EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Is 'Keeping Score' on Those Who Vote Against Him
A story in the Hill this morning lets us know that Obama is very much aware of Pete DeFazio's votes against his legislation:
Obama himself has taken notice. "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother," Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.
That's pretty powerful. The President of the United States calling you out for disloyalty in front of your peers.
Of course, DeFazio is the one floating this story, entiitled "Pelosi, Rahm do not scare Rep. DeFazio." DeFazio is in a potentially tough (D+2) district in 2010, given the current lack of Democratic enthusiasm for showing up at the polls (which Rahm Emanuel thinks will be fixed by a "win" on health care).
There are three things interesting about the story. One, Obama himself is once again arm-twisting someone NOT named Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu or Lincoln. Two, DeFazio is already running against his own party in a tough district. And three, he's not "running to the right" but rather using a populist message to do it:
His populism has played well back home. DeFazio won his 2008 election with 82 percent of the vote, even though his district isn't overwhelmingly Democratic. Obama won it by 11 percentage points, but President George W. Bush won nearly as many votes as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.
Eric Massa made a very shrewd move on the first health care vote, when he pleased both liberal and conservative voters in an R+2 district by voting "nay" because he said the health care bill wasn't strong enough.
I wonder how many others will start to see that a party "w" for a bill that mandates paying 8% of your income to private corporations and using the IRS as a collection agency is political suicide for them, and come to the same conclusion as Massa before we're through.
DeFazio told Mike Stark he would vote against any bill that does not have a strong public plan in July, and signed a letter saying would do so. So we'll probably soon see whether DeFazio's actions match up with the populist rhetoric.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
104 Comments so far
Show AllI have no doubt Obama will be the death of the Democratic Party.
It doesn't matter if Obama kills the Democrats (maybe that was his assignment?) -- now that he has a track record he can run as a Republican.
He always was a republican. He just runs as a democrat.
The same can be said of most Democrats in Washington these days. I'm still finding it ironic that a former Reaganite like James Webb is more democratic whereas Mark Warner is a proud Republican in donkey's clothing. If this party had more Webbs and Kucinichs and less Obamas and Warners, I wouldn't feel like leaving the party.
This article proves that not only has Obama NOT CHANGED ANYTHING, Obama has adopted Dubya's unitary executive strategy including the same "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY" tactic that defined Dubya. While Obama's threatening not to fund campaigns of freshmen congressmen unless they voted for war funding attracted the most media attention, that is but one of many similar examples.
Obama broke more campaign promises in his first 9 months in office than any of his 43 predecessors broke in their first year in office.
We do not have political 'parties' in the US. We have 'coalitions' (defined as a temporary alliance between various factions).
I've heard it argued that Nixon was the last 'Democratic' president as he represented an end to the New Deal/FDR coalition, FDR ended the Wilsonian coalition, which ended the post-Civil War Re-constructionist coalition, and so forth.
Reagan introduced us to the New World Order, which is our present ruling coalition. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and now Obama are just continuing it.
Well done Old Peculiar
spread the light
Obama will probably lose the election in 2012, but "death of the Democratic Party"? Those guys are too smart for that to happen.
If this is true, then maybe we need a radical solution to our problem. Maybe we progressives need to all become Republicans and see if we can nominate a "New Republican" in 2012 who will be a progressive.
Well that's a different idea.
If Jane Hamsher has anything to say about it -- and she successfully helped wrest the Dem nomination for Ned Lamont from Traitor Joe Lieberman -- then the Dems will be a progressive party by 2012. Sure, Lieberman won in CT, thanks to behind-the-curtain GOP support and some confused Dems who voted for him by name recognition, but getting the Dem nomination for Lamont was ridiculed as impossible by the Beltway crowd just months before Lieberman lost it. And don't dismiss Jane's influence and commitment -- there will be many nervous Dem incumbents around the country in 2010 and 2012 facing challenges from true progressives, despite what inside-the-beltway DLC Dem Rahm Emnauel thinks. Times have changed, and Rahm with his cynical "Where else are the liberals gonna go?" meme hasn't kept up. The Dem base is going to be demanding smart real progressives who stand for something, unlike the wavering Reids who cave at the first sign of trouble from the GOP or Blue Dog Dems.
BTW, if you didn't see Jane's smackdown of corporate DLC Dem and phony liberal Lanny Davis on 'The Ed Show' last Thursday, here's the YouTube video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAMsNg_x9Uk
How about just biting the bullet and voting 3rd party? What's the worst that can happen? Republicans get in? That will probably happen anyway. Rather than stay at home go out and vote 3rd party. Even if the candidate doesn't win, he or she will be put on electoral map. People will say: "Hey, they did it, so can I!"
@ chessgames56 December 19th, 2009 10:35 am: I voted for Nader in 2000, and have also voted for Greens and other third party candidates, statewide and locally. In 2003, I was part of a group that tried to unite several third parties into a cohesive force that could present a true challenge to the GOP and Dems. Herding cats would be a relaxing vacation next to that experience.
