Category: Democrats

Feeling Things Out

I think there’s a problem with the progressive online movement today. We came into existence under a bad Republican president and a strong Republican majority in Congress. The Democratic Party was in electoral decline. No Democratic message was effectively resonating in the face of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, deregulation of markets, and a massive housing bubble that would later crush the American economy.

In an environment with very little oxygen, the best ideas began to flourish through the netroots.

People supported proud Democrats who didn’t shy from their principles when attacked from the right. Candidates ran as fighting Dems. The blogs truth-squaded the media and organizations like Media Matters, ThinkProgress, Democracy for America, True Majority, and Credo Action became key points of power for the left to influence politics and policy.

Additionally, elected Democrats had incentive for being strong advocates against the policies of the Bush/Cheney Republican Party. Strong, principled stands were rewarded. No one — with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman — was looking to get into bed with the GOP. There was a real space for activists in the progressive base to find timely partnerships with politicians who would be there advocates.

These forces combined to help give Democrats huge electoral victories in 2006 and 2008, including control of the White House and historic margins in both the House and the Senate.

That’s when the trouble started.

With a Democrat in the Oval Office and Democrats running the legislative agenda, the online progressive movement, which came into being precisely because our representatives lacked power, now had the people we’ve worked with over the last 8 years in control. Instead of being opponents, groups and individuals are forced to be proponents. But there’s something about this which hasn’t been a good fit: namely, imperfection of the people we put into office.

If Bush and the Republicans offered a bad bill on domestic surveillance, the response was easy. Oppose it. If it’s made marginally better, the response was easy: don’t give in, keep opposing it.

But now the tables have been turned. Legislation that doesn’t look so good is being offered by Democrats. Progressive groups can’t easily come out against things on whole, so there’s a focus on making small parts of legislation better. But even with these efforts, the Congress and the White House seem fundamentally inclined for less progressive legislation and caving to the requests from a few conservative Democrats. In essentially no cases are conservaDems being bullied to make room for more progressive legislation.

Groups, bloggers, unions, everyone it seems is having a hard time figuring out how to react. Do you put intense pressure unto opposition on key legislative initiatives? Do you only fund challenger candidates? Where is the right balance at a time when opposition to the President’s agenda is not a label anyone seems content to wear with pride?

My take is that this first year under Obama is part of the learning curve. There must be space for progressive groups, bloggers, and activists to stand by their principles, regardless of who is in office. There must be a way to effectively pressure those in power, regardless of their party. And there must be a balance that allows pressure campaigns on the ruling Democrats to be effective while simultaneously ensuring that the GOP doesn’t spend the next two to four cycles sopping up Democratic seats in government.

I don’t know what this sort of activism looks like. Experimentation must take place and risks must be taken. And in reality, while the hostile environment of the ascendant Republican Party from 2000-2008 was a natural environment for progressive activism to emerge, so to is the current environment a hostile one that must also breed a new wave of effective progressive activism.

Progressives Less At Risk Than Conserva-Dems

I tend to agree with Chris Bowers and Jonathan Singer that while broadly Democrats may lose seats in 2010, it’s unlikely that progressives will be at risk as much as conservative Democrats. As Bowers notes, losses expected of non-progressive Democrats will only increase the relative strength of progressives in Congress. This in turn will mean there is an easier path to achieve progressive policies under a Democratic majority. There will be fewer conserva-Dems to try to hold the rest of the caucus hostage. And Singer is right that there is no real reason to take Charlie Cook’s assertion that being progressive is a political liability in this climate. We have no indication as of yet that supporting the progressive agenda under a Democratic president is something that voters will punish members of Congress for.

In fact, Nate Silver had a post a little over a week ago where he highlighted that the squeaky wheel Democrats in the Senate – people like Blanche Lincoln and Max Baucus – were suffering in the polls while making loud noises about how they may or may not vote on health care reform. Hemming and hawing in public doesn’t help their ratings, nor does making themselves swing votes in the debate. By comparison, their colleagues within the state who have been quietly taking a position and not making much noise afterward are doing just fine.

