The only way to move Obama left and to get progressive legislation is to make Congress liberal

[boxman15]

That's the only way. I am so sick of these pipe dreams of Grayson or Sanders or someone like that primarying Obama and getting into the White House in 2012. I am so sick of these lies of Obama being a stealth Republican. I am so sick of the left, or at least some on the left, ignoring reality. Let's be honest.

You want liberal legislation? You want to protect the middle class? You want to move America forward? Fill Congress with liberals. Not Conservadems. Certainly not Teabaggers. What we need is a solidly liberal Congress.

From 2009-2010, we had fairly center-left legislation passed, with notable pieces of legislation like the Affordable Care Act and financial reform, but all these bills were noticeably and disappointingly watered down. Want to know why? There were no votes for more progressive pieces of legislation like a public option. The "filibuster-proof" majority was an illusion. Congress, especially the Senate, was filled with Blue Dogs and people like Lieberman.

How did we react? Instead of getting out to the polls in November 2010, we let Congress move even farther to the right. Congress is now filled with Teapublicans. Guess what that means? Moderate at best legislation, if we're even lucky enough to get anything passed. You have to meet in the middle with the right, otherwise there will be no legislation. That's what a divided Washington does. It forces compromise. And it sucks. But that's how it works.

You want to change that? Vote in liberals to Congress. That's the only way. Everything else is a pipe dream or will result in complete disaster. Bernie Sanders will not be president in 2013. Come back to reality. If we move Congress to the left, President Obama will move with it. It's that simple. We can possibly get things like a strong public option, more stimulus, protection for Social Security, Medicare, etc., if we fill Congress with liberals. And Obama will sign these pieces of legislation.

One of the things the left has always had over the right is pragmatism and being realistic. We've lost that recently and it's discouraging, disappointing, and concerning. We need to come back to reality. And soon.

If we divide ourselves in 2012, we will make a Teapublican White House, a far-right Congress, a 7-2 Republican Supreme Court a reality. We will make the dismantling of the New Deal and Great Society complete. Primarying Obama or voting third party will do the opposite of what so many of you think.

If we vote halfheartedly for the president, and most importantly, don't fight for liberals in Congress, we will continue to see what we have seen for the past couple years: moderate legislation, meeting in the middle, etc.

But, if we can get liberals into Congress, and thus move Washington as a whole to the left, we can get what we want. We can get true change.

Or we can whine. Whatever's easier.

[Empowerer]

1. Hear! Hear! n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Remember how Bush couldn't get anything through without

a supermajority?

Me neither.

Obama needs discipline.

[Empowerer]

4. Bush was able to get things through not because he had "discipline" but because moderate/conservativ

Democrats went along with him.

You and others here are demanding that President Obama somehow get legislation through a Congress in which he does not always have a working majority.

This isn't about a lack of "discipline" on the President's part but Democrats in Congress who don't pull their weight and then try to blame the President for not making them do the right thing - and meanwhile, their own constituents are so busy whining about the President, they can't seem to find the time, the energy, the commitment and, yes, the discipline, to do the hard work that it takes to make hold their own representatives accountable.

[boxman15]

6. Well, he'll need less of it if he gets a solidly blue Congress.

I disagree that he has no discipline. But, he won't have to give away things we want if Congress becomes solidly liberal.

Bush was able to get things through with support from Democrats in large part thanks to conservative Democrats.

[JoePhilly]

30. The Blue Dogs voted with Bush everytime.

Lieberman, Nelson, and the other 4 or so ... every time.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Thank you!

I love this:


<If we divide ourselves in 2012, we will make a Teapublican White House, a far-right Congress, a 7-2 Republican Supreme Court a reality. We will make the dismantling of the New Deal and Great Society complete. Primarying Obama or voting third party will do the opposite of what so many of you think.

If we vote halfheartedly for the president, and most importantly, don't fight for liberals in Congress, we will continue to see what we have seen for the past couple years: moderate legislation, meeting in the middle, etc.

