Progressive calls for termination of Blue Dogs.

[MKSheppard]

I actually thought about posting this with a misleading title; but decided against it.

So here you have it:

Link

Boot the Blue Dogs
By ARI BERMAN

Ari Berman, a contributing writer for The Nation, is the author of “Herding Donkeys: The Fight to Rebuild the Democratic Party and Reshape American Politics.”

IN 2008, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seemed to rewrite all the rules in electoral politics and herald a new progressive era in America. Democrats assembled a huge Congressional majority and, in the euphoria that followed the historic election, were poised to enact sweeping change. However, despite some notable successes — the stimulus package, health care reform, tighter rules for the financial industry — things have not gone according to plan. Just two years later, Democrats face a bad economy, a skeptical public, a re-energized Republican Party and a coming avalanche of losses in the midterm elections.

What happened? One important explanation is that divisions inside the Democratic coalition, which held together during the 2008 campaign, have come spilling out into the open. Conservative Democrats have opposed key elements of the president’s agenda, while liberal Democrats have howled that their majority is being hijacked by a rogue group of predominantly white men from small rural states. President Obama himself appears caught in the middle, unable to satisfy the many factions inside his party’s big tent.

Conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives — whose election in 2006 and 2008 enabled Nancy Pelosi to preside over a supermajority (there are 255 Democrats and 178 Republicans) — increasingly question whether she should relinquish her position as speaker. Representative Heath Shuler of western North Carolina, a leader of the restive Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats, has even hinted that he may run for her job. Representative Shuler is an unlikely candidate for leader of the party — a devout Southern Baptist who voted against the stimulus, the bank and auto bailouts and health care reform. Yet he’s exactly the kind of Democrat that the party worked very hard to recruit for public office.

In 2005, Howard Dean, who was then the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, carried out a campaign to elect as many Democrats as possible. In long-ignored red states, both Mr. Dean and Rahm Emanuel, then the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, backed conservative Democrats who broke with the party’s leadership on core issues like gun control and abortion rights. Mr. Shuler was one of Mr. Emanuel’s top recruits. The party leaders did not give much thought to how a Democratic majority that included such conservative members could ever effectively govern.

With President Obama in office, some notable beneficiaries of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy have been antagonizing the party from within — causing legislative stalemate in Congress, especially in the Senate, and casting doubt on the long-term viability of a Democratic majority. As a result, the activists who were so inspired by Mr. Dean in 2006 and Mr. Obama in 2008 are now feeling buyer’s remorse.

Margaret Johnson, a former party chairwoman in Polk County, N.C., helped elect Representative Shuler but now believes the party would be better off without him. “I’d rather have a real Republican than a fake Democrat,” she said. “A real Republican motivates us to work. A fake Democrat de-motivates us.”

Ms. Johnson is right: Democrats would be in better shape, and would accomplish more, with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive caucus. It’s a sentiment that even Mr. Dean now echoes. “Having a big, open-tent Democratic Party is great, but not at the cost of getting nothing done,” he said. Since the passage of health care reform, few major bills have passed the Senate. Although the Democrats have a 59-vote majority, party leaders can barely find the votes for something as benign as extending unemployment benefits.

A smaller majority, minus the intraparty feuding, could benefit Democrats in two ways: first, it could enable them to devise cleaner pieces of legislation, without blatantly trading pork for votes as they did with the deals that helped sour the public on the health care bill. (As a corollary, the narrative of “Democratic infighting” would also diminish.)

Second, in the Senate, having a majority of 52 rather than 59 or 60 would force Democrats to confront the Republicans’ incessant misuse of the filibuster to require that any piece of legislation garner a minimum of 60 votes to become law. Since President Obama’s election, more than 420 bills have cleared the House but have sat dormant in the Senate. It’s easy to forget that George W. Bush passed his controversial 2003 tax cut legislation with only 50 votes, plus Vice President Dick Cheney’s. Eternal gridlock is not inevitable unless Democrats allow it to be.