In this country, it's much easier and cheaper to take over the Democratic Party from the inside, as Jane Hamsher and other progressives are doing, than to mount a serious third party challenge. To begin with, all the ballot access laws, written by the two major parties, are in favor of the GOP and Dems and, unfortunately, if you can't afford a national TV and print advertising campaign, you are wasting your time -- you'll never rack up the poll numbers to get federal matching funds, ballot access in some states, or qualify to appear in debates. Aside from that, as I posted elsewhere in this thread, should your third party become a real national threat to either of the two majors, they will come in and buy your convention and nominate their own candidate to destroy your party, just as the GOP sent in Pat Buchanan to eviscerate the Reform Party in 2000.
The task of getting a national third party candidate elected isn't just worse than corraling cats, it's more like smashing your own skull in with a brick. Unless the laws change, third parties don't have a chance of exerting national influence, and the laws are made by Democrats and Republicans.
remember the 1960's tv show 'branded"? about the coward of bitter creek? obama is the coward of potomac creek!
How very Bush.
what a schmuck.
So Barack Obama is "keeping score," eh? What a childish little man he's revealed himself to be.
The President of the United States with a third grader's mentality. All too familiar...
No, not childish.....just revealing himself as a politician. All the blowhards in Washington who think of themselves as untouchable at the ballot box (and they are legion)should be thrown out on their ear and we should start all over. He is not unique in threatening others to get them to do what he politically wants. If you think he is, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Arizona. He has just revealed himself to be more of a politician than we thought. We thought we were getting a "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" type, but we were just getting someone who knows what to say to get ahead in politics. I'm not saying he doesn't have principles, but he is more of a pragmatist than anything else. Let's face it, the number of principled politicians in this country is slim and none. We just have to get back to being a representative democracy and not continue to be One Big Corporation. That will require quite an effort from the American people, and I'm not sure there are enough of us who are willing to get off our duffs in front of the Wii and sacrifice that much these days.
You've taken the bait put out by corporate media that Obama is a "pragmatist." That's a tried and true American philosophical label that DOES NOT apply to Obama. He's a rank opportunist and not much more. He knows where the real power is and is clever enough to know when to suck up to it. That's not pragmatism, it's cynicism. Nearly every last politician in Washington, and most of them at the state level, are exactly the same. That's why we emphatically don't have a "representative democracy", unless you believe the mythology. A representative democracy would be a kind of extraordinary magical wondrousness compared to what we actually have, which is neo-fascism American style.
yes, a smiling puppet-immoral capitalist
false threats-scripted ruse
Yeah, turned out to be a real smart-assed little shit, didn't he?
He seemed to be smirking at Steve Kroft all the way through that last 60 Minutes interview.
And this little toad gives himself a ...B+?
Heh-heh.
intelligent corporate tool/smiling puppet
“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,”
What nerve! DeFazio for President.
Perhaps we the people should send Mr. Obama a letter saying the same.
Good idea. Let's.
Honestly, I doubt that the score will go up to high.
Senators and other politicians will get serious about providing the kind of healthcare that is found in all the other developed countries, when you get serious about rewarding them for it...voting, contributing, volunteering...
Last election, there were many party candidates that were squarely in support of single-payer, medicare for all policies to put an end to the third world type health disasters you have got there. How many of you "progressives" didn't vote for them, but instead opted for the Democrats?
The Dems "won" yippeeee!...hope you don't get cancer.
I remember DK's speech in 2004 out in Oakland, where he asked the audience to imagine the morning after the election. 'Yippee we won. Okay, *what* did we win? Single-payer? Peace? Jobs? Tax-paid college? Earlier retirement? No? If we didn't win any of the things we want, then who *really* won?'
I thought it an absolutely stunning speech.
Like so many other voters, I have been keeping my own score, on how many times Obama has sold out the American people to the corporate elite. Both parties are disintegrating. 2010 will be an interesting election cycle and 2012 might just be profound.
Briggs Seekins
briggsseekins.wordpress.com
I live in Peter DeFazio's district in Oregon and have voted for him every time. He is brilliant! People out here have been trying to get him to run for governor because he's so good at what he does. He is a principled politician (an oxymoron?) and I don't think even Obama can intimidate him. Although I voted for Obama, I am sorely disappointed in him, but I'm hoping after an initial approach to try to change DeFazio's mind that he will back off when he realizes he can't. If he truly does do something in retaliation, then he's not the man I voted for. Obama is, above all, a pragmatist. I believe he does what is necessary to achieve his goal, but I don't believe he would retaliate against someone who does not share his ideals. If he did, all the Senate Republicans would be quaking in their boots, like they were in the days of Lyndon Johnson. If he does not fulfill his campaign promises, The Obama Revolution will come to a screeching halt in 2012. I and all the progressives who put him in office will vote for someone else (obviously not a Republican), and Obama may be a one-term president because he doesn't have a Karl Rove to steal the election for him.
