Congressional Democrats Finally Breaking Free From Obama's Conservative Consensus?

If Democrats were looking for a conservative vision they would vote for Republicans. Last November when there appeared to be almost nothing but "competing" conservative visions being offered at the polls-- Obama's and the Blue Dogs' mainstream conservatism vs the GOP's off-the-rails reactionary brand-- Democrats stayed home in great enough numbers to make John Boehner Speaker, empower ignorant, nihilistic teabaggers (how'd that work out for everybody?) and derail the whole country. Deservedly, the Blue Dog caucus was nearly obliterated, losing over half its members and almost its entire leadership and helping end the careers of a shitload of ConservaDem quasi-Blue Dog allies like Suzanne Kosmas, Ann Kirkpatrick, John Adler Melissa Bean, and Michael McMahon. Tragically, they dragged down a handful of true-blue progressives like Alan Grayson, Carol Shea Porter, Phil Hare, Mary Jo Kilroy and Steve Kagen with them.

Obama's reelection strategy has always been to take the base for granted-- "where else will they go, to Michele Bachmann?" laughed Rahm Emanuel-- and pursue mainstream conservatives. For congressional Democrats to recover from what Obama and the Blue Dogs did to them last November, they're going to have to distinguish themselves-- as much as they can-- from Obama and his corporate policies next November. I haven't been all that optimistic that they would-- at least not in terms of the congressional leadership. Progressive challengers all over the country are politely telling the voters that they're not big on Obama and that they'll support him when he's right and stand up for him when he's wrong. Nick Ruiz (D-FL) has gone even further:

People ask me all the time-- isn’t the reelection of President Obama the most important thing for 2012? I say to you-– it is the least important thing for Democrats in 2012. The President has already proven he will not fight for the middle and lower classes. Therefore, he should be primaried and defeated by a truly democratic advocate for the majority of Americans.

Don't look for anything like that from Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. But Robert Pear reported something worth reading in yesterday's NY Times about a slight revision in course from the congressional leadership.

In an unusual break with the White House, the Democratic leaders of Congress told the Supreme Court on Monday that President Obama was pursuing a misguided interpretation of federal Medicaid law that made it more difficult for low-income people to obtain health care.

The Democratic leaders said Medicaid beneficiaries must be allowed to file suit to enforce their right to care-- and to challenge Medicaid cuts being made by states around the country.

The Obama administration maintains that beneficiaries and health care providers cannot sue state officials to challenge cuts in Medicaid payment rates, even if such cuts compromise access to care for the poor.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the lawmakers said the administration’s position “would undermine the effectiveness of Medicaid.” In addition, they said, it conflicts with more than a century of court precedents that allow people to sue to block state actions that are inconsistent with federal law.

The brief was filed by seven influential Democrats, including Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, an architect of Medicaid; Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader; Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader; and Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee.

Similar arguments were made in a separate brief filed by a dozen former federal health officials, including Donna E. Shalala, the secretary of health and human services under President Bill Clinton; Joseph A. Califano Jr., who was health secretary under President Jimmy Carter; and Bruce C. Vladeck, who was in charge of Medicaid and Medicare in the Clinton administration.

The issue, of immense importance to poor people and states, comes to the Supreme Court in a set of cases consolidated under the name Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, No. 09-958. The court plans to hear oral arguments in October, with a decision expected by the spring. The original plaintiffs in the case, Medicaid beneficiaries and providers, say they were harmed by California’s decision to cut payment rates that were already among the lowest in the country.

Obama, once again, is advocating a Conservative Consenus position, not a position that favors working families. Let the Republicans back him. It's good Democrats aren't. State Senator Eric Griego, the progressive running for the Albuquerque-based open congressional seat being vacated by Martin Heinrich, seemed heartened by the stand Democrats in the House are taking. "I stand with Leader Pelosi and other Democratic House Members who support the right of families who depend on Medicaid to challenge state cuts to their basic health care," he told us. "A quarter of all New Mexicans depend on Medicaid for basic healthcare and two-thirds of them are children. In the State Senate I have opposed cutting Medicaid and instead called for the richest one percent of New Mexicans to pay their fair share and for ending tax giveaways for large out of state corporations."