Republicans have become obsessed with ideological purity, and as a consequence they will likely squander a few winnable races in places like Delaware. But Democrats aren’t ideological enough. Their conservative contingent has so blurred what it means to be a Democrat that the party itself can barely find its way. Polls show that, despite their best efforts to distance themselves from Speaker Pelosi and President Obama, a number of Blue Dog Democrats are likely to be defeated this November. Their conservative voting records have deflated Democratic activists but have done nothing to win Republican support.

Far from hastening the dawn of a post-partisan utopia, President Obama’s election has led to near-absolute polarization. If Democrats alter their political strategy accordingly, they’ll be more united and more productive.

[darthdavid]

So it turns out that when your only focus is on getting people with a D in front of their name into as many seats as possible with no regard for ideology trying to get them to agree on enough issues to govern effectively is like herding cats. Who'd have guessed?

[Flagg]

So it turns out that when your only focus is on getting people with a D in front of their name into as many seats as possible with no regard for ideology trying to get them to agree on enough issues to govern effectively is like herding cats. Who'd have guessed?

You'd rather democrats had ideological purity tests ala the GOP?

[Lord of the Abyss]

So it turns out that when your only focus is on getting people with a D in front of their name into as many seats as possible with no regard for ideology trying to get them to agree on enough issues to govern effectively is like herding cats. Who'd have guessed?

You'd rather democrats had ideological purity tests ala the GOP?

There's a big grey area between ideological purity and a party that can't agree with itself enough to accomplish anything. In order to actually do anything a party needs to be composed of people who have at least general agreement on their goals.

[K. A. Pital]

Purity tests? "Blue Dogs" are people who root for the other party. That's fucking ridiculous, isn't it?

[Vendetta]

So it turns out that when your only focus is on getting people with a D in front of their name into as many seats as possible with no regard for ideology trying to get them to agree on enough issues to govern effectively is like herding cats. Who'd have guessed?

You'd rather democrats had ideological purity tests ala the GOP?

The whole point of a political party is that it's a unified voting bloc in a legislature which has a common set of policy goals. The blue dog Democrats do not have common policy goals with the rest of the Democratic party, and so have no business being in it.

[RedImperator]

Let's not forget the circumstances under which Dean was recruiting those Blue Dogs: the Wonder Chimp was in office and the Republican majorities in both houses were acting like a rubber stamp for him. The Blue Dogs may have been a pain in the ass, but they voted for Democrats for committee chair positions, leading to things like the Alberto Gonzales hearings.

Anyway, it's moot now. The Blue Dogs are going to get annihilated next week. Turns out, voting like Republicans didn't actually placate the Republican majorities in their home districts.

[Mr Bean]

Let's not forget the circumstances under which Dean was recruiting those Blue Dogs: the Wonder Chimp was in office and the Republican majorities in both houses were acting like a rubber stamp for him. The Blue Dogs may have been a pain in the ass, but they voted for Democrats for committee chair positions, leading to things like the Alberto Gonzales hearings.

Anyway, it's moot now. The Blue Dogs are going to get annihilated next week. Turns out, voting like Republicans didn't actually placate the Republican majorities in their home districts.

Blue dogs were always doomed. They are in essence Republicans, in that they are very much Pro-Corporation/Pro Big Business. And that runs smack into 90% of democratic initiatives. Note I don't mean being pro big business is bad except as how it is practiced in America. Pro Big Business in America is being "Give me a 5k campaign donation and I'll see you'll get a government contract worth 2 million while a 50k donation will net you a 50 million dollar value tax loophole for your industry"

It's not Pro big business we would like to have more Blue Cross, Google's and Koch Industries. No it's Pro Big business in that they take legal bribes in exchange for favorable laws in congress.

[Oskuro]

I think this is the problem when political parties are this massive. Either you have a solid zealotish ideological block, or you have infighting at every turn.

Personally, I prefer the infighting, at least it means decisions, although slowly, will be brought out of a consensus between a wider array of viewpoints, and thus being representative of a larger part of the population.

Most people, on the other hand, prefer ideologically monolithical blocks, because they mistake speed and expediency with sound decision making. And also because of our stupid herd mentality and leadership worship.