"Obama is, above all, a pragmatist. I believe he does what is necessary to achieve his goal, but I don't believe he would retaliate against someone who does not share his ideals. If he did, all the Senate Republicans would be quaking in their boots, like they were in the days of Lyndon Johnson. If he does not fulfill his campaign promises, The Obama Revolution will come to a screeching halt in 2012. I and all the progressives who put him in office will vote for someone else (obviously not a Republican), and Obama may be a one-term president because he doesn't have a Karl Rove..."
What is pragmatism? Strong-arming progressives whose views actually represent the majority? The problem with your statement is he is NOT in conflict with the Right--his "practical" compromises are, by now, a sham as cover for his preferrence to appease and serve corporate interests. He has no problem retaliating against the Left--in fact, he exclusively pressures the Progressives, not the Centrists, not the Blue Dogs who act as obstructionist but actually serve Obama's ambitions.
Exactly. Anyone who hasn't figured this out yet has not been observing Obama's actions or is complicit in his con.
dems and repubs; two branches of same tree
No offense, glogrrl, but Obama's NOT the man you voted for.
You're lucky, I guess, if you haven't run across people who are superficially pleasant and personable in normal circumstances, but who prove to be vicious, mean-spirited pricks when demanded by circumstances.
Obama-- or at least Team Obama, spearheaded by the odious Rahm Emanuel-- is like "Eddie Haskell" from "Leave It to Beaver". Superficially polite and sweet-tempered in front of the powerful, but an overbearing, vicious bully to the weak when there are no "grownups" around.
Such bullies always temper their sadistic and vengeful penchant for "retaliation" with a "kiss up, kick down" reflex.
Team Obama has no need to challenge powerful Republicans, since his maladministration obviously has much in common with these nominal "opponents" in the first place. The better part of valor is to kick the dog instead-- not necessarily Bo, but dogs like DeFazio, and the foolish Moderate Progressives trapped in the Veal Pen.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Obama as Eddie Haskell. I can see it. That brightened my afternoon!
Well said.
partners in crime
smiling puppets
actors in a tragic play
Massa and DeFazio: that's two small steps for populism and one big slap right in der Fuhrer's face!
Often if not always, I'm very proud of our (esp. western) Oregon Congresscritters. Go DeFazio.
Hey, BO, you're not the only one keeping score, 'brother'. (The use of an honorific or familiar term is too often actually condescending and hypocritical, as when police say of a suspect, 'This gentleman...') BO is not a brother to any humanistic progressive.
EEEEXXXXAAACCCCTTTTLLLYYY!
Obama should be aware -- the american people are keeping score of HIM!
The American people haven't a clue. All they know is what corporate Republicans tell them. They are ignorant and virulent, and they are killing this democracy. It would almost be worth it for Republicans to get back in power, so that the so-called American patriots would get their just desserts. Obama should have been born in Europe, the people there have the intelligence to appreciate him.
ohhh..what's Obama going to do?
Give him a speech?
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama and his henchmen from Chicago....AND this Congress Americans are "keeping score"
Obama has proved to be no leader at all while Pelosi and Reid have proved to be the worst of all leaders.
Only a fool could still by their stale bread. They are close to being Quislings.
"Don't think we're not keeping score, brother," Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.
Anyone else reminded of Nixon's "Enemies List"?
Is it coming down to the politics of retaliation? Of course that would be Rahm Emanuel's trademark.
Obviously, the interests of the American people are not being considered AT ALL in D.C. these days.
Sometimes I think that our "leaders" are not really human beings, but Venusians of superior intellect disguised as humans, and they really want a hotter planet and more irradiation because that is what they need. Check out which politicians and business people actually drink water, and which don't!
-30-
Rahm = Obama. You don't give Obama a pass by claiming it's Rahm's work. Rahm didn't just beam into the White House. He was hired. Obama = Rahm.
Support the republicans.
Vote democrat.
PS - The democratic party is dead. And it was the democrats that killed it when they took impeachment off the table, took single payer health care off the table (medicare for all), took ending the war/occupation off the table, put helping the economy off the table when they bailed out wall street.
no, they are alive and well,
same as the other branch of the capitalist party
"Obama himself has taken notice. "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother," Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward."
Wise guy eh? Has he taken note of the huge number of voters against him from the VA and NJ elections? Once he's done with that, here's 2010 and 2012 coming his way. He'll have plenty of time to "keep score" once he's out by Jan 2013 unless he's lucky to pull a "Lawton Chiles of 1994" and barely squeak by.
And we are keeping score on Obama.
We sure are. He's making it very clear whose team he's on and its not ours. He's just another BIG CORP. flunky masquerading as a reformer. Change we can believe in? What you mean we dude?
"keeping score" for mr obama should pose few problems: he's batting zero and prospects for a "hit" appear highly improbable.
Hurray for our guy deFazio!!!!!