The fatally compromised Progressive Caucus.

And not one other thing.

The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929

Maybe ending the Iraq war, DADT and some other stuff too.

It may be called "Obamacare" by its detractors now but 10 years from now no one, and I mean no one, will remember where it originated,

Jesus.

...that access to health care in the USA would be firmly controlled by "Private" For Profit sources, and the movement toward a national Government Administered Program was derailed for at least another generation?

Yes. There are some who will celebrate that.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least not one that had a snowball's chance of succeeding.

And for those who understand it, it already is.

progress:

New Mexico’s Republican Governor Accepts Medicaid Expansion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022162865

It's something you don't seem to understand.

This bill feeds off of the majority to increase the wealth of the corporate elites.

This bill is worse than the "bailout" of the corrupt banks because it sets in law many possible legalistic maneuvers and loopholes - all at taxpayer expense - under the guise of "reform". It institutionalizes deceit and corporate profits and really does not ensure anything else.

The Dems blew it big time by selling out their constituents to Big Pharma and Insurance long ago, and asking for so little in exchange. THIS was the time to act. Later it will be harder.

Insurance Companies rejoice because THEY got the Lion's Share of their ultimate Wish List; it is THEY who believe this is the "first step" to ending any chance EVER for a Public Plan. They're likely closer to the truth because they've been given a good hand, and with the new economic power HANDED to them by Congress, they will further dominate any future debates.

Obamacare was created at the behest of the Insurance and Hospital Corporations with the intent of increasing already obscene profits, instead of actually providing healthcare. Actual competent medical care would threaten the Corporate bottom line, with medicine and drugs for proper treatment cutting into Corporate profits. Under Corporate law, this threat to the bottom line will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

And after all that, after all the money flowing into for-profit insurance, we'll still have MILLIONS of people who cannot get health care but will still have to pay for insurance that doesn't cover anything. It was cooked up by the Heritage Foundation to counter single payer and adopted by this "Democratic" administration who took the ball and gleefully ran with it.

the once prevalent, but soon to be niche, private for-profit insurance industry, as ObamaCare ... a decade from now ... will likely be seen as the seminal step that led to single-payer.

Those of us that understand how progress really works, already recognize this.

remembered as the first Democratic president to make damaging cuts Social Security and Medicare.

A Democratic President enacted the COLA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022045787

Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022096027

I don't think he'll do anything like the above. I know the chained CPI was mentioned, but I doubt it will resurface. It just doesn't have support in Congress. It would never pass the current Senate.

Lieberman, Nelson and Conrad are gone.

I think it would seriously damage the party's credibility if you're not.

Your opinion will be rejected by virtually every other sentient being, including his critics.

since FDR--and most popular ever since WWII--is a mere racial token is racist.

I said it is what he will be remembered for, and by the way, what makes you think that I am not a black man myself?

the one reducing his accomplishments to the color of his skin in an attempt to diminish them.

Your low post count and generally offensive behavior indicate you are not a black person, but rather a garden variety troll.

...so...yeah, that overshadows everything.

Come on man, listen to both sides of the issues

I live in Michigan and I spoke with alot of blacks and whites who voted for him only because of his skin color. I would mention his policies and no one cared. Go figure.

is an accurate and scientific reflection of voting patterns.

jaysus. you little wannabes have got to try harder, honeypie.

I happen to be a Clinton democrat so if anyone is a wanna be its you. Just because I spoke with people who said something that you object to, doesn't mean that you have to be rude. Did it even occur to your teenie weenie brain that I might have been trying to inform people to the good policies that Obama was bringing to the table? If you can't say nothing nice, yada yada yada

I know a lot of white and Black folks and NONE of them (claim to have) voted for President Obama because of the color of his skin. I have, however, heard plenty of rightwing folks claim that they have spoken with alot of blacks and whites who voted for him only because of his skin color. Go figure.

But you know its like this, different kinds of people living in different parts of the country. I live really close to a city in Michigan that has a pretty large African American population. So, I heard a lot of opinions before the 2008 election. Actually, my dad thought it was historical and I agreed, with Obama being the first black president. The thing that bugs me about your statement is that, I have friends who didn't vote for the President both times because he is black, but yet no one is allowed to vote FOR him also because he is black. Quite a few people I talked to liked being part of the history for electing the first black president.

as a Black man "liked being a part of the history for electing the first Black president", but that was not why I voted for him. I voted for him because I favored his policies and temperment over those of McCain (and I damned sure didn't want $i$ter $arah, the bible-spice, one heart beat away from the presidency).

