Will Obama directly pressure Blue Dogs on tax-cuts for the wealthy?

[DrSteveB]

When Dennis Kucinich was against the centrist health-care reform bill (described by the President himself as centrist), Obama 1) took Dennis Kucinich on a ride in Air Force one and 2) Visited Ohio in an attempt to influence DK. Since that strategy worked, I believe it should be applied to Ben Nelson et. al. as well. Nelson is saying he does not support letting these tax cuts for the rich expire.

Without Nelson's vote the measure becomes hard to pass. http://washingtonindependent.com/97053/democrats-against-tax-increases

[sendero]

1. Well he better..

... his presidency hangs in the balance.

[peace frog]

2. I can't see Obama twisting arms like LBJ would have done

but he may enlist help, who knows. That he has already pledged not to veto says a lot about his disinclination to fight.

[madrchsod]

9. he does`t have a mike mansfield and....

he does`t know where all the bodies are hidden. i know one thing...the death of teddy was a major blow to his presidency.

[vi5]

3. If by "pressure" you mean

find out everything they want and twist Harry Reid's arm to make sure he gives it to them (not that Harry requires much arm twisting to capitulate to conservatives, but still), then yes he will in fact "pressure" the Blue Dogs.

[zipplewrath]

5. Ha!

Yeah, that was my first thought. "pressure"? Why do you have to pressure someone when they already do pretty much what you want them to do. The only pressure he ever has to apply is to the left, and occasionally some moderate GOP folks to part ways with their leadership.

[Selatius]

4. It's game theory. It doesn't work that way.

The guy who wants to kill the bill, however good it may be by degrees, will basically say during the bill negotiations:

"I'll split a dollar with you. I'll go first. I get 99 cents."

The problem here is because he essentially acts as a gatekeeper to what passes or doesn't, the person who is negotiating in good faith is automatically at a disadvantage because he actually wants to pass something, whereas the Republican strategy has simply been to try to destroy anything that comes from the Democratic leadership in Congress. It's far easier to destroy something than to create something. The dynamic is the same in the halls of Congress, too.

Witness how the Progressive Caucus in the House folded under pressure and supported the center-right health care reform bill, which is basically Romney-Care 2.0. Rather than watch any meaningful change go down in flames, they accepted what little good was still left in the bill and ultimately voted for the bill despite all the glaring flaws and despite widespread support for a non-existent Public Option.

In light of this, the best advice I could give to Obama is to play a different game. He needs to play story-teller, which is totally outside the confines of Congress itself: Where he goes out there and campaigns on the wedge of either you support the middle class or the wealthy but not both. The longer he can maintain that level of fire, the more and more the game changes. In essence, he is throwing back the splitting-a-dollar scenario at them, except the 99 cents is supposed to represent the middle class, not the wealthy.

[vi5]

6. He's already indicated he won't veto...

I don't believe he's outright said it, but it has been more or less confirmed (as always someone please point out why I'm wrong if I am in fact wrong).

So knowing that he won't veto it if it includes the tax breaks for the wealthy, why the hell WOULDN'T Nelson do this. He already knows he'll win since once againg Obama has conceded before negotiations even begin.

[Selatius]

7. He may be trying to split the difference as best he can.

His announcement may have simply been some form of cover for more leftist Democrats who favor keeping the cuts for the middle class and yanking them for the rich, but in the end, Nelson and other conservatives still function as the "gatekeeper" unless Obama can make them think blocking the gate is more costly than letting the bill pass through. That'll require a lot of political capital on Obama's part, and he doesn't have as much capital as he once did.

Worst case, he already accepted their framing of the debate. In which case, he accepted 1 cent out of the dollar with the Republicans getting 99 cents. The rich get their tax cut made permanent, but the people who wanted something meaningful to pass, cuts for the middle class, can also say they got something, however small. Unfortunately, the problem of deficits would then be booted down the road for some future Congress to tackle.

This scenario is eerily reminiscent of how the health care bill passed now that I think about it, assuming it is coming to pass.

[vi5]

11. I'd even settle for calling them out......

I'd just really like to hear Obama say explicitly "Senator Nelson did not want to extend unemployment benefits because of his concern for the deficit. So in that interest and to that end I will veto any bill that includes the tax cuts for the wealthiest because it would add too much to the deficit."

Even if it doesn't come to pass that way, why not start from that position and put NELSON on the defensive instead of taking a capitulative stance right from the get-go.

The pre-emptive surrender and utterly horrible negotiating skills (especially given that he KNOWS they won't negotiate) are infuriating.

[madrchsod]

8. i doubt it....obama lost most of his strength when...

he caved in on the public option. why would they vote with him to kill the golden goose?

[LWolf]

10. Er...no. nt

[dmallind]

12. Can you demonstrate the Blue Dogs are for it?

The only name you mention is not and never has been one. The Blue Dogs are a House, not Sneate, coalition with specific members. I would be interested in knowing which real BDs are in favor of increasing deficits, when their stated reason for existence is to push bills that decrease deficits.

[whistler162]

13. Shhh.. must not disturb POUTRAGE fuel with facts.......

[DrSteveB]

14. That's a minor points. and here are some names

If you had told us whether Obama would pressure Nelson, then you would have addressed the major point in this thread. but you did not (perhaps because you do not think Obama will give Nelson a stern talking to).

But blue dogs I can give you names of Blue Dogs in the House who are against the extention:

Harry Mitchelll and bobby Brown from arizona.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/more_house_dems_balking_at_end.html

[dmallind]

15. 2 of 47 BD's? Yes I disagree with those two idiots. NT

[another saigon]

16. huge difference

nelson and obama want the status quo. Dennis is one of the drug addled professional left.

:eyes: