Obama is not the problem, the BLUE DOGS are the problem.

[Odin2005]

Obama doesn't make the laws, congress does, the president has to work with the Congress he has, and many of the Blue Dogs have powerful committee positions and could make Obama miserable by being full-blown "party-of-no" obstructionists if they pisses them off. If you want Single Payer than you need to Primary the damn Blue Dogs.

Like Obama said last November, it's not about him, it's about us, WE have to be the change. WE have to active at the grassroots level to replace the Blue Dog Conservadems with real liberals. Obama can;t do anything if Congress keeps on bucking him.

[Captain Hilts]

1. And our party giving in to them for so long is also a problem. nt

[Xipe Totec]

2. There are no Blue Dogs; only Blue GOPhers n/t

[OhioChick]

3. Bingo. n/t

[Deja Q]

6. DUzy!

[Deja Q]

4. Didn't Bush write in an executive order giving himself total control in the event of a crisis?

Dems were frothing that he would use it.

Then again, if Obama did it, all the Repubs would say he engineered the crisis...

12-6 = (6+6)/2.

[Odin2005]

7. I think to many so-called "progressives" wanted a liberal Bush.

It would explain all the love for Chavez. :eyes:

Obama isn't a dictator, and he should not act like one.

[bluethruandthru]

5. That's true.

You gotta hand it to the repubs...they know how to stick together. Dems..not so much.

[Odin2005]

11. I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.

:)

In the US the historical pattern is factions splitting off from the Democrats to become new major parties. IMO a major party re-alignment is immanent. Either the Republican Party will die and the Democratic party will split, or the Blue Dogs will bolt to the GOP and forge a saner, more moderate GOP.

[treestar]

8. didn't ya know Obama should "twist their arms"

and threaten them with closing military bases in their states?

:sarcasm:

[BumRushDaShow]

9. K&R

The Legislative branch (Congress) makes the law, not the Executive branch (President). It's long past time for the Congressional "leaders" (in quotes :eyes: ) to start threatening chairmanships and lucrative committee assignments.

[Laelth]

10. I expect him to lead. LBJ would have done better. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Odin2005]

13. Obama can "lead" all he wants, doesn't matter if Congress is uncooperative.

The Presidency and Congress are co-equal branches, get out there are get those Blue Dogs replaced with Liberals!

[Laelth]

15. Obama should drop "health insurance reform" until we can do exactly what you propose.

There are, obviously, not enough liberals in Congress to get real reform. So he needs to stop. NOW! Because, as you say, Congress is uncooperative.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Laelth]

18. What? No response to my comment?

Do you not agree? Given that, as you say, Obama does not have enough liberal votes in Congress to get meaningful "health insurance reform," is it not logical to suggest that he should abandon the project until such time as he has enough liberal votes?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[WonderGrunion]

21. LBJ had between 63 and 68 Democratic senators

depending on the exact moment of his presidency. And reconciliation wasn't used back then to arbitrarily block all legislation. LBJ could comfortably afford to lose as much as 20% of his party vote in the Senate and still pass legislation. If we lose even one today, we are fucked.

[Laelth]

30. I hear you.

That's why this is just not the right time to push for this legislation. If we can't get a good bill because we don't have the votes, we should punt. Let's focus our efforts on 2010 and try to get a good law in 2011.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Horse with no Name]

12. The Democrats have the ABILITY to take away those powerful

committee positions and the fact that they do not, shows us what kind of mess we are in.

[lib2DaBone]

14. So True. Obama needs to start cracking some Blue Dog heads...

Obama is never going to bring all the parties together when Rush Limbaugh and Faux News are working 24/7 to destroy the country.

The people who listen to Glenn Beck and Rush are off their rockers.

[Kali]

16. I heard something kind of encouraging

listened on NPR and the reporter in DC said (about the reactions from congresspeople) that based on party you would think there were two entirely different speeches, which is to be expected unfortunately, BUT that the reaction from blue dogs was very positive and that they seemed to have been moved. If that is true, then I feel much better. I am not really interested in playing nice with fuck-head republicans anymore. I would thoroughly enjoy a majority delivered FUCK YOU.

[Individualist]

17. Obama began surrounding himself with DLCers as soon as he was elected.

[omega minimo]

19. How can they buck him if he doesn't saddle up?

Last night was the time to decide -- as Hartmann puts it -- If Obama's will be a Clinton presidency or an FDR presidency.

[Odin2005]

22. FDR only kept the support of racist Dixiecrats by putting civil rights on the back burner.

The reason Social Security functions the way it does and is not funded out of the progressive income tax is because of Conservadem whining, something FDR himself admitted.

Obama isn't a dictator.

[omega minimo]

23. We don't need a dictator. Or a dick. FDR was forceful. Listen to his speeches.

Thom Hartmann has been playing segments from them. You need to correct your history of FDR, Odin. Where did you get convinced to dismiss him and his work?

[Odin2005]

26. Where am I dismissing FDR?

I'm talking about the behavior of conservative Democrats in the 30s, not FDR.

[omega minimo]

28. Where are you not?

:shrug:

[Odin2005]

29. I'm not!

:(

[Orsino]

20. Or Congress in general.

Obama has the bully pulpit, once in a great while, but Blue Dogs bring the suck every day.

[tabbycat31]

24. call them by the right term-- Blue Cross Dogs

[Odin2005]

27. +1

[DevonRex]

25. You are correct. K&R. nt

[Edweird]

31. Nonsense. It's his and Bidens job to do WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO to get

legislation passed. Anything else is either a lack of will or competence.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112234240

[Odin2005]

32. So the ends justify the means, eh? Obama should be a "unitary executive" like Bush?

So wonder so many here like Chavez. They want a fucking liberal Bush.

[Edweird]

33. If not, then what the hell do we need him for? If not, then why does it matter who the POTUS is?

If you believe it's 'all on us', then why don't you go turn yourself in to the Hague for the war crimes committed in the past 8 years, since it's apparently ALL YOUR FAULT, right?

Giving him a 'pass' because he's our guy is a stupid, stupid thing to do. Allowing him to shrug and basically say "hey, it's YOUR problem" is mind boggling. It is HIS job to negotiate, bargain, horse trade, cajole, bully, threaten and whatever else it takes to pass this. THAT'S WHAT POLITICIANS DO! It's not about a "unitary executive", it's about passing legislation. Obama throwing up his hands and passing the buck is not acceptable. If you let him make it your responsibility, then he has punked you.