Blue Dogs Have the Power, Don’t Want the Responsibility
Matthew Yglesias is frustrated with conservative Democrats who influence party direction and then blame progressives for the results (emphasis is in original):
One of the most frustrating things about self-described “centrist” Democrats is their general unwillingness to face up to the fact that they’ve been the dominant faction in the Democratic Party for decades. …
I think Barack Obama’s campaign sort of broke with that mold, as does Speaker Pelosi in the House, but the reality is that the pivotal members of the House are moderate Blue Dogs and the pivotal members of the Senate are moderates like Mary Landrieu. Consequently, governance in the Obama era has been determined by what moderates like Mary Landrieu are willing to do. Which is fine as far as it goes, but it means that if voters don’t like the results Landrieu doesn’t get to complain that someone else screwed things up:
Other centrist Democrats said the results in Massachusetts could become a blessing in disguise by forcing Democrats to rein in their legislative agenda and focus on less expansive policies than the health care overhaul now teetering with the loss of the Democratic majority’s crucial 60th vote.
“The loss in Massachusetts should serve as a wake-up call to the wing of the Democratic Party that wants the federal government to overreach and overspend,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. “We need to get back to the basics.”
You can easily imagine an alternate universe in which the Senate Democratic Caucus took an oath of party loyalty, that all 60 Democrats would vote for cloture on all leadership-supported bills, allowing measures to pass with just 51 votes. … Had that happened, and had the voters been displeased with it, then it might make perfect sense for Landrieu to complain about some non-Landrieu “wing” of the Democratic Party.
But in the world that exists, the only “wing” that matters is the Mary Landrieu wing. … Either the strategy is working better than the alternatives, or else it’s the Landrieu wing that needs to change things up. But defeats can’t be the fault of the people who haven’t been in the driver’s seat since the seventies.
11 Responses to “Blue Dogs Have the Power, Don’t Want the Responsibility”
Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. “We need to get back to the basics.”
And I would ask Ms. Landrieu, then what is the function of government if not to look out for the well being of all citizens?
As far as I am concerned, Ms. Landrieu is not a Democrat. She is a Republican that is beholden to big business for campaign donations to ger re-elected. she doesn't care about Kathy, chief or anyone else. Just get re-elected.
hear hear! Lets vote those Blue Dogs out of the swing states and districts and make them Republicans so that the Republicans have to start complaining about RINOs instead of the Dems about DINOs!
Yes, Kathy, Blue dogs and the moderates from both parties have the power. Why? The simple answer is because the base (from either party) needs them if they hope to implement anything resembling their agenda. Here's a longer explanation I copied from an earlier comment:
Moderates of both parties are, almost by definition, at greater political risk than the base because their seats are heavily contested by both parties. Moderates, therefore, can't move too much toward the wings because to do so will get them voted out of office and lose their seat to the other party. That's why practically all successful legislation is contingent on the support of moderates from both parties.
Expecting moderates to bend over backwards to satisfy progressives is wishful thinking. Politically, they can't. Progressives can because their seats are safe. And the thing is, moderates did significantly compromise here. Just look at who is going to suffer the political consequences of this failure – hint: it's not the progressives. Moderate Democrats stuck their necks out and risked their political future by supporting this legislation and now they and the President will suffer the political consequences of failure. They get all the negative consequences of supporting legislation that was not terribly popular among their constituents plus the added burden of failing. You can expect to see a lot of moderate Democrats lose this November (or retire)– all thanks to the uncompromising progressive base and their willingness to throw away a majority because an 80% solution wasn't good enough for them. What Yglesias (and maybe you) doesn't seem to realize is that the progressives in your party just screwed President Obama, moderate Democrats the party in general and themselves. How are progressives supposed to get anything approaching their agenda passed without the support of the moderate seats they just handed to the GoP?
Landrieu was bought off during the healthcare debate to the tune of $300 million. So listening to her complain now is a perfect example of what Yglesias is complaining about. You could say the same thing about Ben Nelson, who is out there saying the same thing after his so-called Cornhusker kickback.
But as both DaMav and Andy have pointed out here and in other threads, that's just the way it is — and it happens in both parties. Its rather amusing to listen to the folks on the far left, who for a year now have lectured the Repubs on being a bigger tent and more welcoming to different views. The Repubs took a beating because they weren't tolerant enough they said; Repubs needed to become more moderate. Perhaps its times like these that illustrate just how similar the two parties really are. DINOS or RINOS, neither party wants them.
Blue Dogs have the power, but aren't the flaming liberals progressives are should be the title.
The title could apply to Obama, too.
It could apply to the pro healthcare democrats in general, at least those who individually or collectively could invest in their own insurance companies and offer the services the way they think they should be offered with THEIR own money and not that of unwilling taxpayers.
BTW looks like Nancy doesn't have the votes anymore:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34973418/ns/politic…
They need to break the bill apart into smaller bills and pass what has bipartisan support and put an end to progressive-wing obstructionism regarding those areas.
Broke with that mold? The Repubs tried to tar the Obama campaign to death as one of the most liberal ones ever. Remember the times they would say he had the most liberal voting record ever, he hung out with radical extremists, or wanted to spread the wealth around? But the response always was that Obama was a pragmatic centrist, thoughtful and deliberate during the decision making process. And now that he is governing like one, or trying to, the far left is up in arms. He's doing exactly as he said he would — I just think he underestimated either the power of the legislative branch or the loyalty of his base.
Related:
In U.S., Majority Favors Suspending Work on Healthcare Bill
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125327/Majority-Favo…
Independents broke 56% to 37% against continuing to work on passage of the bill.
Oh my… the healthcare reform debacle is running out of scapegoats! First it was conservative talk radio that was destroying health care reform. Then Christian fundamentalists. Those darn bible thumpin' health care haters! Then the obstructionist Republican party (all of 'em, every single one!). Then,,, Lieberman. Perfect! LIEBERMAN! We hate him!! It's all his fault!!
And this week it's the moderate Democrats fault! That works… DINOS. We hate them too!!
Now, next week… gotta think hard here…must be the… the… the independent's fault… right? RIGHT.
Hmm. Whose left after that? Hmmmmm.