Mary Landrieu wants to blame the current political environment on liberals:
"The loss in Massachusetts should serve as a wake-up call to the wing of the Democratic Party that wants the federal government to overreach and overspend," said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. "We need to get back to the basics."
Name one single thing that the Senate has passed into law over the past year that a majority of Evan Bayh's "moderate working group" voted against. One thing.
I'll help you try and find examples. Here is a list of the Senate Dems moderate working group caucus:
"Leading the new group are Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper of Delaware and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas... [O]thers joining the group are Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mark Udall of Colorado, and Mark Warner of Virginia."
So go ahead--find examples of legislation that was passed into law without a majority of the so-called "moderate" wing of the Democratic Party approving. Hell, find anything that passed the Senate in 2009 without majority approval.
Can't do it? Of course you can't. Because it doesn't exist.
Not a single public law was passed in 2009 without the majority approval of Evan Bayh's "moderate working group." Hell, nothing was passed without a two-thirds supermajority of Evan Bayh's working group.
Given that everything that passed the Senate passed with the approval of the majority of the so called "moderate" wing, it is difficult to fathom exactly how Mary Landrieu thinks that her wing of the party is free of blame for the current political environment for Democrats. Her wing of the party approved of everything that passed the Senate, and what didn't pass the Senate. More Yglesias:
But in the world that exists, the only "wing" that matters is the Mary Landrieu wing. They decide how much stimulus we get. They decide their can't be a public option. They decide their needs to be a months-long quest to get Chuck Grassley to offer "Republican cover" for a health care vote. Either the strategy is working better than the alternatives, or else it's the Landrieu wing that needs to change things up. But defeats can't be the fault of the people who haven't been in the driver's seat since the seventies.
Your wing of the party controlled legislation in 2009, Landrieu. If you think that voters are rejecting what legislation was passed, then the only conclusion is that they are rejecting you. But of course, you will never draw that conclusion, because you are always right, no matter what, even when you lie.
Next week will be gut-check time for the bloc of progressives standing in opposition to any bill that doesn't include a public health insurance option.
The leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus plans a "whip count" for early in the week to gauge the strength of their coalition, caucus members tell the Huffington Post. The whip team will also approach members of the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses.
Democrats hold 256 seats in Congress and need 218 to pass a bill, meaning 39 progressives, voting together, could tank the legislation, assuming all Republicans vote nay.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a member of CPC leadership, estimates that eighty to 100 members will make the pledge.
So, next week we will know if the Progressive Block will be continuing their campaign or not. The odds appear to be in favor of continuing.
Here is my favorite part of the article:
A senior administration official said Wednesday that killing the bill for not including a public option would be "tragic." Centrist and conservative Democrats have expressed frustration at the forcefulness of the support for the public option, arguing that it's a distraction from the broader package.
If the public option is just a minor distraction, then why don't moderate and conservative Democrats just give into the Progressives? Seriously--if the public option is so meaningless, then what's the big deal? Just give into the demands, and pass the bill.
The reason why this doesn't happen is that the basic political calculation for most moderate and conservative Democrats is to claim credit either for voting against, or watering down, a Democratic bill that passes. By voting against or watering down the bill, they can claim credit for standing out from the dirty hippies that make up most of the Democratic Party. However, if no bill passes, then the Democratic Party as a whole is severely damaged, and these moderates and conservatives are usually the first ones to lose their seats in a bad political climate for Democrats. So, they need a bill to pass, but they need to stand apart from that bill at the same time.
However, through their ongoing threat to defeat any bill that lacks a robust public option, the Progressive Block is taking that option away from conservative and moderate Democrats. Now, conservative Democrats can only choose a stronger bill (giving into the Block) or no bill at all (not giving in). From their perspective, they are screwed in both cases. They don't get the option of voting against a bill that passes, or removing the provision the dirty hippies love. Thus, the Block denies Conservadems and Blue Dogs their primary political mode of operation, and all of the power that comes with it.
As such, the Progressive Block actually threatens the continued dominance of Conservadems and Blue Dogs within the Democratic Party. In addition to taking instructions from their corporate masters, that is an important reason why the Conservadems and Blue Dogs don't want to give into the supposedly minor distraction that the Progressive Block is demanding.
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.
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.
