Partisan Politics and the Blue Wall of Shame

Some easier said than done (5.71 / 7)

Melancon (#29) is our best shot at replacing David Vitter in the Senate.  Louisiana Democrats have been begging him to run.  Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is probably the only Democrat who will ever be elected in South Dakota.  We can make the decision to "replace" them, but it's gonna be awfully hard to replace them with anything other than a Republican.  Keep in mind, this is the Club for Growth handbook.

I think the smart thing is to identify those Democrats (such as Stephen Lynch or Dennis Kucinich) who "represent" districts that would be ready to vote for a Democrat who seeks progressive, realizable change.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:19:04 PM CST

Agreed, but with a proviso (0.00 / 0)

I'm fine with setting priorities so that districts that are more vulnerable to progressive challenges are targeted before those like Rep. Sandlin's district.

Having said that, I think that all privileges -- seniority, leadership roles, committee assignments, etc., -- should be stripped from each member of the above list. No exceptions, no weasel-wording, no excuses. I have no objection to simultaneously and privately reassuring these individuals that the party leadership is receptive to restoring at least some privileges if the individual demonstrates a change of heart in future votes.

In my view, it is time for a very public spanking. The point here is not to change these votes, nor change the behavior of these individuals. The point is to draw a very bright line for other Democrats, and make it very clear that those who cross that line pay a steep price.

In my view, it hurts Democrats to allow the "Club for Growth" mentality to supersede our commitment to our core vision, values, and principles.

These votes are a betrayal of every progressive who helped elect these 39 "Democrats."

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:55:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Do you seriously think Pelosi wouldn't have had Kucinich's vote (6.00 / 6)

If she needed it?

His vote against is a protest from the left.  Let's not purge one of the few voices out there on the left side of the field.  Let's maintain  something resembling a range of political thought in this country.  Otherwise we're abetting the far right-wing's program to redefine mere centrism as socialism.  

"Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow

---

by: Bean in the 'Burbs @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 14:10:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe, maybe not (6.00 / 3)

I am not personally ready to base the most important vote in the House over the last 10 years on the accuracy of the Democratic vote-counters, the honesty of the Democratic Blue Dogs, and the reliability of a freshman Republican Congressman.  That is precisely what Kucinich did in order to register his protest.  


~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 14:23:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed: Kucinich Fail (5.00 / 5)

Talk is cheap, as Kucinich has demonstrated over many years. Votes matter. His vote here is the moral equivalent of Ralph Nader's campaigns for President.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 14:57:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Congressman Kucinich addresses vote on H.R. 3962 (0.00 / 0)

http://kucinich.us/index.php?o...

"I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans" - Sen. John Kerry

---

by: Syarzhuk @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:10:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (6.00 / 1)

That's only true if in fact this bill is the "greater good".  There are those that would argue this is not for the greater good; the environmental equivalent to "clean coal", if you will.  Not all steps forward are positive.

This MD seems to agree

Proverbs 10:14

---

by: AlexSWill @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:56:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

party discipline (5.50 / 2)

I've heard that the expectation is that Congresspersons vote with the leader on procedural votes and vote their consciences on passage of the bill.  

Where these no votes are to serve corporate masters, make them pay a price.

Where a no vote is because he Congressperson thinks the bill is not good enough, doesn't go far enough, is a giveaway to Phrma and the insurance industry, deprives the poor of constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights, improve the bill.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 14:48:57 PM CST

Rep Neal and the Stupak amendment (4.40 / 5)

There should be the same call for a progressive candidate to run against Rep Richard Neal of Springfield since he voted against women's health care when he voted for the Stupak amendment that will severely restrict access to abortion for low income women. He was one of only 64 Democratic Representatives to vote for this amendment. I find it amazingly difficult to believe that he thinks he is representing the majority of voters in his district. For shame! He needs a credible opponent in the next election. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200...

---

by: babyzebbie @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 15:23:15 PM CST

who is ready to take him on... (6.00 / 1)

in 2010? Put a progressive up and I'll support that person. Neal needs to go.