But don't even try to equate that with those NOT voting for President Obama because he identifies Black.

and you'd have voted for Herman Cain just because of the color of his skin. Bloody ridiculous and total BS. The ones who voted based on skin color were those who voted AGAINST him.

Black folks didn't vote in large numbers for Jackson or the Reverend Al or Cain. You're right ... those that voted based on skin color were the one's voting against Candidate, now resident Obama. And they got to do it twice.

the commenter was speaking to the the publics, near total disregard of this president's accomplishments.

Obama supports marriage equality. It's not ALL about progressive economics.

is how DU has gone to shit.

In one tidy post.

He also voted for the deal.

What's the point of attacking the Progressive Caucus for voting to pass a deal that extended aid to the poor, unemployment benefits and other aid?

Yeah, it's got warts and could have maybe been negotiated better, and yeah, there's still room for the underclasses to be betrayed in the dealings over the cap, but I'm not jumping into the opposition on this one. I think they did what they had to do. Let's see what happens next.

Treaty bill in the Senate here?

Or the Peace Department Dennis Kucinich?

See? Scratch a purist and find a 3rd-Wayer every time, so what we're really fighting about here is HOW 2 + 1 = 3, whether OP likes the current flavor of triangulating or not.

You vote against the President, you look like you are a teabagger.

It does no good to be a heroic pebble and be crushed while trying to stop momentum of the boulder, but it does pay to hitch a ride and work to direct the outcome.

Lieberman and Demint are gone. We've out lasted them both. That is an example of the momentum.

... are they supposed to vote against the ACA because it's not perfect? Crap.

...just the excerpt or after reading the whole piece.

PB

"What we have witnessed so far is surrender in stages – a chronic confluence of conformity and undue party loyalty, with brave talk from caucus members habitually followed by contrary votes on the floor of the House of Representatives. "


The author would apparently prefer that the ACA and other measure fail simply because they're imperfect. The Progressive Caucus is the best we have, and without them what does get passed would be worse for the People.

the difference between purity and progress ... governing and writing/commenting on a blog somewhere.

Nancy Pelosi's version of the health insurance bill did include some form of the Public Option.

It's just that our right-wing Democrats in the Senate weren't going to tolerate it.

If they picked a fight nothing would get done. Nothing. Not with the damn Congress we have now.

And as a Progressive I think when the business of this country is actually progressing in the right direction we need to be satisfied and work with the President who is making that progress to make sure it continues. Holding everything up because it's not Progressive enough is to be just like the GOP.

You argue your point, then settle into what can be done without throwing sand in the gears.

They've become pathetic in their willingness to bow to the centrists and conservatives in the party.

actually govern?

We all think that the ACA could have been better than it is, but when push came to shove Progressive Caucus members had to decide whether allow the 'perfect' to be the enemy of the 'good'.

PC members apparently knew that joining the GOP's effort to kill the ACA (for different reasons than those of the conservatives) because it is not 'perfect' would not have led to a more 'perfect' version of health care reform but to another in a long line of defeats for progressive efforts to improve the system.

It's almost if those critical of the Progressive Caucus expect the political world to operate differently from their real life world, where they're hungry and WANT a steak; but all that is available is a NY Strip, not the Filet mignon that they had their heart set on. I don't anyone of them would go hungry, doing without the steak, until that Filet is available.

I can't state it any more plainly than that.

There are (IMO) three things which are the "backbone" of any political party:
- Party planks (i.e. a codified statement of ideology)
- Party endorsement of candidates who support the party's planks (i.e. proper vetting)
- Ideological champions (members of the party who champion some or all of those planks during their political career)

What happens when the President/Congresspersons chooses to ignore party planks?

What happens when Congressional candidates are endorsed who only pay the thinnest lip service to the core ideology?

What happens when the ideological champions dwindle and the few that remain are intentionally marginalized by ideologically hostile elements within the party?

