressive politicians always fold? Or do the Progressive politicians fold because the Progressive activists always fold?

Maybe both will go back to being a bad joke.

War Funding! (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 05:02:49 PM EST

If the progressive can't hold together on HCR what would ever make anyone think that they would on the war funding. They haven't been able to influence it since the start of the war.

I'd like them to throw back all the arguments we've heard on the lack of money for HCR, but I sure won't hold my breath.

: Heh, what are they going to insist on? (none / 0) (#51)
by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 07:57:16 AM EST

A withdrawal timeline from Afghanistan? Or are they just supposed to fund nothing Afghanistan ever again and ditch the soldiers?

This is an existential battle for progressives (5.00 / 4) (#35)
by s5 on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:18:00 PM EST

If the Progressive Caucus makes Obama pass the public option, then I suspect that will change the behavior of progressive activists and progressive bloggers. We're still used to losing or making that calculation of how much of a beating we're willing to accept to get a sliver of crust. But if the Progressive Caucus holds the line, then progressives in general will no longer feel like making demands is a lost cause.

If the Progressive Caucus doesn't hold the line on HCR, then it's over. We're back to centrism and a conservative governing majority.

: Great observation (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:12:35 PM EST

"We're still used to losing or making that calculation of how much of a beating we're willing to accept to get a sliver of crust. But if the Progressive Caucus holds the line, then progressives in general will no longer feel like making demands is a lost cause."
I wonder how many of the PC members realize this.
I'm reminded of the great era of the Boston Celtics under Red Auerbach. He pretty much insisted on always drafting players from winning college teams, of whatever conference, because he wanted people who expected to win all the time. Celtics rarely had great raw talent, but they won all those championships in those days because of their attitude.

According to Think Progress, (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by Anne on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:32:26 PM EST

In separate news conferences yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "signaled their willingness to drop a government run public health insurance option from a final health-care bill." "This is about a goal. It's not about provisions," said Pelosi. Reid said a co-op could "fill the bill" if "it makes more competition and it makes the insurance companies honest."

So...I think before we can have the next fight, we have a fight, and I don't think we've really had anything but a lot of talk, a little bluster.

These Democrats are a pathetic bunch of losers who always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; they ought to give the people back the money that helped elect them, and just go home.

An old record (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:49:54 PM EST

I can remember Pelosi drawing the line in the sand on the war funding bills too. How'd that work out? Her firm committment doens't give me any reason for hope. I've heard this song too many times.


: It's not her, it's her (none / 0) (#45)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:13:50 PM EST

pantywaist conference members.

I've never known Digby to miss a mark like this (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 07:55:08 AM EST

There is no existing opportunity for the Progressives to make such an impact and solidfy their voice and power. Every single person in this country will be affected by a public option in such a life enhancing way that the "need" to listen to the Progressives will be hard for anyone to deny after that. It is likely that many more Progressives would be voted in too because suffering people will like what happened and have experienced it first hand. If they pass the public option we are going to spend the next four years having to remind those who did not fight for it to sit down and shut up because everyone is going to try and claim they fought for it. If the Progressives win an argument about Afghanistan and we leave soon, that is no big win. Half of the country will see that we walked away from obtaining justice for the dead. That's no big win. And financial reform? The public option is a vital part of financial reform. The insurance companies and big pharma have brought about a situation in healthcare where the industry is about to implode and implode 1/6 of the economy with it. Oh heck, Wall Street is about implode again too. And after more Wall Street melting, everyone is going to want financial reform and probably demand it and that's not much of a fight. That fight already sailed with the Wall Street bailout.

Forget (none / 0) (#2)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:32:40 PM EST

about just the PC, the whole darn party will turn into just a big a joke as the GOP. If you cant follow your stated beliefs then what's the point of even existing?

I thought the Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Spamlet on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:35:11 PM EST

was trying to make its way back from being a big joke.


When (none / 0) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:36:38 PM EST

was it a big joke? In the 70's? I think that's passed.


Most recently under George W. Bush, (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Spamlet on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:39:51 PM EST

first as an "opposition" party and then, after 2006, as a "majority" party. In my humble opinion.


Oh, (none / 0) (#7)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:41:16 PM EST

yeah. YOu do have a point but I consider all that falling under the category of spinlessness which has continued unabated.


