White House Summons Conservadems, Doesn't Call Progressives Back

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:36


It looks like I may have spoken too soon about House Progressives successfully forcing their way into key health care negotiations. From TPMDC, it appears the White House never called them back about their expected meeting with the President:

Remember back on Friday, President Obama discussed the public option on a conference call with House liberals? And remember how the upshot of that call was that Obama planned to meet yesterday with the chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, And Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus?

Well that meeting never happened. Yesterday, sources told me that the meeting hadn't been scheduled, but could happen as late as this morning. Today, a House aide tells me that it's not going to happen at all.

"They never called," the aide said.

This doesn't mean the meeting isn't going to happen. However, it does mean that the Congressional Progressive Caucus still doesn't have the same role in the negotiations as, say, the 17 Conservadem Senators who have been summed to the White House:

ABC News has learned that President Obama will be meeting with 16 Democratic senators (and one "Independent Democrat") this afternoon at the White House.

They are: Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Tom Carper of Delaware, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, and Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

That this happens to be identical to the membership of Evan Bayh's Conservadem group, plus conservative Mark Pryor and party switching Arlen Specter, is not a coincidence. The pecking order has been reaffirmed. Conservative Democrats like these still hold all the power in the Obama administration.

They have taken that power by providing a credible threat to vote against legislation the Democratic leadership considers essential to pass. So, the Democratic leadership has no choice but to negotiate with them. Until that threat from Progressives is equally credible, or until the threat of primaries from the grassroots is even more credible, this Conservadem gang will continue to hold all the power.

Ever since Democrats retook Congress, individual Progressives have held a lot of power due to their dominance of committee chairs in the House. However, as a group, they have been irrelevant to key negotiations on major legislation. In the House, deals have been hashed out with Blue Dogs since the first week of the Obama administration, while gangs of Conservadem and Maine Senators still do all the negotiating for the Senate.

One of the goals of the Progressive Block strategy has been to change this dynamic, and force House Progressives into these key negotiations. While they are now getting conference calls and mentions in major addresses, it seems there is still some distance to travel before taking part in the truly important discussions. Until that distance is traveled, Progressives still haven't made the gains in influence that the Block strategy was designed to provide.

Update: Hopes that this meeting with the Conservadems is about whipping them into line are, to borrow a phrase from Rahm Emanuel, f*cking stupid. The White House has told progressvie groups to stop attacking these Senators. In the speech last night, House Progressives were called on to be be flexible while the co-ops and triggers supported by many of these Conservadems were praised as avenues to explore. Not to mention that the White House has been offering concessions to Democrats like these on every major piece of legislation in 2009.

The White House is siding with, or at least capitulating to, these Senators, not whipping them into line.

Chris Bowers :: White House Summons Conservadems, Doesn't Call Progressives Back

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Very conveniently yesterday the President was unavailable in the afternoon (4.00 / 5)
Manhattan and in particular the Upper West Side was a traffic nightmare....

The president was speaking at the memorial service for Walter Cronkite at Lincoln Center. It took up most of his afternoon.  

It would seem that the White House had always intended to have him at the memorial service, and so when the date of Wednesday for a meeting was dangled in front of the Progressive Caucus....one would think they would have known that the President was actually going to be out of town for a good part of the day he was making his speech to Congress.

It seems to be a promise that was not intended to be kept.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


The CPC need to issue another letter (4.00 / 7)
with a sufficient number of signatories to kill the bill.  It's obvious they think they can roll the progressives, and it's obvious that the CPC needs to send a message that they remain united.

John McCain won't insure children

i am such an optimist (4.00 / 4)
that I'm hoping he's called them there to say, "look, the progressive caucus isn't going to budge so I need you guys to get on board with the public option." Man am I naive.

i hope you're right (4.00 / 1)
that thought crossed my mind as well. What are the chances that may be the case me wonders?

[ Parent ]
If Steve Hildebrand feels good about the President's words.. (4.00 / 1)
..I'm optimistic the public option is here to stay, even though he absolutely hissed the word Progresssive last night.

HA! We're now the majority!

 

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
Just so you know (4.00 / 3)
I wrote the update after reading these comments at TPMDC, not after seeing your comment. Now I feel rude for calling you out.