---

by: papicek @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:11:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd do it differently (6.00 / 9)

How much of this should be done by the party?  By leadership?  By the voters?

I think Kos has it right.  More and better Democrats.  I'll take more when the alternative is worse.  I'll take better when the alternative is, well, better.

Check out the districts and their PVIs.  PVIs aren't perfect for this analysis, but they help to show that the Congressman who voted against health care are from, by and large, red districts.


Congressman     CD      PVI
Davis (AL)      AL-7    D+18
Kucinich        OH-10   D+8
Barrow          GA-12   D+1
Baird           WA-3    even
Adler (NJ)      NJ-3    R+1
Murphy (NY)     NY-20   R+2
Kissell         NC-8    R+2
Kosmas          FL-24   R+4
McMahon         NY-13   R+4
Boccieri        OH-16   R+4
Massa           NY-29   R+5
McIntyre        NC-7    R+5
Nye             VA-2    R+5
Peterson        MN-7    R+5
Shuler          NC-11   R+6
Tanner          TN-8    R+6
Boyd            FL-2    R+6
Holden          PA-17   R+6
Markey (CO)     CO-4    R+6
Altmire         PA-4    R+6
Teague          NM-2    R+6
Ross            AR-4    R+7
Chandler        KY-6    R+9
Herseth Sandlin SD      R+9
Marshall        GA-8    R+10
Boucher         VA-9    R+11
Melancon        LA-3    R+12
Griffith        AL-5    R+12
Kratovil        MD-1    R+13
Gordon (TN)     TN-6    R+13
Davis (TN)      TN-4    R+13
Skelton         MO-4    R+14
Childers        MS-1    R+14
Boren           OK-2    R+14
Matheson        UT-2    R+15
Bright          AL-2    R+16
Minnick         ID-1    R+18
Taylor          MS-4    R+20
Edwards (TX)    TX-17   R+20


So, the question is, who do you punish, and how?  Controlling leadership is essential to long term success -- why cut off the folks who are giving you a half a loaf, when their alternative is a congressman who'll offer less than nothing?

There are a few head scratchers -- two with large D+ PVIs, and then one with a small PVI, and one with 0 PVI.  But the rest are in red districts, on a year when Obama did really well.  Places with red PVIs are a tough sell for a Democrat.

So, maybe primary a few of 'em.  That's fine.  But, here's a better idea: make sure the Democratic candidates for the following seats currently held by a GOP are progressive Dems:


LA 2  D+25
DE AL D+7
IL 10 D+6
PA 6  D+4
WA 8  D+3
PA 15 D+2
OH 12 D+1
NJ 2  D+1
IL 6  even
IA 4  even
MI 6  even
MI 11 even
MN 3  even


Me, I think that's more productive.  Let's exert effort to replace a GOP with a progressive Dem in places where Obama got above average support, instead of trying to replace a kinda-Dem with a progressive Dem in places where Obama got lower then average support.

This doesn't mean I'm interested in playing incumbent protection, and I recognize that we can move more than one piece at a time.  I just think there's much more attractive options in going for the 8 CDs which liked Obama more than average and the 5 which liked him as much as average first.  And, naturally, supporting the local Democratic parties in places which are PVI 0 -- R+5, in the hope of organizing a few more percentage points out of them the next time.

---

by: stomv @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 16:21:06 PM CST

Well said (0.00 / 0)

and thanks for the PVI info. It's an important point that virtually every Democrat representing a district with a positive Democratic PVI voted for the bill (and indeed, two of the three who didn't can be explained -- Davis is running for Governor of Alabama in 2010, and Kucinich is just crazy). The D+25 Republican (Cao) voted for the bill, but I can imagine it likely that all seven of the other Democratic districts, if represented by a Democrat rather than a Republican, would have meant more votes for the health care bill -- and other progressive priorities as well.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 16:47:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Cao was merely trying to survive re-election, which is going to be a tough sell.  Davis is running for governor, and cares a lot more about Alabaman independents than sick Americans.  Kucinich, Barrow, and Baird don't have much excuse.  Heck, selling affordable health insurance isn't too difficult to even moderate Republicans...