But, if we can get liberals into Congress, and thus move Washington as a whole to the left, we can get what we want. We can get true change.>

[BlueCaliDem]

5. An enthusiastic HEAR! HEAR!! K&R This is the whole truth, and nothing but

the in-your-face TRUTH!

Let's not forget how Congress dealt President Obama his very first blow when, in July 2009, they passed a bill refusing to allow Gitmo prisoners into the States for trial, and not only that, refused funding toward that end, by a whopping 90-6 vote in the Senate!

That's when President Obama knew what kind of Congress he was saddled up with.

[OHdem10]

7. You are correct. Why are the Republicans working like heck

to take over the Senate next year. They know
that even if they do not get the Presidency and
Obama wins a second term, they run things.

If the Republicans win the Senate and keep the
House---Republican Legislation will be sent to
Obama. I may be wrong, but I cannot imagine
the Democrats finding all these ways to fillibuster.
Republicans will write the legislation.

The Republican Group Crossroads did a big buy
(millions) TV SPOTS against some Democratic Senators.
this week.

You are right. Who is in Congress matters most.

[boxman15]

8. One thing I will give Republicans and the Tea Party a lot of credit for

is the ability to come together and get what they want. In 2008, I finally thought we caught up to them. But, once he was elected, we thought it would be better to sit back and watch instead of making sure what we want gets passed by pushing for a more liberal Congress. It's ridiculous.

[TheKentuckian]

11. It takes a super majority for Obama to stop pretending the failed, fuckwit TeaPubliKlans

have anything resembling sane to say?

It takes some ultra-majority not to appoint some of the chief architects and overseers of our present state to run the economy?

That is bullshit, the truth is beneficial policy is not on the agenda unless it is a little bone in exchange for some massive and perverse wealth transfer.

The legitimizing the failed right wing ideology cannot help but to be self defeating.

This is a path to extinction.

[boxman15]

12. You're right. They have nothing legitimate to say.

But, they have the House. They have nearly half of the Senate. They have a gigantic say in what gets passed in Congress.

Want to know who legitimized the Tea Party? The people who voted in 2010. Or, more importantly, those who didn't. It doesn't matter how crazy the Tea Party is. They have a giant say in the government now.

Let's change that.

[TheKentuckian]

34. Obama did with his bipartisan nonsense well before November, 2010 and you know it.

Even before being swore in he had already legitimized the fundamentals of their absurd economics by his appointment of many of the "centrist" designers of our present pass rather than seeking those who predicted and explained the meltdown.

He continues the game now despite knowing he has time and time again adopted their policies only for them to stake out a new extremist position that he also legitimizes even if he chastises them for extreme rough edges or intransigence.

The other side winning an election doesn't mean you must pretend they are correct or even arguably valid. If they are wrong, they must be vehemently opposed and let the chips fall where they may.

[swilton]

38. Obama has had a majority until 2010

Not only that, he had a mandate from the 2008 election....He didn't use the bully pulpit and instead collaborated with the Leo Strauss wing of the political spectrum.

An ultra-majority is not going to fix what has essentially been the election of a Manchurian Candidate.

The progressives need to avoid reacting to distractions such as Bachman, Palin and Glen Beck and focus both on a primary challenge to Obama and electing progressive voices for the House and Senate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. The one who sat back and watched was Obama.

18 fucking months before he chimed in on HCR and when he did, single payer was off the table and the public option was out the fucking window.

We did not get what we wanted because Obama did not WANT what we wanted. It's as simple as that.

[patrice]

9. Correct!! We ARE the ones we've been wainting for. nt

[Mojambo]

10. And when there are progressive challengers to establishment Democrats in Congress

The President consistently stands against them and works to see the reelection of the conservative incumbents.