[ Parent ]
no, no (4.00 / 5)
i mean it. I'm a hopeless optimist. Along those lines, maybe the progressive caucus was been so crystal clear that there is nothing to negotiate with them about at this point. See there I go again!

[ Parent ]
Also optimistic (4.00 / 1)
Because it costs me nothing, I'm gonna also choose optimism here. Let's suppose Obama genuinely wants the public option. (True, he didn't commit to it in his speech, but he did devote, what, seven paragraphs to explaining and defending it?) Who's he going to meet with today -- the Progressive Block, which is obviously already onboard with the PO? Or the group that stands in the way of the PO?

In the absence of inside info, this seems like a case where what you see depends on your view of the President. If you don't believe Obama is serious about pushing for the PO, his meeting with conservadems certainly looks sinister: "How can we band together to break the Progressives?" But if you believe Obama genuinely wants the PO, it's not hard to envision this meeting being for the purpose of capitalizing on renewed Democratic unity and energy and getting the Blue Dogs to play ball.

Having been sorely disappointed by Obama on more than one occasion over the past few months, I can see either case being true. But his speech last night eased many (not all) of my fears, so, foolishly perhaps, I'm choosing optimism.


[ Parent ]
Well, you're not alone. (4.00 / 2)
Just last night, someone was yelling at me here because I stated the obvious that Obama isn't committing to a public option. After that speech, it's crystal clear that Obama will NOT fight for a public option. It's up to us to do that and to make sure a strong public option is in the bill that's sent to his desk.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
Makes more sense than the alternative (4.00 / 1)
I don't know why Obama would talk to conservadems to make demands of progressives. If he wants to make demands of progressives, he needs to talk to them. Basic physics means that they can't hear his demands if they're not in the room.

If little Timmy gets in trouble at school, they don't send little Charlie to the principal's office, they send Timmy.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


[ Parent ]
Optimism shouldn't lead to becoming soft on the president! (0.00 / 0)
I hope you don't get hypnotized into this. Trust is good, control is better.

And then, who exactly are the progressive fighting against? It's not only the missing determination of the president, and his misguided desire for broad consensus, there are some very real enemies of the progressive caucus in influential positions. For instance, who is responsible for the president's schedule, and for making decisions whom he will meet, and when? Isn't that the White House Chief of Staff? Effing deep blue dog Rahm Emanuel?


[ Parent ]
Obviously, Obama still thinks... (4.00 / 2)
That he can send Rahmbo over to steamroll progressives into supporting whatever "The Baucus Caucus" determines is "doable". We need to keep pushing back. Don't let anyone already in The Progressive Block fold, and keep working on "pro-public option Dems" not yet in The Block to take the pledge.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

The speech has lefted the President's personal popularity (4.00 / 4)
And the need for healtcare reform....any health care reform.

And since he won't meet with them, he is now potentially in anew negotiating position with them.  

He promoted himself but not the public option.

Basically "how can you, I dare you, to NOW stand in the way of passing my health care bill, the very much needed health care bill.

The caucus really has to mean it and they have to insist again....Because the WH is standing there vis a vis them with their fingers in their ears.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


Why meet with progressives? (4.00 / 3)
Their demands are straight forward and direct.  There is nothing to negotiate.  The public option must be in the plan.

Who the hell knows what these other guys want, though.  It isn't exactly Obama's fault he needs these people (either 6 or all 16 for 50 or 60 votes) to pass the bill.


Because support isn't guaranteed... (4.00 / 2)
Not if the public option is thrown under the bus. President Obama needs to realize that he just can't send Rahmbo out to beat the CPC into line. If there's no public option, progressives won't vote for an HMO/Pharma bailout (which is what it will be with no public option). Yes, he needs the Senate ConservaDems... But he also now needs the House Progressives. He needs to listen to our concerns as well.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
The problem lies with incentives... (4.00 / 2)
For a lot of these senators, and even more house members, they would love nothing more than to see this health care reform billfail.  How the hell do you gain leverage with someone who wants you to lose?

The progressives want health care reform, the conservadems do not.  That's why the latter gets all the attention.  No "block" strategy is going to change these fundamental dynamics.  Even if the progressives aren't bluffing, their motivations are clearly on the side of reform, while the opposite is true on the conservadem side.