What happens? This. This mess. This toxic mess inside the Democratic party. This toxic mess which doesn't represent the will of those who voted for the President.

Private monied interests, corporate interests are behind this corruption, as they always are. But that is an element which always exists. The quality of the politicians and their desire to adhere to party ideology is what has diminished.

Except for people like Peter DeFazio, my representative. One of the six founding members of the Progressive Caucus, he voted against HR 8 in the House just a few days ago. But there are fewer and fewer who are willing to stand up and stick with The People, especially when the President openly disregards the value of things long-held sanctified by the party.

PB

not a perfect example. He voted against the stimulus and the People's Budget (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll274.xml), which was a progressive package.

DeFazio is a deficit hawk.

1. One who supports the President of any political party over the political party itself, other members of the party (e.g. congressmen), constituents, or even party ideology.

See Also:


PB

Here's the thing: The President hasn't even started his second term, but his detractors are busy trying to define his legacy with made up bullshit.

With little success, they're now turning on people who are fighting the good fight.

From the OP:

"The endgame ends with the vast majority of the caucus members doing what Obama wants."

That's as pathetic an ODS statement as can be.

and courageous members of Congress we have.

But hope is on the way. Thankfully millions of other Progressives agree basically with this OP and are no longer willing to just 'go along' and support the party's choices on policies and/or on candidates.

A huge coalition was formed and has been meeting finally, to decide how to turn the policies that got us this basically useless Congress, around and headed in a 'left' direction, being that this is what a majority of the people want.

They have met in private and will no longer be donating their money as we all have in the past, to the Party, but will be using the huge power that has been wasted by just accepting the 'lesser evil' iow, 'you want Palin/Romney' etc and voting AGAINST something rather than for it.

We went along right up to this last election. However the planning for a powerful, huge coalition of Progressive/Liberal Orgs combined with the Unions, who together represent millions of disgusted voters sick to death of the 'you have nowhere else to go' mentality, formed BEFORE this last election. It is the first such display of unity among Progressives no longer willing to play the old DC game as we have over the past decade.

It is exciting and is already attracting money, lots of it and voters who also will now have somewhere to put their money where it really matters.

Enough of the excuses we keep hearing about why Democrats do not act like Democrats anymore. A new beginning has taken place to put an end to these excuses. Because if this is the best they can do, it is obviously necessary for us to take over and we are, to bring this party back to its roots and to remove every Third Way/DLC infiltrator possible and send them back to the party they belong to. We have needed this for so long, but better late than never.

but to me it seems too late at this point. There are a lot of things that will go into Obama's political calculations on the sequester and other battles, the feelings of the Progressive Caucus will not among them. That's perfectly rational for Obama, because their feelings on the issue will not matter when it comes down to it. When it comes down to it, the CPC will have Obama's back regardless whether they agree with him.

On the other hand, when it comes to immigration reform, Obama will be paying attention to activists on that issue. Because about two years ago, they made it clear to him that their support for him was NOT unconditional, and then in 2012 they voted for him big time. One example of the attention that he's paying to them is that he is very soon going to be pushing for a bill.

by voting against anything that doesn't conform to their ideology.

Amazing how purity is inversely proportional to a person's relevance.

accept whatever leadership sends, making no effort to influence the bills?

How is that representation?

I see no ability to say no and no willingness to demand with consequences.

It seems to have more women, minorities, and older white guys than the average.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/

They presumably have the same overwhelming interest in getting re-elected as their peers.

I wish the Progressive Caucus was more muscular. However, there is a way for states, if they choose, to create a public option in the insurance exchanges. The fiscal cliff rigmarole did not cut SS, Medicare, or Medicaid. So perhaps PO makes a show of his bipartisianship while negotiating with progressives behind the scene? I'll take Raul Grijalva as speaker as soon as we elect the reps. who will put him there.

Time to go after the progressive caucus now...

Meanwhile, in the real world, where the rest of us deal with the reality of an ideologically divided government and an ideologically divided country with a desire to actually achieve the realistically achievable...

article.

Time sanitizes everything and make it look romantic.

but that they seem so silent.

They don't even speak in opposition. They do not even offer alternatives - to the public.

To a degree, they seem to be caught in the same trap as the progressive voters. If they do not vote for the lesser of two evils, then the greater of two evils wins.