We get shit like this around here too (to the point of "Transfugas", politicians who literally jump ship and join the other party midterm), and I would wonder why no one is proposing constitutional limitations on political party size if it wasn't obvious that it would rub everyone with a modicum of power backwards.

[KrauserKrauser]

I had to laugh at their selection of notable successes: Stimulus, Healthcare and Financial Reform.

Especially the last one. Talk about trying to find the prettiest pile of shit in an outhouse.

I'm all for a more progressive direction for the nation, but trying tout Obama as a progressive, especially on Financial matters, is something I expect of Rush or Beck, not someone trying to honestly report the facts.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think this is the problem when political parties are this massive. Either you have a solid zealotish ideological block, or you have infighting at every turn.

Personally, I prefer the infighting, at least it means decisions, although slowly, will be brought out of a consensus between a wider array of viewpoints, and thus being representative of a larger part of the population.

Most people, on the other hand, prefer ideologically monolithical blocks, because they mistake speed and expediency with sound decision making. And also because of our stupid herd mentality and leadership worship.


We get shit like this around here too (to the point of "Transfugas", politicians who literally jump ship and join the other party midterm), and I would wonder why no one is proposing constitutional limitations on political party size if it wasn't obvious that it would rub everyone with a modicum of power backwards.

That would be nice if we had preferential voting, proportional representation, and the ability to form coalition governments... but we dont. Instead we have a fractured center-right party, no leftist party, and a far right party that votes in lock-step. It is the worst combination imaginable.

[MKSheppard]

Aaaaand there's all she wrote

The Blue Dog pack was cut by more than half Tuesday night, as at least 28 of the 54 members of the coalition of moderate House Democrats were defeated.

Their numbers could be reduced further, as a handful of Blue Dogs are still awaiting the official outcome of their re-election bids.

The GOP wave claimed two of the caucus's four leaders, Reps. Baron Hill of Indiana and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota, leaving Utah's Jim Matheson and North Carolina's Heath Shuler behind to pick up the pieces.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Apparently despite being conservative their voters don't recognize anything except party lines. Good riddance to the lot of them and hopefully some real liberals will take their place next time.

[SAMAS]

So it turns out that when your only focus is on getting people with a D in front of their name into as many seats as possible with no regard for ideology trying to get them to agree on enough issues to govern effectively is like herding cats. Who'd have guessed?

You'd rather democrats had ideological purity tests ala the GOP?

The whole point of a political party is that it's a unified voting bloc in a legislature which has a common set of policy goals. The blue dog Democrats do not have common policy goals with the rest of the Democratic party, and so have no business being in it.

It should also be noted that the whole "Purity Test" thing the GOP was on for a while was less about them being Conservative, but of them being Conservative "enough".

[CaptainChewbacca]

Any chance of some of them breaking with their party and putting on the 'R' in light of the changes?

[Knife]

Any chance of some of them breaking with their party and putting on the 'R' in light of the changes?

Can't say with most, but with Matheson? NO! His district is blue, very blue, and if he swapped he'd be doomed. Like recalled type doom.

[Thanas]

Any chance of some of them breaking with their party and putting on the 'R' in light of the changes?

As much chance as there was for Olympia Snowe to go blue in 2008.

[Rogue 9]

Apparently despite being conservative their voters don't recognize anything except party lines. Good riddance to the lot of them and hopefully some real liberals will take their place next time.

They won't. In their districts, it will be a conservative Democrat running or a Republican will win in a landslide. Pick one. There's a reason the Blue Dogs were nominated in the first place.

[D.Turtle]

Any chance of some of them breaking with their party and putting on the 'R' in light of the changes?

I don't think the chance is very high - the Republican party machine currently has little control over the primary process. Anyone in the House (or Senate) who is currently a Democrat is far too liberal for the current Republican base, and will definitely not be reelected. So they have a choice of being Democrats and facing tough Primaries and tough votes, etc, but still having the support of the Democratic Party machine (see Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas) and some chance of political survival, or going Republican, getting very little for it and ending their political career.