For me, the spinelessness (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Spamlet on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:47:48 PM EST

is the source and very emblem of the party's status as a joke. If you're saying that the Democratic Party's jokiness ended after the 70s, then the parameters of your argument are eluding me.


: Perhaps you can say it has (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:00:43 PM EST

come and went. When we have a leader with a spine (Clinton) the party seems to have a spine. When the leaders are spineless (Pelosi, Reid & Obama) then the party is spineless. The party is in desperate need of leadership right now and it's not leadership by President Snowe either.

Digby Doesn't Joke (none / 0) (#4)
by cwolf on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:35:48 PM EST

My problem is you and Digby are usually correct! +/- some nuance. (thiugh my kneejerk recollection = Digby is always right)

Although it seems this time there is a real difference.

Let's see how Weiner's Single Payer Vote turns out first. That could be the joker in the deck that flips this whole thing on it's butt.

Not so fast (none / 0) (#10)
by koshembos on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 05:17:05 PM EST

Being progressive doesn't imply driving the car into the wall. It seems that the only two alternatives available are slight health care reform (Obama's current plan) or none at all. If progressive are against "slight" and cause "none", the Democrats will suffer a sharp defeat in 2010.

But the wiser course (none / 0) (#11)
by Spamlet on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 05:26:43 PM EST

may be to not let a bad bill pass the House and then use reconciliation in the Senate to increase funding for Medicare and throw a wrench or two into the gears of the rapaciousness insurance companies. And, as BTD says, not call that reform.

Do you think there won't be an electoral bloodbath if the Democrats pass a bill containing mandates but NO public option?


A blood bath led ably by the Repubs (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by sallywally on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:31:53 PM EST

too. Their talking, er, yelling points are easy to imagine: new taxes, new rules, no better benefits, no free choice, etc (because the ins. cos don't let you choose your doc)......

I wonder how Medicare for all will look to the populace then?


I really doubt a bad bill (none / 0) (#12)
by SGITR on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 05:43:29 PM EST

will pass in the House prior to the conference bill. There is no reason for the House to pass a bid bill prior to the conference bill.

It's what comes out of conference and gets voted on is where the rubber meets the road.

As for what to call the final bill, reform or whatever, does it really make a difference what individuals want to call it? DC and the village will call it reform. Most of the brain dead public will call it reform. And it is the majority perception that matters, not that of a handful of individuals.


You've got it backwards (5.00 / 8) (#13)
by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:00:42 PM EST

It doesn't matter what DC or the villagers call it, what matters is what the electorate views it as. If it gets called reform and it isn't actual reform then the Democrats will end up paying at the ballot box.

Funding is a no brainer at this point. You have millions suffering because of the recession. The GOP can pout and stomp their feet but if the Dems make certain to sell this as "humanitarian" I doubt it has big repercussions, not like putting mandates out there without a public option would have anyway.


I mentioned the public (none / 0) (#15)
by SGITR on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:12:08 PM EST

And yes they will view it as reform.

I doubt that we pay at the ballot box because we can pass off the weak bill on the obstructionist Republicans.


That's wishful thinking. (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by Fabian on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:17:07 PM EST

When the economy stinks, people blame whoever is the majority party. Right now Democrats occupy the Senate, the House and the White House.

And you think the GOP is going to be blamed? Not unless there is an economic miracle in the next twelve months.


What I find even more amusing is (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:29:19 PM EST

that somehow or another the GOP manages to get things done even when they are the minority. FISA, War funding, censuring moveon all done with Republican minorities. Yet somehow or another the public is gonna believe that with 60 votes in the Senate, over 250 votes in the House and the Presidency the Democrats can't get things done because of the mean ol' GOP. Lordy, Lord that sounds like a real selling point.


OK (none / 0) (#28)
by SGITR on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:47:16 PM EST

But you are talking apples and oranges aren't you? The subject was them getting voted out for health care. I don't think that will happen.

Now the economy you may have an argument. However the last polls I checked said the majority of the public sees the Democrats inheriting this economy from Bush. And we did. so we shouldn't get blamed for that.