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 18:40:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kirk, Castle, and others (6.00 / 2)

Kirk, Castle, and other so called 'moderate' Republican Congressmen should have these votes brought against them in their campaigns for Senate or re-election. It is clear they have sided with the teabagger's and the far-right of their party. Frankly as others have pointed out, President Obama's proposal is akin to a Rockefeller Republican's proposals. In fact Richard Nixon's healthcare plan was more generous and comprehensive, as was Bob Dole's plan in the early 1990s. This plan is nowhere near the single payer healthcare plan the DNC platform has called for since the 1940s, nowhere near the plans Harry Truman, LBJ, and frankly solid Republicans like Ike, Rockefeller, Nixon, and Dole all called for. These 'moderate' Republicans are a shame to their political tradition and are anarchronisms in their districts that should be expunged. Getting rid of Kirks and Castle's does a lot more good to our party that getting rid of Hereseth's. It makes our tent more progressive while making their tent even more narrow. A win win for the party.  

---

by: jconway @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:59:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sometimes values must trump expedience (6.00 / 1)

I'm not interested in creating a Democratic majority that gets major issues like this wrong.

The Episcopal Church (the American participant of the world-wide Anglican community) faced a similar choice in the 19th century over the issue of slavery. The Episcopal Church avoided taking a stand in the interests of "unity", during a period when many US protestant denominations splintered on the question. The Episcopal Church avoided a split -- and permanently stained itself in so doing.

A century later, in the 1970s, a more enlightened Episcopal Church took a different path regarding women's ordination. The consequences of its earlier failure regarding abolition was an important factor in the decision to welcome and celebrate the full participation of women -- in spit of the polarization that again threatened it. I was proud to be a part of the Episcopal Church when it ordained Barbara Harris as Bishop in 1989, and I was doubly proud that this historic event happened here in Boston.

Fifteen years later, the same people who resisted women's ordination used the same arguments against the next generation's moral issue -- the full acceptance and celebration of gay and lesbian sexuality. The Episcopal Church spent years seeking a way to accommodate its bigoted and homophobic elements -- who, by the way, are the same elements who have never accepted the full inclusion of women.

The anti-gay and anti-women elements of the Episcopal Church will not be mollified, just as the rightwing GOP will not be mollified. The split occurred anyway, the Episcopal Church is better off after the split, and the outcome would have been even better if the Episcopal Church had been more firm in its moral resolve when the uproar over the ordination of Gene Robinson was first raised.

I feel that the GOP embrace of the worst elements of the American rightwing has created an analogous issue for the Democratic Party. This is just the latest of a long series of issues where the rightwing has clearly declared itself in "jihad" against anything progressive. I feel it is time that Democrats stop ducking the battle. This is a "holy war" of the extreme right against everyone else. In that context, while I agree with your analysis of the political calculus of this vote, I do not share your view of its importance.

I fully appreciate that others may feel differently. This is an issue where, for me, my core values trump political expedience. Your mileage may vary.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 20:36:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Church is a closed system (6.00 / 2)

but elections aren't.  If those 13 districts I listed were all held by Democrats of assorted levels of progressiveness, that would be a different story.

But since there are limited resources, why not focus them on the places where we're most likely to get good returns.  Specifically, you've got a few choices:

1. Leadership whips folks like Markey (CO) harder, and he (a) falls in line or (b) leaves to become a GOP.  If he does (a), he runs the risk of losing his next election to a Congressman who won't support health care legislation, climate change legislation, consumer protection legislation, women's issues, and a littany of other things.  Markey (CO) supports some of those things, and some is more than zero.

So, for (1) to summarize, if you whip you might get temporary better results, but your long term prognosis is creating a Republican for his district one way or another, and that's a major net loss.

2. Primary Democrats like Chandler with a more progressive Democrat.  Sure.  Maybe you spend lots of money and it doesn't end up being divisive and the progressive wins.  Then, she gets creamed since the district is R+9.  So, for (2) to summarize, if you primary you might get temporary better results, but your long term prognosis is creating a Republican for his district, and that's a major net loss.