Broadly speaking, it is conservative Democrats who have made the most noise about where they do or do not stand on health care reform, while injecting themselves into the debate as negotiators seeking to extract specific concessions. Progressives, on the other hand, have largely been silently supporting reform while working quietly behind closed doors to hold the line against their vocal conservative colleagues. This makes me think that Bowers and Singer are right to be indifferent to coming conserva-Dem losses while projecting few progressive losses.

One thing that is certain, though. If there are a large string of conservative Democrat losses in the House and Senate in 2010, while there are comparatively few progressive losses, the media narrative will be that Democrats must be less progressive and stake more centrist positions. There will be no electoral evidence to support this position. It will simply be Conventional Wisdom via preconception and ignorance. It’s the way of the world and hopefully one of these days Democrats in DC will try to educate the press about why they are so fundamentally wrong.

A Retiring Blue Dog

Blue Dog Democrat Dennis Moore (KS-03) is retiring. Naturally, Chuck Todd thinks this is apocalyptic for Democrats:

The Moore retirement is one that should have some House Dem leaders nervous (as well as the WH), the party can’t afford more like Moore.
Twitter

One reason why 2010 doesn’t look like 1994 is that Dems haven’t had many retirements. GOPers might not have won ’94 w/o open seats.
Twitter

I’d actually be very curious to see a coherent argument for how having fewer seats in the House, but a smaller number of Blue Dogs, is bad news for leadership and the White House. Blue Dogs have opposed the leadership and the WH about as much as Republicans have. Or, more precisely, Blue Dogs have been more effective than Republicans have been in their opposition. Republican opposition hasn’t caused legislation to change one bit, while Blue Dog obstructionism has forced Democratic legislation to the right. What, exactly, do the Blue Dogs add when the size of their caucus is only used as a lever to push Congress to the right?

Targets

Twenty-three Democrats voted in favor of the Stupak amendment to dramatically ban the sale of insurance plans that offer coverage for abortion in the insurance exchanges that will be created in the health care reform bill, and subsequently voted against the House bill on final passage. That is, they made a move to make the legislation immeasurably worse, despite having zero intentions to support the bill.Here is the list of these Democrats in name only:

Jason Altmire (PA-4)Bobby Bright (AL-2)John Barrow (GA-12)John Boccieri (OH-16)Dan Boren (OK-2)Ben Chandler (KY-6)Travis Childers (MS-1)Artur Davis (AL-7)Lincoln Davis (TN-4)Bart Gordon (TN-6)Parker Griffith (AL-5)Tim Holden (PA-17)Jim Marshall (GA-8)Jim Matheson (UT-2)Mike McIntyre (NC-7)Charlie Melancon (LA-3)Collin Peterson (MN-7)Mike Ross (AR-4)Heath Shuler (NC-11)Ike Skelton (MO-4)John Tanner (TN-8)Gene Taylor (MS-4)Harry Teague (NM-2)

While some of these representatives serve in strongly Republican districts, not all of them do. Paul Rosenberg paired the full list of Yes on Stupak Democrats with their demographic information for their district. Altmire, Boccieri, Chandler, Holden, Marshall, McIntyre, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Tanner, and Teague come from districts that range from Lean Democratic to Swing to Lean Republican. Barrow and Artur Davis come from Strong Democratic districts.Additionally, Chris Bowers points out that over one out of every twelve dollars the DCCC spends has gone to these 23 people.First, these 23 Democrats should no longer receive the benefit of DCCC contributions. They add no value to the caucus and have substantively made it a less effective body, thereby damaging the reelection chances of actual liberals in swing districts.Second, this list should be the basis for groups seeking to run primary challengers against conservative Democrats. It is especially true for the 13 that come from districts that are Democratic, swing, or only slightly Republican. Barrow and Artur Davis should be facing immediate, credible challengers backed up by the weight of the progressive infrastructure.This group of Democrats are the tip of the spear when it comes to the path that will lead Democrats out of the majority. The House caucus would clearly be stronger without them. At best there should be active campaigns to excise them from office. At worst, not a cent should be spent defending them.Update:Artur Davis is not running for re-election. Kristopher in comments points this out, as did a friend who read the post. Davis is, however, running for Governor of Alabama in a contested Democratic primary. So while the DCCC won’t have to spend money to defend Davis, Democrats in Alabama and elsewhere may want to think about supporting someone else in that race.

