Anyone else hoping the President takes on the Senate GOP next?

[iceman66]

I would seriously pay to see that!

[DefenseLawyer]

1. I'd rather he take on the Senate Democrats.

Except I wish he had done it about 6 months ago.

[iceman66]

5. So would I - the problem is

that most of the troublemakers come from red states and cannot be successfully challenged from the left.

If Obama went after them too hard, they would likely be replaced by Republicans.

When dealing with actual Republicans, he is free to take the gloves off.

[DefenseLawyer]

7. Well that is certainly the "conventional wisdom"

that gives the Democratic Party the cover it needs to talk about reform while still placating the corporate interests that pay the bills by ultimately doing nothing.

[iceman66]

8. It is not just 'conventional wisdom' but political reality.

Take Ben Nelson for instance. He comes from one of the reddest states in the country, gets re-elected by voting like a Republican, and probably will be replaced by a Republican when he decides to retire.

There is very, very little that Obama can do to push someone like this to the left.

The fact is that we never had a true progressive super-majority in any respect, and thus the strategy should have been to use reconciliation from day one. The White House sent out feelers on this on multiple occasions, and Harry Reid refused to consider it.

If you have to single out one person to blame for health care reform getting messed up,it would be Reid.

[DJ13]

10. Whats the difference if the conservative has a (D) or an (R) after their name?

If they dont believe in the principles of our party, they dont vote with the majority in our party, let them lose.

The states they represent obviously arent Democratic, stop placating them.

[iceman66]

11. We are better off with a conservative (D)

simply because they count toward the majority, and the majority party theoretically gets to set the agenda.

At least that is the way it is supposed to work.

By letting them get away with this 60 vote bullshit, Harry Reid essentially let the Republicans run the Senate with 40 votes.

Also, unlike Republicans, the conservative Dems can be persuaded to vote with the party at least some of the time, just not reliably enough to enact real progressive legislation.

[DJ13]

12. The majority isnt setting the current agenda

Thats why Im saying they are doing our party no favors.

Sure in a sports metaphor they help make "our team" in charge of the play calling, but when everything has to be done through a conservative lens to satisfy their conservative principles does it really matter?

We need to eliminate the 60 vote rule to lessen their ability to force conservative bills to be passed, without doing that we might as well let the GOP reclaim those red states and see if their population tires of them like so many other states have.

[iceman66]

14. This is true.

At the very least, they should change the rules so that an actual fillibuster is required to hold up legislation, rather than just the threat of one.

[DJ13]

16. Hey, we reached a consensus!

I wholeheartedly agree, force real filibusters and get back to majority rule in the Senate.

[Old Codger]

13. Maybe true

But why do the rest of the dems continue to pretend they are on our side, call it like it is and quit kissing their asses.. start omitting them from the invites to any and all caucus meetings and just plain treat them like the rethugs they are... they play this like some sort of a game rather than the serious business of running this country, the result is they get nothing done and the only thing they run is this country into the ditch.

[iceman66]

17. The problem is that the Senate rules

give individual Senators way too much power, particularly committee chairmen.

The only bright side I see is that I suspect many of the seats that we will lose in the fall will be those held by conservative Dems. If we still have a majority next year, it will be a more progressive majority.

[Old Codger]

18. That is

True and another problem unto itself, how the hell can one man have the power to hold the whole country hostage to his petty whims.. egotistical assholes is what they are, how did our constitution ever allow that much power to one house? How did they get to skew the basic spirit of our laws to their favor... we need term limits in one manner or another... one term should be sufficient, no lifetime retirement after that and no running for any other federal office or working for any company that does business with the US government in any manner ever.

The real problem is they get to make their own rules and rules for us and then exempt themselves form the rules and laws they impose on us lowly peons.

[DefenseLawyer]

19. How about no good committee chairmanships

and no national money for your re-election campaign if you buck the party on priority votes? Hmmmmm that might "push Ben Nelson to the left". Oh wait, he will switch parties, you say? If he votes with them anyway, so what? We are far enough past the 50 seats we need to control leadership that losing a Nelson wouldn't matter one bit if he doesn't vote with us. You think Evan Bayh is going to switch parties? No. He probably couldn't win a Republican primary. And the same is true of most of the conservative democrats. They may be conservative democrats but none of them are conservative enough to pass muster as Republicans. They need us way more than we need them in the long run. Of course if we continue to pretend otherwise they will magically control the party and nothing will get done. Wow, what a shock. If they wanted things to get done, they would get done. They don't.

[iceman66]

24. Maybe if we had stronger leadership in the Senate, it would be as you say.

Under Reid, it just isn't happening.

[DefenseLawyer]

25. I'm certainly not laying it all on the President.

But what I am saying is that it has nothing to do with "leadership". The leadership hasn't failed. The leadership just doesn't really want progressive reforms to succeed.

[BOSSHOG]

2. As long as its televised live

[Enrique]

3. I'd like to see him take on the Progressive Caucus

he told the GOP how many of their ideas he has incorporated into his legislation, let's hear him give love to Democratic priorities.

[ClassWarrior]

15. +1

NGU.

[treestar]

23. Who would that be, and they were already going to vote for the bill?

I don't think the actual progressives in the Senate are as unrealistic as message board ones.

[rd_kent]

4. He needs to go have the SAME talk with the DEMS now.

[onehandle]

6. No. He should ignore them. nt

[iceman66]

9. Why ignore them when he can expose them?

Why not call them out on their obstructionist bullshit right to their face, like he did to their House counterparts?

[timeforpeace]

20. Doubtful they will invite him as the House foolishly did.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. There's arguably no group of people more arrogant than the United States Senate

Senate Republicans might think that their intellect and debating skills are superior to those of their House counterparts. But we'll see.

[treestar]

22. That would be fun too

We know he already had has McCain for lunch!

[LatteLibertine]

26. Ya'

at this point they would hide under their desks.

[butterfly77]

27. Yes,I would really...

love to see that their are many in the senate who I would love to see try to explain their views to the American people..There are many in the senate who I love to hate...