3. Invest leadership effort and finances into places which have a D PVI but a GOP Congressman -- and work hard to ensure that the progressive candidate wins the primary.  Now, if the D loses, we haven't really lost anything and can take another crack in two years.  If we win, we pick up a progressive Democrat in a D PVI district, who should be able to easily take progressive votes.

I contend that, given scare resources (time, money, volunteers), that focusing on (3) will result in the most efficient gain of progressive votes in the House, given those thirteen available seats in ten different states.

Still, what to do with the kindaDems?  Well, it would be nice if leadership would keep them to committees where progressive values aren't particularly relevant... that is, try to keep them away from places where the progressive values involve gov't regulation of business amongst other things.  Easier said than done.

---

by: stomv @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:30:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not mutually exclusive (6.00 / 1)

I agree that placing a progressive Democrat in a seat now held by a Republican is a better use of campaign resources than spending ANY party money in any of these 39 districts.

Perhaps that leads to a suitable heuristic: push these seats to the bottom of the list for ANY party assistance, so that more vulnerable seats currently held by Republicans come first. Meanwhile, I'm suggesting that these 39 should have their seniority stripped, any current committee assignments revoked, and all done so very publicly.

The rightwing is aggressively pulling the GOP to the right, ejecting its moderates. I read the US population as moving to the left, especially as demographics shift with growing Hispanic and African-American populations. I think the GOP strategy has been to counter this by reaching further into their "base". In my view, the increasingly shrill GOP histrionics reflect their increasing difficulty in finding additional extremists who support them.

In my view, the political wild-card in the mix is the graying baby-boom now approaching retirement. This generation fought and won several social revolutions in the sixties and early seventies (civil rights, anti-war, sexual freedom, and music among others). It is a potent swing group that, in my opinion, is ripe for the picking. I think a winning strategy is to appeal to the same core values that drove the social revolutions of the sixties. I think that generation recognizes that it was co-opted by the rightwing during final two decades of the twentieth century, and is poised to reassert itself now. In my view, the success of the Patrick and Obama campaigns and the abysmal failure of the McCain campaign (exemplified by his pick of Sarah Palin) provides a roadmap to our winning strategy.

In my view, America is changing and changing for the better. I think our winning strategy is to accept and celebrate that reality, and commit to advance it.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:59:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't disagree (6.00 / 1)

in direction, just in magnitude.  I think you're suggestions are a bit too aggressive.

Ultimately, it does suggest support for an idea that the netroots have been suggesting for a while now -- don't support the D-Trip, DSC, or DSCC.  Support individual candidates who you feel are progressive enough for the district in which they're running.  Bonus points for early support, especially if it corresponds with the actions of many, all at once.

There's always work that could be done locally.  More progressive state reps and senators around the Commonwealth.  There are 3 GOP senators and 1 Lieberman worth working against.

You know those bumper stickers... "My daughter and my money go to Babsmith College".  Put one on yourself.  "My effort and my money go to Progressive Candidates" and then live up to it.

Just ramblin'... trying to sort this out for myself.  I belong to Team Democrat, and I want to support my team.  At the same time, When you've got 60%, it's easy to wish you had better, forgetting that when you had 45% all you wanted was more.

---

by: stomv @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:17:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I always have been an "extremist" (lol) (0.00 / 0)

I think we're on the same page.

I think "Team Democrat" needs both perspectives. Diversity includes "thinking style" as well as demographics, and our diversity strengthens us.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:16:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

DINOs (5.83 / 6)

This is part of the never-ending debate, but I think it's pretty clear why having "DINOs" in the party is still better than a Republican in those seats. Not all, but many of those 39 could have been whipped into voting for the bill if the votes were just short. Indeed, this is exactly what happened -- the votes were not there in the days prior to the vote, but enough Blue Dogs from conservative districts came over to support the bill so the remainder could be "released" to take the politically safe vote given their districts. The Democratic leadership would have no such possibility with Republicans in those seats.

