What is probably going on behind the scenes right now in the negotiations

[WCGreen]

between the White House and house leaders...

Because I have been close to the political process for more than half of my life, I can make a fairly educated guess as to what is motivating a lot of these Blue Dogs and wavering mainstream democrats.

There is this concern over job security.

A whole mess of these on the fence Dem's are going to loose their job whether they vote for the bill or not. President Obama must reassure those who have made political and public service their whole life that they will be taken care of after the election. It seems petty to many but how often are normal people, normal I mean by not depending on politics for a livelihood, are forced to face a decision that will end badly on a personal professional level.

I'm sure the White House is working hard to find places where they can remain as viable public servants.

You see the republicans have a much deeper out of office bench, so to speak. There are plenty of corporations out there that will be more than willing to take on a GOP Hack if they get bounced from office.

It's just something that needs to be said.

[babylonsister]

1. Yes, it could be selfishly about their jobs and not their place

in history. I posted this this a.m., and think it's spot-on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x219336

snip//

Here's the situation. Everyone knows that if reform passes, it's a historic accomplishment for the party and the president. Yes, Republicans will attack it as a government takeover of the health sector. But at least Democrats will be able to say that on the matter on which they spent months and months, they finally won. And – this part is more important – everyone knows that if it fails, it's a historic setback for the party and the president. This fall's elections could be a total wipeout for Democrats.

Everyone knows this. And yet, some Democrats will still oppose it. Why? For two reasons. First, some, especially among those aforementioned 49, will face well-financed Grand Old Party opponents and lose. In fairness to them, that's actually a somewhat logical analysis.

But second, we move from logic to the realm of psychology. Passage of a big health reform bill is a classic Rumsfeldian "unknown unknown". Congress hasn't passed a bill like this in, as I said, four decades. What will happen? What spites and furies will be unleashed? It will alter the political landscape for years to come. But how?

Politicians dread these questions. So, far better that there's no vote at all. That's a known. They can go back to their districts and say: "Well, we moved too fast, Obama overreached, and now we'll start again at square one." That, of course, won't happen. Reform will die. But that's what they'll say. And they'll return to their collective 13% (you read that right) job approval rating and their nice important jobs in a body that is a national laughing stock and is institutionally incapable of taking actual steps to fix actual problems in American society.

Or they can take a little risk on what will be for most of them the single most substantively consequential vote of their entire careers, even understanding (horror) that some of them might lose in the election. We can't have that, right? God forbid someone lose a seat in Congress. Life itself will end. I mean, what an unimaginable existence: getting a well-paying job as a lobbyist or corporate rainmaker, being called "congressman" for the rest of your life, drawing a congressional pension – and, by the way, congressional healthcare … Dante himself couldn't have imagined such a savage circle of hell.

[Jennicut]

4. Risk? Congress is risk-aversive for the most part.

But I suppose it is part of the job, when you rely on people's votes to keep your job. You will play it safe more often then not for your own well being, even if it takes the entire party down anyways.

[WCGreen]

6. I know a lot of Dem's here in Ohio that look at politics as a justifiable vocation...

It's more of a job to them than a calling. I think that has a lot to do with why the GOP is, at this point in history, able to produce more rigidly ideological candidates and therefor sitting House and Senate far right members.

Granted, this is not universal with the Dem's, by all means, but rather a motivating factor for a significant number of political figures.

But on the whole, I think politics is more of a vocation for Dem's and an advocation for republicans.

[truedelphi]

2. Anyone on either side of the aisle that votes for this bill can count on a

Spot somewhere within the Insurance Industry. So they really truly do not need to worry about whether or not they get re-elected.

Whereas someone like Blagojevich will be tarred and feathered for his reprehensible display of how politics works, (as he did what he did in an above the board manner), most deals are under the table behind the revolving doors of government and industry.

[saracat]

3. Likely you are correct but if we have to lose them, why the hell can't we at least go out with guns

blazing and a real PO? Why are we destroying ourselves and refusing to put forward even a public Option, which most folks support?
And guess what? Those negotions won't include the "little fish" that are swallowed up in November, they will only include leadership.And no matter what, I can't bring myself to feel really sorry for them as neither my husband or myself has had a job for years and we are destroynig all our savings.Most of them will "retire " with a livable income.

[truedelphi]

8. + 1.

[WCGreen]

9. I'm not taking a justifying position for certain dem's rather I am pointing

out that not everyone is motivated by ideology.

Look, in the fifteen years I was actually making a significant part of my living in non-elected politics, I saw a lot of people get into elected politics as an opportunity to make a living. They were approached and coaxed into running because they had a good name or were connected to a political family or organization.

These are people who never considered elected office until they were "groomed" and so a lot of them come into the fold, so to speak, as void of ideology.

These are the folks I am talking about.

[saracat]

12. I have worked in politics as well and in fact ,have been responsible for some of the "aiding

and grooming". You are correct that many of these people aren't motivated by just ideology. Most of the folks you mention aren't going to be taken care of in these negotiations and I still say, most will retire will a better income than most Americans have. I am not crying in my beer over them, and I have several personal friends who are likely to "go down". It is such a waste. We should be "getting" something for this, that is all I am saying.

[WCGreen]

13. believe me i am not crying in my beer over these people...

And I don't know how you feel I am defending these folks.

I am merely, as you so eloquently point out, stating a fact of political reality.

[saracat]

15. I didn't think you were. Sorry if I gave that impression. I am just so pissed

that people seem so quick to give away the store and then try to shield themselves from the consequences. But that is our New Dem political reality.

[freddie mertz]

5. May of them probably deserve to lose.

Spineless, incompetent, morons.

[ShortnFiery]

11. +1

:thumbsup:

[IndianaGreen]

7. I see Napoleon telling Squealer how to sell the idea to the other animals

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

[WCGreen]

10. More on the lines of you have a good political name and so you have

a foot up over the other guy...

Here in Cuyahoga County there are literally dozens of elected officials who owe their livelihood to the simple fact they were born into the right family or have a great political name.

This is, for lack of a better word or a political term, the bench of the party.

The party at the state and local level is there to win first and govern second.

It's rare that political organization on the democratic side of the aisle will be anything but electorally motivated.

[wackywaggin]

14. Sad, but probably true!!

Weren't they elected to help their constituents and for the sacrifice of themselves?

[WCGreen]

16. In an ideal world, yes...