Of course the media along with many progressives on the internet have been doing their part in reshaping that fact by calling the loans to the banking industry a bailout. As if it were a free giveaway of taxpayers dollars. That is what the perception the media is trying to create. A negative one. Unwittingly many of the progressives online have picked up that meme which if you think about it is against their own interests. Amazing isn't it? The GOP and the media has progressives saying exactly what the GOP and the media wants the public to think. Go figure.


when health care (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:55:45 PM EST

is almost 1/5 of your GDP, it is a major ECONOMIC issue. When you are running deficits because programs that utilize health care have costs that haven't been controlled and a large portion of US bankruptcies citing medical as its underlying reason, you can't argue as if economics and health care are separate issues. They are intertwined. My biggest problem is that Democrats haven't done a very good job making that clear to people like yourself.

Health care IS an economic issue. Fix it and you could improve the life of a grateful constituency. Screw it up and they'll be Hades to pay.


You have (2.00 / 1) (#31)
by SGITR on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:08:37 PM EST

great GOP talking points. They thank you.

You see the reason the GOP is blocking real reform is so they can say exactly what you are saying. Keep it up.


: You're the one with the talking points (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:12:41 PM EST

and evidently can't bear to hear reality. c'est la vie. I'm not gonna sugarcoat things for anyone, you included.

: Oh and by the way (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:19:49 PM EST

I owe nothing to the Democratic Party. If we don't get real reform through it will be because the President has some delusional position that somehow or another he and the opposition party are going to come together despite the ideological differences and the Congress is too cowardly to tell him to quit pussyfooting around and handholding with Olympia Snowe and use his pulpit to sell a public option.

Speaking as an independant (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:19:51 PM EST

I'm going to tell you right now that ain't gonna fly. You don't get to whine that you don't have 435 votes in the House and 100 in the Senate. If you can't get it done with 60 votes and a fairly broad majority in the House I'd be prepared to get my britches beat come 2010. It doesn't matter how many pretty ideas you have if you can't get them passed.


You are right (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by The Addams Family on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:24:48 PM EST

I doubt that we pay at the ballot box because we can pass off the weak bill on the obstructionist Republicans.

The Democrats have a large majority in the House, and in the Senate they have 51 votes to ram health care reform through in reconciliation, but they can't do it, because the Republicans will get mad at them.

Only a stupid, uninformed voter wouldn't blame the Republicans for the weak bill.


In the end (2.00 / 1) (#30)
by SGITR on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:04:22 PM EST

any reconciliation bill still requires 60 votes when it comes out of conference after being merged with the house bill. Got 60 votes?


I'm not sure about that (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:10:09 PM EST

I don't think that's true. I believe BTD has stated repeatedly that in reconciliation there's only a majority needed. Clinton raised taxes that way.


Bush used the process (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:15:41 PM EST

3 times in order to get tax cuts through. You don't need 60 votes as a matter of fact the reason it is used is tp prevent needing the 60 vote hurdle that you would need to overcome a filibuster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(Senate)


: Here's an example (none / 0) (#37)
by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:26:37 PM EST

You'll note the Senate vote totals aren't 60 at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003#Legislative_Histo ry

Doubtful (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by cal1942 on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:13:21 PM EST

They will not view it as reform if mandates accompany a limited access crappy public option. They're not that stupid.

The public option Obama seems to be talking about is lame and could cost more than private insurance.

It would be especially damaging if Democrats labelled it reform. That would make them a laughing stock. Expect that Obama would call it reform because he'll actually believe it's real reform.


: That's why BTD (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:45:35 PM EST

has the argument right IMO. If they can not pass a public option what they need to do is increase funding and expand the programs that they already have and DON'T call it reform. They could then make the argument that they are doing it this way because the GOP would not negotiate with a public option on the table but that they felt it was imperative to provide as much coverage and as much of a saftey net to vulnerable people hurt by a bad economy. I'd even throw in some digs by throwing in some stats in the states the GOP are stalemating in.

Debate: Howard Dean vs Karl Rove (none / 0) (#16)
by cwolf on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:16:58 PM EST

7:30PM est (15 minutes from now)
http://asx.ihets.org/DePauw/live.asx

Should be verrrry interesting.

: Dean vs. rove (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by pluege on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:31:17 PM EST

facts vs lies & dissembling
reality vs. make up any only sh*t up
sane vs. insane
public servant vs. self-absorbed megalomaniac
intelligence vs. mad ignorant creep
healer vs. sadistic pig
integrity vs. corrupt hyper-hypocritical criminal
what the heck is "interesting" about that? Its sickening, tragic, and an indictment of US society that its on display, let alone that rove is a free man.