It ain't pretty, but I'd still rather have a big majority with some whip-able Blue Dogs than a rump minority like the Republicans have. And a rump minority is just what you'll have if you demand ideological purity.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 16:37:44 PM CST

A Pragmatic (0.00 / 0)

Democrat, finally.  Exactly right, Hoyapaul.  These folks still have time left in their terms and the Leadership might need them.  Of course, make 'em walk the plank early - and you won't get anything if you need them.  There are people acting all the voting is done, and there won't be another vote until 2011.  

"The world was made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness." ~Annie Savoy, Bull Durham

---

by: Justice4All @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 20:10:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Absolutely (6.00 / 1)

Give these DINOs no support at all.  The sooner they are replaced with RINOs, the better.

---

by: Lincoln113 @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 17:20:27 PM CST

Care to explain (6.00 / 1)

this theory?

Are you suggesting these RINO's would be better because we'd purge the party of the non-democrats?  Surely you can't believe the RINO's would more often vote with the caucus.  It's also foolish to assume that these "DINO's" are the same voting bloc as moderate Repub's.  While it has been suggested the former is true, voting records show that these Democrats are mostly in line with the party.  If this scenario were to play out, the progressive would feel more secure in their party, but the rest of the country gets the spin that Dems are losing seats to the GOP based on shifting confidence in the electorate.

I can't fathom how this would be a good thing.

Proverbs 10:14

---

by: AlexSWill @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:05:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As much as I disagree with (6.00 / 4)

conservative Democrats intellectually and politically, I think we're headed to having more, not less of them, in the party. As the GOP continues its big jump of the ideological shark (as in NY-23), we're bound to get more people in the middle who want to be part of a viable party.

There are trade-off's to having conservative Democrats in and out of the party. I can't pretend to have a prediction as to the bottom-line, but I have to say, I hate the idea of ideological purity when a good, political ass-kicking by party leaders can knock people into line.

 

Obama Era Conservatives: confusing tyranny with losing, socialism with fascism, and bringing their toilet training under severe scrutiny.

---

by: Mark Bail @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 19:02:08 PM CST

Agreed (6.00 / 2)

There are definitely tradeoffs -- sometimes serious ones -- but I'm not wild about party purges based on toeing the ideological line. I'd rather have moderate democrats who will occasionally flout the progressive leadership than the obstructionist republicans who would likely take their place if the party decided to spurn moderates (and even some conservative democrats). Maybe I'm being overly pragmatic here, but if the democratic party is going to maintain its majority status for the long haul, it needs to convince the country's moderates and independents--what we used to call the "vital center"--that it's policies and ideas are better than the do-nothing alternative.

We should also remember that while blaming DINO's and republicans is understandable here, progressives also fumbled big parts of the health care debate in a maddening way (see: July and August). It wasn't until Pres. Obama's big speech, and especially the last ten minutes of it, that he finally gave the debate the moral impetus that it had sorely lacked. Bringing the discussion of values into the debate is a big part of why he was elected, and an issue which many congressional dems seem utterly unable to grasp. Had they done so I bet this vote--and support among the country at large--would have been a bit different.

Don't get me wrong -- I think much of the republican party right now (esp. the Joe Wilson wing) is making a mockery of public service, but I don't want progressives to take their eye off of winning the debate because they were too busy trying to enforce party discipline.  

---

by: JonasClark @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 19:45:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's not forget perp's of the Stupak anti-choice amendment (4.00 / 3)

Courtesy of Meteor Blades:

AL-2 Bright, Bobby; AL- 5 Griffith, Parker; AL-7 Davis, Artur; AR-1 Berry, Robert; AR-2 Snyder, Victor; AR-4 AR-4 Ross, Mike; CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis; CA-20 Costa, Jim; CA-43 Baca, Joe; CO-3 Salazar, John.

GA-2 Bishop, Sanford; GA-8 Marshall, James; GA-12 Barrow, John; KY-6 Chandler, Ben; IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel; IL-12 Costello, Jerry; IN-2 Donnelly, Joe; IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad; IN-9 Hill, Baron; LA-3 Melancon, Charles; ME-2 Michaud, Michael.