Personally, I disagree with Chris on this one... I think this is an attempt to whip the conservadems in line.  When Ben Nelson says that the speech was a "gamechanger", you've got to strike while the iron is hot!  They are taking advantage of the good mojo  and getting these folks onboard while the mood is in our favor!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


Exactly (4.00 / 3)
It is obvious to everyone that he needs to get these guys on board right now.  The progressives are already on board, with one well known demand.

I guess Obama should meet with the Progressive Block more often just to appease the sensitive types.

But really, could you imagine how much people here would complain if Obama did negotiate with the progressive block?  Negotiate!  That means asking for compromise or capitulation!  All we would hear is how Rahm was trying to whip these guys into giving up their demand.


[ Parent ]
one way or another there is going to be compromise (4.00 / 1)
the senate votes just aren't there and obama is determined to pass a health ins reform bill this year.

[ Parent ]
Ben Nelson (0.00 / 0)
Ben Nelson's commendation is one heck of a put down in my ball park.  This must be a lousy plan full of corporate subsidies if Ben likes it.

[ Parent ]
At what point (4.00 / 2)
Will responsible leftist spokesmen realize, as Frank Rich said, that you have been "punked."  This is not a bad president, he's just not that into you.  As soon as he was elected he selected an anti-people cabinet.  What has he done for the people.  The credit card reform?  Stopping torture and surveillance?  Investigating crimes against the people?  The TARP bailout?  A mandatory insurance requirement?  A reliable health insurance option?  I just don't see why there is so much hope that he'll do the right thing.  As Chris said yesterday, he's the National Speech-Giver.  When everything starts going to hell, he gives us a speech.

This President is like an abused wife who can only love the guy who smacks her hardest.


Well he flat out told us he would do this: (4.00 / 2)
But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it.

The progressive block told him they will not vote for plan that does not include a public option. Therefore he doesn't have time for them.

Montani semper liberi


So, the progressive bloc is trying to NOT improve it, by forcing a public option? (4.00 / 2)
[ Parent ]
Apparently not (0.00 / 0)
The progressives are just like the rabid-dog GOPpers, disruptors and tea-baggers in the eyes of some.

I think Obama meant what he said. If you're not here to help, get out.

That, after making a case as to why inclusion of a PO would be helpful, pretty much under-cuts Sadie's analysis, IMHO.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Wow, you hate progressives (4.00 / 1)
I'm shocked you think progressives are just trying to kill the bill for political reasons.  I thought they were trying to improve the bill.

You know, there are enough real things to criticize, we don't need to just make up new stuff.


[ Parent ]
Don't be a jerk. (4.00 / 1)
Obama is calling their bluff. He thinks they will fold. Watch.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
ps (4.00 / 1)
"for political reasons" is Obama's interpretation, not mine. I can see they are standing on principle, but from his point of view they are simply in the way.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
yes (4.00 / 1)
I thought he was referring to the progressive block when he said that also.  

[ Parent ]
how can it be interpreted this way? (4.00 / 1)
he said

I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it.

how can he be referring to the progressives when he says "those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it"? progressives don't want to kill the plan  


[ Parent ]
if it doesn't have a public option, they will kill it (4.00 / 1)
so it goes back to whether or not a public option is necessary in order to improve the plan.  I believe it is, the progressive block believes it is, but Obama said not necessarily...or at least maybe a "compromise" would work, or a trigger, etc

I got the impression that Obama was saying to the progressive block "Stop threatening to hold your breath until you get the public option (and more political capital for the future)....I don't have time to deal with your threats, act like grown-ups and compromise"  So it is incredibly interesting that he chooses to meet and hash out the details with conservadems, and shuts out the progressives.

I could entirely be wrong about this interpretation, but that was my assumtion when I heard it.  It is speculative until we see the specifics of the plan.

Obama is too much of an engima for me.  I do not trust him, but I do not not trust him.  I am still waiting & seeing ( and it is very frustrating)


[ Parent ]
Exactly. (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
read it again (0.00 / 0)
he says "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it." see? those that want to kill this plan for political reasons. the progressives don't want to kill this plan. demint and palin want to kill this plan. this plan is ok with the progressives. we don't want to make it worse by removing the public option. and if he thinks the plan won't be worsened but improved if you remove the public option, he wouldn't have praised the public option.

but even if I'm wrong and he is referring to the progressives we're fine. maybe better. ok, mr. president don't waste time with us. who cares? you are the one that has bet it's presidency on hcr. don't waste time with us. let us vote no. the public will love you, if the thing you want to do fails.

like I and many more have said everything depends on whether or not the progressive block holds. if it does we're ok. if not, we're screwed. it doesn't change things what obama does IF the progressive block holds.