[boxman15]

14. A couple things:

1. The truth is much more complex than "Obama hates progressive challengers because he has opted to support the moderate a couple times." If that liberal Dem had no chance at election, I'd rather have a moderate Democrat over a Tea Partier any day.

2. Regardless of that, Obama doesn't decide who wins elections. The people do. Get out there, support liberals, get their names out there, and vote for them. That's the way to move Washington to the left.

[Mojambo]

20. I didn't say he hates them

But I do think there is a pretty clear pattern to who Obama has chosen to work for and against. There's no rule that says the President has to offer support in a primary. The fact that he has, and consistently supported more centrist (read corporate) incumbents makes it reasonable to ask the question of whether he doesn't in fact just prefer to work with them.

[polmaven]

29. and if there is a moderate Democrat

running against a liberal Democrat in a traditionally RED state, which voted RED in 2008, you think the people of that state will go all liberal because the Democratic president, who the did not vote for says they should? - Ain't gonna happen.

[bahrbearian]

26. Lieberman, Spector....

[Mojambo]

39. Neither from particularly red states either.

Obama prefers to not have progressives in office, imo.

[gateley]

13. Agree! What we're seeing now is what happens when you

don't vote, just to "let them know how we feel". Shooting ourselves in the foot. Feet.

[msongs]

15. hmm vote liberals into congress good, vote a liberal into the white house bad. mixed message there

[boxman15]

16. Not so much.

I don't care if Bernie Sanders was president right now, he's not getting anything liberal out of Congress. There is no way.

If you vote liberals into Congress, you will move Obama to the left because he will be able to get progressive legislation passed. It's simple.

Voting third party or primarying Obama is an absolutely terrible idea. Not only will nobody from the left be able to defeat Obama, it'll only serve to divide the left and make sure Republicans win, moving Washington to the right. It's pretty obvious.

[MADem]

19. Not at all--a liberal in the WH can't do diddlysquat with a conservative legislature breathing down

his neck.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. CONGRESS, not the President, 'makes' law.

Presidents sign laws--or veto them, and if Congress has its act together, they can override the veto.

The people driving the bus are Congress. The problem is that everyone wants to go in a different direction. If we get a disciplined supermajority of "our" guys/gals in the legislative branch, we can thwart even a ghastly chief executive.

[vaberella]

23. Exactly. It's all about Congress. Anyone who thinks othewise is lost. n/t

[joshcryer]

25. WTF a liberal can't do shit in the White House. We don't live in a dictatorship.

[polichick]

42. Good catch!

[MADem]

17. The most cogent subject line of the day. Three cheers for common sense! nt

[LoZoccolo]

21. Agreed, but if you want to make Congress liberal you need to make voters more liberal

and the first step is

DON'T SPEND SO MUCH TIME ON THE INTERNET.

[vaberella]

22. Agreed to the last part. But it's not about making voters more liberal.

It's about explaining the issues clearly and concisely.

[joshcryer]

27. Agreed, completely. "Liberalism" is not as controversial as the right wingers have made it be.

[bahrbearian]

24. Or make him unemployed and looking for food stamps.

That might make him more liberal.

[Enrique]

28. Obama campaigns against liberals for Congress

remember Blanche Lincoln?

[JoePhilly]

31. As if Obama put her in Congress in the first place. He didn't.

She was already there.

He supported all incumbent Dems, not just the ones you don't like.

[Enrique]

32. OP says to put liberals in Congress to help Obama

seems relevant to point out that people tried to do that, and Obama opposed the effort.

[BklnDem75]

35. It's not about Obama, he doesn't have a vote

If a sitting President openly supports a challenger of an incumbent, that will be one less vote for the rest of that person's term. Why is this so hard to understand?

[JoePhilly]

41. The blue dogs get in with Republican votes.

That's the reality.

And the OP is still correct.

The goal of putting more liberals in Congress persists regardless of who the President is.