MA-2 Neal, Richard; MA-9 Lynch, Stephen; MI-5 Kildee, Dale; MI-1 Stupak, Bart; MN-7 Peterson, Collin; MN-8 Oberstar, James; MS-1 Childers, Travis; MS-4 Taylor, Gene; MO-4 Skelton, Ike; NM-2 Teague, Harry

NC-2 Etheridge, Bob; NC-7 McIntyre, Mike; NC-11 Shuler, Heath; ND Pomeroy, Earl; OH-1 Driehaus, Steve; OH-6 Wilson, Charles;  OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy; OH-16 Boccieri, John; OH-17 Ryan, Timothy; OH-18 Space, Zachary.

OK-2 Boren, Dan; PA-3 Dahlkemper, Kathleen; PA-4 Altmire, Jason; PA-10 Carney, Christopher; PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul; PA-12 Murtha, John; PA-14 Doyle, Michael; PA-17 Holden, Tim; RI-2 Langevin, James

SC-5 Spratt, John; TN-4 Davis, Lincoln; TN-5 Cooper, Jim; TN-6 Gordon, Barton; TN-8 Tanner, John; TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre; TX-23 Rodriguez, Ciro; TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon; TX-28 Cuellar, Henry.

UT-2 Matheson, Jim; VA-5 Perriello, Thomas; WV-1 Mollohan, Alan; WV-3 Rahall, Nick; WI-7 Obey, David.

Worst of the Worst: 26 Democrats who voted FOR Stupak Amendment but AGAINST the final Health Care bill:

Altmire, Barrow, Boccieri, Boren, Bright, Chandler, Childers, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Gordon (TN), Griffith, Holden, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Taylor, Teague  

---

by: ThrobbingPatriot @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 19:35:57 PM CST

Richard Neal is unassailable ... (6.00 / 2)

and, looking at his overall voting record, does not in any way deserve to be assailed.

As I mentioned a few days ago, the energy of party activists who want to express their frustration with the way the Congress has handled health care reform should be directed toward challenging Blanche Lincoln in the primary. She has voted with the Repubs on practically every major issue in her long career and she was a key vote in the defeat of the public option in the Senate subcommittee. If she is confronted with long-overdue consequences in '10, the rest of the Blue Dogs will get the message, which they seem reluctant to hear from Reid, Pelosi and Emanuel.

In our current situation, the party can afford to enforce discipline in a controlled way against one or two glaring examples of Senators and Reps who have never defended the party's core values, without jeopardizing our majorities in the House and Senate. In fact, by doing so in intelligent way, we can further distinguish our style of governance from the endless series of auto-da-fes that characterizes the conservative playbook ... and for that matter the conservative world-view in general.

Somewhere in the Arkansas democratic party, there's an ambitious Mayor or State Rep looking for a chance to provide authentic democratic leadership on a national level. I say we give him or her that chance. Worst case scenario, we lose a vote that we never had in the first place.

---

by: Arlingtondan @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 22:41:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Damn straight (0.00 / 0)

I completely understand why Blanche Lincoln would be a socially conservative Democrat considering her state's leaning. I give her a pass on votes regarding gays, abortions, and guns. She does not get a pass on this. Her state has one of the highest concentrations of the working poor and the Arkansas Democratic Party has always been populist, solidly liberal on bread and butter issues but moderate/conservative on cultural issues. I just don't see why Lincoln would be making these votes if she wasn't such a corporate whore. It is time to give an honest Democrat a chance.  

---

by: jconway @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:03:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry Stupak was right (0.00 / 0)

I think their is room within the Democratic caucus for pro-life viewpoints. To me issues of war and peace, healthcare or no care, a fair economy or a depression, those are the issues where Democrats should be in unison in taking a solid stance in favor of working Americans and in favor of keeping our country and its people safe and secure. Abortion, the death penalty, gun control, those are issues people should be free to vote their conscience, their district, or both on these issues. Stupak, other than the abortion question, votes solidly with the Democratic party. I give him tremendous praise for articulating his voice so prominently in a party that too often is willing to silence dissent on an issue that frankly it is divided on. Most polls show 40% of Democrats as pro-life and 60% favoring some restrictions.