[ Parent ]
Could we be too far… (0.00 / 0)
...inside our own heads on this one? The GOP has clearly become the lying, obstructionist sector in this debate, not progressives, who seem to be holding to a principle that the public wants to see some progress on. Centrist Dems look like they're giving in to the obstructionists.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
It is *quite* a stretch (0.00 / 0)
to construe this as referring to the Progressives, as opposed to industry and Kristol/DeMint-style Republicans (which is most of them).

Here's the context:

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it. (Applause.) I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out.

Special interests fighting for the status quo, spreading misinformation? Yeah, that really fits the Progressives perfectly.


[ Parent ]
In Rahm's world, (0.00 / 0)
yes.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
honestly, I heard it as (0.00 / 0)
But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it. (Applause.)

applause break (talking about other obstructionists now)

I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out.

I wasn't over thinking it then - could be now, I suppose.

I just heard it as Obama signaling his typical "above the fray" leadership style.  Warning the progressives and the conservadems to not fuck with what he wants - heathcare to be passed soon.  I am a progressive, so I want the progressives to have power and force Obama's hand.  

I do not  think Obama is a progressive.  or a conservative.  I think he fancys himself a "facilitator" or "mediator" and that is the best approach to politics.  To take the good & punish the bad in both sides of the issue.  I just happen to believe the progressive side is correct.


[ Parent ]
Facilitator (0.00 / 0)
I think he fancys himself a "facilitator" or "mediator" and that is the best approach to politics.

I think that is exactly correct.  That is why those who try to analyze him on the left-right spectrum fail so badly.

I think he is also a liberal (at least as much as me) but that part of him is buried pretty deeply by this point and isn't really relevant.


[ Parent ]
But the left-right spectrum is real. (4.00 / 3)
Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't put you "above" it, it makes you captive to your unconscious biases. In this case, Versailles.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
I disagree about the subconscious bit, though.  I think it has more to do with who you are trying to mediate.  It is the same result, though.

My point is analyzing Obama himself, trying to figure out his motives, doesn't work very well when just using he left-right spectrum because Obama himself doesn't approach his job as President that way.


[ Parent ]
Progressives are in the negotiations (4.00 / 2)
But as adversaries. Obama is probably talking with the Conservadems to devise a plan, which he will attempt to have Rahmmed down the Progressives' throat

I think a trigger is almost inevitable now. A vapid trigger can be a fig leaf for Progressives on a Conservadem reform or an inevitable trigger can be a fig leaf for Conservadems on a Progressive reform. Or an intermediate trigger can be a real compromise (beyond the compromise already made in going for a public option over better solutions like single-payer and the utility model). They can fit almost any reality under a trigger mantle, with big political advantages, so expect it.

I think the way to a better proposal is to make noise about how the public plan is desperately needed to hold down costs; how the current plan is smaller and weaker than will best help the public (and the deficit!); and how a trigger delay requires a stronger and faster public options to make up for lost time. Fortunately for us, a strong public option helps both our goal of better care and the Conservadems official goal of deficit reduction (even though their real goal is big insurance profits). We can get real mileage from the split between their avowed and actual goals.


Ultimately he will only respond to a strong message (4.00 / 3)
His blustering and threats to Progessives are fair enough.  So do Progs roll over and fold?  I hope not.  Eventually the only thing he'll respond to is the knowledge that his bill won't pass unless he addresses Progressive demands.  This man only deals with those who stand up to him.  The Democratic leadership has calculated the Progs will fold.  I'm sure the odds makers are with him.  