But I do understand the need to make every thread about how terrible Obama is. DU wouldn't be the same with out it.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. How did 'we' react in 2010? The West Coast elected

My State, Oregon, had the largest midterm turn out since the 80's. No new Republicans sent to DC, not one. Democratic Governors elected, in the case of Jerry Brown in CA, elected in the face of the biggest spending opponent ever in a governor's race. My Rep DeFazio was targeted by out of State funny money and still defeated the Tea Bagger.
The West Coast is liberal, we criticize policy we do not like, and we win election, we turn out in droves, record breaking numbers. And yet, here on DU, folks from States that elected Tea Baggers like to tell the West that 'we' did poorly in 2010, when they did poorly. They have the temerity to suggest that the winners need to listen to their advice and be 'realistic'. Well, dear OP, if realistic and pragmatic result in what you got in 2010, I'll stick with what 'we' do out west, which involves winning elections.
It just seems to me that the part of the nation that lost our majority in Congress for us have a desire to keep claiming it was everyone who aided and abetted that. They say 'across the country, Republicans won' but that is not true, they lost on the whole West Coast. They say 'people stayed home' when we had giant turn out.
Why not look to the winning regions and States and districts and try to pattern in that direction, rather than demand that everyone get on the same train that lost so many seats last time.
You say 'if we can get liberals into Congress' when you mean ' if we can get liberals into Congress like some states do now'.
My Rep is Peter DeFazio. My Senators, Wyden and Merkely. I have no more seats in Congress to vote for, they all liberals. What do you suggest that we, in such places, do to aid those of you who you claim need to be 'realistic'? Clearly, help is in order, that realism is ugly to behold in the Congress, that pragmatic way of yours is allowing some shit to go down that would not be going down at all- if all the States voted like my State and region.
So keep telling the victors to be like you. Or, look to the victors and ask how it was done. I am just sick of the fact that so many seem to demand that what they did, we all did.
Read up, learn up. Your concept that being 'pragmatic' leads to victory is not evident here, where we know what victory looks like. Victory for Democrats. I mean, in 2010, did your State fill seats with Republicans? If so, you did it all wrong. If you had low turn out, well, we set records. So, you see, 'we' did not stay home. You did. And yet, you still think you have da wisdom.
Send me a winner to talk to.

[Mojambo]

44. Fuck YES. n/t

[_ed_]

36. Democrats owned the Senate, House, and Presidency from 2008-2010

So why didn't they accomplish all kinds of awesome liberal stuff?

Also, can you remind me how Bush was able to shove his regressive bullshit down our throats for 8 years without fully owning the government?

[totodeinhere]

37. You talk about if "we" do this or if "we" do that, and presumably the "we" you talk about is

liberals or progressives. But yet most elections are won or lost based upon the independent vote. We progressives can do whatever we want but if we don't get a sizable chunk of independents to come with us we will fail.

[lunatica]

40. Welcome to DU

I've been saying this all weekend. Congress has the power and we're witnessing that right now. Let's change it so the Democrats are in the majority and let's elect liberals and progressives.

Obama is not King or Dictator to just pass decrees or throw his opponents in prison.

[zalinda]

43. The main problem with that is that

the DNC supports (ie, gives campaign money to) the candidates THEY want to support. So, if there is a liberal and a moderate, even in a BLUE state, the DNC will support the moderate. All we have to do is look at the Lieberman (who was an indie, at the time, if I'm not mistaken) and Ned Lamont, to see the DNC in action. Any one they don't like, they don't support, like Russ Feingold or Alan Grayson, and we know how those elections turned out.

zalinda

[21st Century FDR]

45. And every time a Liberal runs for either house of Congress

The DLC and their client agencies the DSCC & DCCC are there to shoot them down and make sure a corporate friendly Republican posing as a "Democrat" wins the primary.

And then, when a few manage to actually GET elected despite this, the so-called "party establishment" does absolutely NOTHING to fight off the attacks of Koch/Rove funded bullshit, or Brietbart slander campaigns.