Furthermore, in this instance the Stupak amendment does not even violate the Democratic party platform which seeks to make abortion safe, legal, and rare and uphold Roe V Wade. Roe V Wade has allowed amendments like this, and such an amendment will in sure that abortions remain rare. This is part of the Democratic platform to reduce abortions. There has been a national consensus that the federal government will not fund abortions since the 1970s when the Hyde Amendment overwhelmingly passed in a bi-partisan fashion. Joe Biden and other mainstream Democrats favor 'government neutrality' on this point. This bill simply ensured that a government insurance plan would not cover abortions, ensuring that there would not be an end run around the Hyde Amendment, and also making the bill more passable. Frankly the amendment Stupak overturned, as well intentioned as it might have been, was a poison amendment that would have killed this bills chances of passing. This amendment effectively disarms conservatives and also shows the country that Democrats are committed to life and are not dogmatically pro-abortion.  

---

by: jconway @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:10:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Regardless of your feelings (6.00 / 2)

about choice, giving ThrobbingPatriot a '0' rating is unwarranted and petty. There's nothing in his comment that deserves such treatment. Be as passionate as you want on your Big Issue, but don't be a dick.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:43:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Stupak (0.00 / 0)

in this instance the Stupak amendment does not even violate the Democratic party platform which seeks to make abortion safe, legal, and rare and uphold Roe V Wade.

One would hope "the Stupak amendment does not even violate the Democratic party platform."

What the Stupak Amendment does, which is pernicious, is remove abortion services from all health care plans offered under the Federal health care connector, both the for profit plans and the public option, even if the person on that plan receives no Federal subsidy in paying their premium.  

Stupak puts a lie to the proposition that the government will not come between you and your doctor.  

Beyond that substantive issue, I have no particular respect for C Street members who moralize and have the authority to codify their religious beliefs in Federal law but who allow themselves and fellow C Street members to live by a standard far below what they expect of others.

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:02:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Again, you push false facts (5.75 / 4)

The controversy over The Stupak Ban is its timing: it was promoted by anti-Obama conservatives and anti-choice opportunists to try to delay and derail health care reform.

It is ludicrous on its face that anyone who seriously cares about the health and life of Americans --and the documented tens of thousands who die yearly for lack of health insurance-- would flatly refuse to support reform without the Stupak Ban.

If anti-abortion sentiment is truly as widespread as you claim, Stupak and others would have no problem introducing and passing their ban separately, after health care reform passed.

But they knew it would never have enough popular support to pass, so they took a hostage --the lives of Americans who die and suffer every year for lack of insurance-- and traded said hostage for a ban on abortion access.

"Pro-life?" My Aunt Fanny...

...in this instance the Stupak amendment does not even violate the Democratic party platform which seeks to make abortion safe, legal, and rare and uphold Roe V Wade.

If you'd bother to read it, the 2008 platform actually says:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

[emphasis added]

The party platform does not advocate "reducing abortions," as you claim, by banning womens' access to insurance coverage for it. The platform does advocate providing access to family planning, birth control and comprehensive sex education to prevent unintended pregnancies --in part because these reduce the need for abortion.

And the Stupak Ban has nothing to do with "government funding of abortions" like the Hyde Ban. The Stupak Ban says that any insurance offered on the proposed exchange --even private insurance-- cannot cover abortion procedures except in the case of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother (but not to protect her health, as Roe v. Wade provides).

Abortion is legal and optional for American woman to choose --unlike in dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and China. The Stupak Ban is nothing more than a spiteful, politically-tactical amendment that treats women as second-class citizens.

Now, of the 64 Dem's who voted for the Stupak ban, how many would you guess are... women?

Surprise, surprise...

---

by: ThrobbingPatriot @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:44:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It is a credibility issue with me (0.00 / 0)

Do I believe the corporate owned US congress or a nun from Barcelona.  I have to side with the nun.
http://vimeo.com/7298827

---

by: Lasthorseman @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 19:55:20 PM CST

have another bright idea? (6.00 / 4)

Lets get rid of any Dem that doesn't agree with us and we can be in the Minority again!