Doesn't look good (4.00 / 1)
Best case interpretation is that Obama is just following the timeline imposed by congressional reality: the CPC has made it abundantly clear they will vote no on a bill that doesn't include a robust public option (although many of the CPC members have given themselves enough wiggle room to vote yes later if the senate-house conference version doesn't include a public option. Pelosi has made it pretty clear she doesn't intend to try to pass a bill without a public option on the first go. Bills have already been reported out of all the relevant house committees, everything is on track and the votes are there to get this out of the house in a form that is much more progressive than Obama is willing to campaign for (although I think he is honest in stating he would be very happy to sign off on a bill that progressive).

There's only four legislative hurdles remaining: getting a bill out of Senate Finance, figuring out whether and how to split the bill in the Senate so that part of it can use reconciliation rules and only require 51 votes, getting the bill(s) out of the Senate, and cajoling enough members in the house and senate to vote on the compromise version reported out of conference. From a legislative strategy standpoint, of course Obama is working on the Senate Conservadems: he needs to get enough of them on board to get through all 4 of those hurdles, but he's only going to need the CPC to stand with him on the 4th hurdle.

BUT, in the context of the arms length relationship Obama has maintained with progressives (politicians AND activists), this looks really bad, and progressives should absolutely scream and yell at him so he knows how bad it looks. There's a reason for Senate Conservadems to get priority in meeting with Obama in this case, but there's no reason for "centrists" to get priority in every case - and that's what's been happening so far. Obama needs to be taught that rubbing progressive backs will make them feel less taken for granted, and more willing to fight for (rather than against) him.


Any polls… (0.00 / 0)
...on how the public views "public option" vs. "trigger"? In August, I think the majority was clear on public option, so is it possible that the term "trigger" will sound like double-talk? It does to me, and it doesn't sound like it "improves" the plan, either. There's that little word "delay" that accompanies it, and my sense is that the American people wanna move on healthcare reform. I dunno...given the momentum behind public option, could Obama be asking Conservadems, "OK, what part of public option are you having a problem with?"

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

re: double-talk (0.00 / 0)
In August, I think the majority was clear on public option, so is it possible that the term "trigger" will sound like double-talk?

yes, and we must make sure it is seen as such in the progressive base

and make it clear to obama that we'll do so [expose the double-talk to the base]


[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
I don't really want to make assumptions about what the meeting would be about, but why would the white house call a meeting with conservadems to make demands of progressives? That's like calling my friend John to tell him that I want my other friend Jane to loan me her blender so we can make margaritas. If I want to borrow the blender from Jane, I need to call Jane.

The White House talked to progressives to ask what it will take to get them on board and how far they will budge. Wouldn't they talk to conservadems to ask the same questions?

Needless to say, I'm actually as optimistic as I've ever been about health care reform. There's at least a 15-20% chance of something good passing.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


If the progressive block holds we're ok, if not we're screwed (4.00 / 1)
so the condition is 'If the progressive block holds we're ok, if not we're screwed'

same was true yesterday

so, what's new?
was rahm in the side of the progressives yesterday and now he isn't?


Here's what Obama's discussing with the Conservadems: (4.00 / 1)
How to reconcile their demands with those of the Progressives. What their demands actually are, to begin with. Where and how much they're willing to give, where not, and in exchange for what. Which is the exact same thing he discussed (will discuss?) with the Progressives. (In reverse, of course.)

Now, I don't actually know this. But it seems perfectly logical. Obama's goal is to pass a bill. The above interpretation doesn't require you to imagine Obama as part of either a secret anti-progressive plot, nor as part of a secret progressive plot. It's just the natural thing to do when you need to get two opposing groups to agree in order to achieve what you want. You negotiate with them and try to reconcile their demands as best as possible. Of course, if all you want is agreement, you don't really care which side ends up conceding more ground, as long as at least one of them does.

Which is why our job should be to improve the Progressives' bargaining position so that, as far as possible, it's not them.


And you know this, how? (0.00 / 0)
If all Obama wanted was agreement, he would be championing a strong public option. It's popular, and it has the votes to pass.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
50 votes (0.00 / 0)
The PO has 50 votes.  That isn't the same as 60.

If the Progressive Block holds we can force them to use 50 votes to pass the Public Option, which is why I'm in favor of the Progressive Block.  But we only have the votes (as of last count) assuming we can either prevent a filibuster or we use rescission.


[ Parent ]
your scenario makes more sense (0.00 / 0)
like you say we don't know for sure but your scenario makes more sense

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search