: Dean vs. rove (none / 0) (#25)
by pluege on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:35:56 PM EST

facts vs lies & dissembling
reality vs. make up any only sh*t up
sane vs. insane
public servant vs. self-absorbed megalomaniac
intelligence vs. mad ignorant creep
healer vs. sadistic pig
integrity vs. corrupt hyper-hypocritical criminal
cogent rational problem solver vs. violence-monger
what the heck is "interesting" about that? Its sickening, tragic, and an indictment of US society that rove is a free man, let alone that he's given a public forum to spew his sickness.

What was it FDR said about... (none / 0) (#19)
by pluege on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:21:57 PM EST

making him do stuff. (Of course in FDR's case it was stuff he wanted to do, but which was politically tough. In Obama's case with 77% polling for a "robust public option" its just the opposite.)

Maybe Obama really does want (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by The Addams Family on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:26:38 PM EST

the public option. But maybe he wants "bipartisan unity" more.


: Heh (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:34:29 PM EST

In order to have bipartisan unity you'd actually have to have the co operation of the other party. Frankly, it appears that ain't gonna happen. They don't like him or his ideas. He could probably ask them to bend over and kiss all their proverbial backsides and they still would be calling him a socialist as he did it. I don't get what part of that he doesn't get. It's one thing to say I'm going to listen to everyone. It's another to basically put things on hold forever waiting for some bipartisan event that ain't gonna happen.
Heck, they whined about and had problems with him saying work hard and stay in school for cripes sakes. Work around them.

: "bi-partisan unity" (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by pluege on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:38:29 PM EST

is an oxymoron even if today's republican party was in anyway a rational loyal opposition, which its not.

: Yes (none / 0) (#47)
by cal1942 on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:22:36 PM EST

for Obama it appears that bi-partisan is the goal, policy be damned.

Yeah I blinked when I read her post (none / 0) (#27)
by Faust on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:41:31 PM EST

She's wrong. Kind of suprised at her reaction on this one. Hold the line, hold the line.

No doubt they better get tough (none / 0) (#38)
by SOS on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:56:19 PM EST

Failure isn't an option lest they end up kissing butt to those people promoting things like "Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible's satanic agents of the Apocalypse" and I sure don't want to see progressives fall through that trap door.

cawaltz (none / 0) (#46)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:17:06 PM EST

would you please, please learn how to do embedded links?

It's not that hard. Highlight a word or a phrase in your post, then click the thing that looks like a little piece of chain in the box right over the comment text box, then input your link into the little box (watch out for the extra "http" the box puts in).

Then click on "Preview" to check whether you did it right or not.

Wasn't aware that I wasn't (none / 0) (#48)
by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:37:29 PM EST

doing them right. Sorry.


: yup, had to delete your comment (none / 0) (#54)
by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:40:05 AM EST

due to the overly long url. Highlight the words in your comments you want the link to go to, then use the link button at the top of the comment box to type in the url. Thanks.

Obama needs it and we have to help him see that (none / 0) (#53)
by bob5540 on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:49:48 PM EST

When you say that voting down a "slight" health care reform bill will kill the Democrats in the next election, I think there is one small point you've overlooked:

Obama needs health care reform most of all. If he gets none, his goose is cooked. He is a one-term president, with no legacy beyond being the first black in the White House. He MUST get a bill passed, good or bad.

What's more, if he gets a good bill with real reform, he may still be a one-termer, but his legacy will rival FDR's.

That's why the progressive caucus has leverage if they're smart enough to use it. If we hold the line, he has to somehow engineer a public option. The Republicans won't bail him out. They're better off if he loses the fight against his own progressive caucus than if he wins it with their help.

And BTD did not call her an "idiot" (none / 0) (#55)
by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:41:59 AM EST

he said "the normally astute Digby must be dreaming. Big difference in my view. He was engaging in polite disagreement.

: Baby steps ;-) (none / 0) (#56)
by lambert on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:57:19 PM EST

[Incidentally, it's not the term "idiot" that I mind, so much; it's using that as substitute for argument by a poster that I regard as having very high standards. "Wrong on the facts, pound the table."]