And it's a record!

The secret (4.00 / 1)

It probably doesn't come as a surprise that I'm not alarmed by the actions of this group of moderate Senators. I find Maddow's characterization of them as "Conservadems," which she started last week, to be unnecessarily strident, as they don't consider themselves conservative. It's really akin to the "Democrat Party" stuff the GOP uses. If she wants to do that, she can; that kind of name-calling is a valid political tactic for pundits.

But here's the dirty little secret in all this: they arguably represent Obama's views more closely than, say, the liberal House leadership. For example, Claire McCaskill is part of this group. Is there a Senator who seems more in tune with Obama's political sensibilities than McCaskill?

To hone in on that a bit, I'd say Obama generally lies close to the more liberal members of the self-styled "Practical Caucus," or to the more moderate side of the Democrats not in the caucus.

That makes this an extremely valuable group for him. We've already seen how this works on the stimulus. Obama lets the liberals propose the bill they want, which is somewhat to the left of what he's talked about publicly. Then the moderates make a deal with the Republicans which brings it back to more or less where he wanted it to be.

It's politically brilliant, in my mind. It lets the liberal wing have its say, and ends up with enough bipartisanship to keep independent voters satisfied there's not an abuse of power. It's not just show, either: there really is some give-and-take, negotiation, and discussion. We know any bill will end up somewhere to the right of where the liberal members would like, but we don't know exactly where until the dust settles.

Should liberals push back against this? Sure. That's their role in this; they have to try to get as much of their agenda as they can. And with a couple of additional Senators, they may be able to. But is this moderate group irrational or and obstruction for Obama, as Maddow implies? Not by a long shot.

---

by: SarahLawrence Scott @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 16:26:13 PM UTC

What one stands for (0.00 / 1)

I don't know, Scott. The thing is that the crux of Obama's budget is that it takes some very difficult things (like health care and global warming) and folds them in so that they can be part of a 50+1 vote, and never have the face cloture votes, nor the possibility of filibuster. They are principle issues to Obama. If the moderates/blue dogs/conservadems are against them, and then they CANNOT PASS -- how smart is that? If health care fails because of them, they are WORSE obstructionists than the GOP, since they are ostensibly on board.

---

by: DocJess @ Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 08:41:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Blue Dogs (0.00 / 0)

I think the Blue Dogs get a bad rap.  When we start suggesting that they are not "real" Democrats we start sounding like the Republicans and their "real" Virgina crap.  WE are in control because we became the big tent party.  If we push them out of the Party we lose control and we deserve it for being narrow minded idiots who will undoubtedly be in exile if we do such a thing.  I agree with SarahLawrence Scott about McCaskill.  If we become to Liberal we will alienate the country and lose control. We need to recognize that whatever our beliefs the country works best when we stay in the middle.  This tells me that the real answers are somewhere between us and the Republicans.  I have reasonably Liberal views but with the exception of things like the enemy combatant, and "advanced interrogation" stuff the majority of things we can find a reasonable compromise.  

---

by: swill25 @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 22:28:45 PM UTC

Rachel Maddow (0.00 / 0)

I would like to point out additionally that I am a huge fan of Rachel Maddow whether or not I agree with her on this point.  She is a breath of fresh air in the Political Commentary world and much nicer than either Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann both who have inflated egos and just come off as angry all the time.

---

by: swill25 @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 22:50:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

blue dogs make my blood boil (0.00 / 0)

but they usually represent the  far left of the political spectrum of the electoral majority in their district/state

you know barney frank and ted kennedy couldnt get elected dog catcher in alabama.

i think we liberals have to help move the country more to the left if we want more leftist/progressive politicians. moveon and others (i like the 21st century democrats: http://21stcenturydems.org/wel... are doing a good job of helping us have a platform to push progressive ideas and ideals. the politicians can not get too far out in front of the voters, or the voter simply abandons the politician. i think when you look at the coalition who elected obama, he appeals to a lot of independents and moderates who have no use for my left wing type of politics. if i want a president kucinnich (and i do), i have to help my friends and neighbors understand why extreme progressiveness is a good thing. obama is left of bill clinton, on most issues, but as much as the GOP liked to call him the most liberal us senator, he isnt. i dont think the blue dogs will stop health care. i think they will push a compromise that i probably wont like, but they will help obama get a meaningful healthcare reform that will pass, AND not get democrats kicked out of office at the midterm.  

---

by: UplandPoet @ Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:16:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Liberal (0.00 / 0)

There are a lot of "liberals" I wouldn't mind seeing President.  However, Kucinich is not one of them, he's nuts.  Plus when you only look at the far left you leave out some moderate Republicans who would do a good job.  Speaking as someone who lived in Florida for many years I would have to give either Jeb Bush or Charlie Crist serious consideration if they ran for President.  Of course if they ran against President Obama they wouldn't get any.  I just feel bad because President Bush killed any chance for his brother Jeb who is very smart and would have made an excellent President whether I agree with his politics or not.  John McCain never had a chance against Obama in winning my vote but the thing that killed any consideration I may have given him was Sarah Palin.  John McCain is a moderate and may possibly have done alright but Sarah was a far right nut job just like Kucinich is a far left nut job and I know a lot of people whose vote was tipped Obama's way because of her.  Remember the term "Everything in Moderation" it can be applied to politics too.  The important thing is to remember that every one is entitled to their own views and most importantly we can't be right 100% of the time so compromise is a good thing as long as you don't compromise on important stuff like Habeas Corpus, no torture, etc.

---

by: swill25 @ Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:57:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

wow! Jeb (0.00 / 0)

we called him resident evil! yes, especially when compared with W he is smart, but he is also a first class jerk! and he does not care about working people, in the least, i am grateful to W for that one thing, exactly that one thing. Crist, on the other hand is  about as progressive of a governor as we are likely to get. Kucinnich isnt nuts, but he is way too progressive for america, plus he is short, a buddhist and generally is further away from the 'leading man' from central casting than about anybody but alan keyes.

or civil rights for all, and humanitarian treatment of citizens of the world and a realization that being
BORN american doesnt make you any better than anyone else, and that being BORN here doesnt mean you have done a DAMN thing to contribute to our wonderful country! and a few other things that are way too progressive for folks who arent as far removed from the proslavery anti woman mentality of the early 1800s....

---

by: UplandPoet @ Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:44:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

By the Way (0.00 / 0)

Sorry to point this out but you keep spelling Kucinich wrong there is only 1 N.

---

by: swill25 @ Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 17:44:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Minnesota Decision Date (0.00 / 0)

I am a little surprised not to have heard anything about absentee ballots yet out of Minnesota.  The Secretary of State's Office apparently informed the court that they will need several days notice to get and count ballots.  That count will have to be done before any final judgment is issued.  As such, I would be surprised to have a final decision from the trial court before Passover/Easter. 

 If Coleman appeals, the New Hampshire record falls.

---

by: tmess2 @ Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 00:30:51 AM UTC