---

by: WARD3DEM @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 23:08:05 PM CST

The dust of NY-23 barely settles, if at all (0.00 / 0)

And BrooklineTom posts his hitlist of people in his party he would vote for a 3rd party progressive over.

Didn't I just spend a few days hearing how stupid this kind of intra-party bologne is?

Then again, if State leadership chose Scott Brown to be the Democrat candidate for a Rep. seat, I'm sure everyone would be okay with it, right?

---

by: JoeTS @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:38:27 AM CST

3rd party? (0.00 / 0)

Where do you see that?

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:44:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Excuse me? (0.00 / 0)

You wrote (emphasis mine):

And BrooklineTom posts his hitlist of people in his party he would vote for a 3rd party progressive over.

I fear you have confused me with some other contributor. I think I've written just the opposite.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:07:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So if a guy ran against one of these bros (0.00 / 0)

and you lived in the distric, you'd vote for this democrat rahter than a 3rd party guy who was actually prog?

---

by: JoeTS @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:35:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Good effort (0.00 / 0)

I reject your attempt to put words in my mouth.

An apology is more appropriate.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:21:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't think so. (0.00 / 0)

Would you vote for a 3rd party progressive or one of those dems?

---

by: JoeTS @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 07:48:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? (0.00 / 0)

And why do you duck the question?

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:25:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

....? (0.00 / 0)

O_o

---

by: JoeTS @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:07:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My sense is that we had the votes, it was a done deal ... (0.00 / 0)

It unfortunate, but it's likely that some of these districts that are more Republican being held by Democrats switched over to a No vote if they wished once they got the clearance from leadership.  

This was always a done deal in the House.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:47:07 AM CST

Yes, by all means, lets follow the lead of the GOP... (6.00 / 1)

...by shutting out moderates and becoming more ideologically "pure." That's a sure fire road to long-term success.

---

by: rupert115 @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:57:16 AM CST

Where will they go? (0.00 / 0)

If the Democrats and Republicans both shut out moderates, where will they go? If the conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans formed a third party, how would that be a bad thing?

I'm pretty sure that if the Blue Dogs splintered off into a third party, they could beat the Republicans in most of the country (everywhere except the South). I don't think they could beat the Democrats in most places that currently have non Blue Dog Democrats. It would basically force the Republicans into complete irrelevance and replace them with a more liberal party. I think things would be better if we had about 160-200 Democrats, 120-180 Blue Dogs, and 50-150 Repbulicans in the House.

Splitting the party would also allow for more clarity in what the Democratic party stands for. Right now, any failure with health care reform will be blamed on the Democrats. If the Blue Dogs were actually a separate party, it would be clearer that the Democrats don't actually have a majority and that the reason health care reform is stalling is because the Blue Dogs and Republicans won't compromise.

It's like the situation here in Massachusetts. Every politician is a Democrat because otherwise you can't get elected in most of the state. If we could split the Democratic party, then we could actually have meaningful labels to put on our politicians so that we could get a better sense of what they support based on party affiliation.

---

by: jkw @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 16:13:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not quite (0.00 / 0)

The problem with this approach is that it increases, rather than decreases, the actual power of the Republicans.

Suppose the 435 seats were divided this way:
200: Democratic
180: Blue Dog
  55: Republican

With this composition, neither the Democrats nor the Blue Dogs can get even a simple majority without the Republicans. The Republicans vote "No" to everything except their agenda, and nothing can pass without them -- rightwing extremist nirvana.

The Democrats already have a firm hold on the House, 258-177. The best way to grow the influence of the Democrats is to replace moderate Republicans with moderate Democrats and DINOs with more progressive Democrats.

If health care reform fails to pass, responsibility for that failure correctly belongs with the Democrats. We have the majority, and it is our job to ensure that our members act and vote like Democrats.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 17:23:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

but I think it's more efficient -- and quite possible -- to replace moderate Republicans with progressive Democrats, particularly the 13 GOPers who are in PVI even or Democratic districts.

---

by: stomv @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 22:01:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]