“A Private Understanding”

Well isn’t this interesting:

Sen. Joe Lieberman has reached a private understanding with Majority Leader Harry Reid that he will not block a final vote on healthcare reform, according to two sources briefed on the matter.

Chris Bowers asks what people think the “private understanding” is.  Booman guesses that Reid threatened Lieberman with taking away his position as Homeland Security Committee Chair if Joe voted against cloture at any procedural point in the Senate debate.

Lieberman would have to get something in return for not voting against cloture on a health care reform bill he opposes. Keeping his Committee chairmanship, something that Lieberman has repeatedly bet he could do anything to retain (remember, he campaigned for John McCain), isn’t likely to be considered something by Joe Lieberman. He thinks he owns it already and there has been essentially zero will publicly expressed by the Democratic Senate caucus towards removing Lieberman from his chair as a consequence of his actions.

It’s also worth pointing out that while Lieberman has already said he won’t oppose a Motion to Proceed to the bill and sources are now saying he won’t oppose cloture on final passage, there is a third major cloture vote that has not yet been discussed. As I wrote on the SEIU blog, there is a cloture vote on the manager’s amendment to substitute the debated and amended healthcare bill onto a bill from the House Ways and Means Committee.

Cloture Motion on Manager’s Amendment (Substitute Amendment): After considerable debate and amendment to the substitute, the Majority Leader will file Cloture on the Substitute. If there are 60 votes here, the Merged reform bill/Substitute as amended will get an up or down vote after 30 hours of post cloture consideration.

So, in some sense, it seems that both Senator Lieberman and Leader Reid are weaseling on process questions right now. At least, neither are speaking publicly about Lieberman’s expected stance on the cloture vote that will occur between the Motion to Proceed and the cloture motion on final passage of the measure.

Getting beyond the weaseling on process, I don’t know what Lieberman is seeking to extort from Reid. Job security is clearly something he already thinks he has in the bank. More job security would certainly be helpful for Joe, but would it really be enough for him to vote with the caucus on procedural votes that he already sees as tantamount to the substantive vote on the bill itself on final passage?

Lieberman’s real problem is with the public option. Perhaps what Reid promised Lieberman was an opportunity to vote on an amendment to remove the public option from the bill, with a threshold of only 51 votes. This would increase the likelihood of it getting stripped out, as well as the likelihood that Lieberman will actually vote with the caucus on all cloture votes (as he said he would if he was happy with the underlying bill). The flip side, obviously, is that if Reid were to push for a 51 vote threshold for an amendment to strip the public option in the Unanimous Consent agreement governing the debate, he would essentially be guaranteeing its removal from the bill, after showed rare leadership by fighting alongside Chris Dodd for its inclusion.  If this is the case, expect a huge uproar from the people who have worked to get the public option as part of health care reform legislation.

Of course, I think Open Left commenter bento is probably most right about what the private understanding means: “Reid, in the privacy of his head, understands Lieberman will not filibuster. Joe in his privacy understands he will. ”

Update:

Lieberman spokesman Marshall Whitman has strongly denied the reporting of a “private understanding” in a quote to the National Review.

…Adding, Reid’s office is now denying the report of an understanding as well.

Grayson Money Bomb

http://actblue.congressmanwithguts.com/branded

Alan Grayson is showing the American public, but particularly the Washington establishment, what a fighting Democrat looks like. He’s outspoken and bold, but he’s also what the Democratic Party needs. Naturally his willingness to speak forcefully about progressive principles has made him a target from Republicans, the press, and moderate Democratic wimps. I just donated $25 to support Grayson, as his voice is a sorely needed one in our party and in this country.

Eviscerating Republican Bills of Attainder

Alan “Big D” Grayson’s exchange with Georgia Republican Paul Broun is pretty remarkable. First, Grayson absolutely schools Broun on the unconstitutionality of bills of attainder. Broun is reduced to repeatedly reading off of a talking points memo – on camera – to try to respond to Grayson’s Socratic line of questioning. Second, Grayson has yet again shown what it looks like when a Democrat stands up for his beliefs and defends an ally (ACORN) from unwarranted and in this case unconstitutional attack.

Glenn Greenwald has a great post looking at the legal precedents relating to bills of attainder and why Grayson is so spot-on in his analysis.  Glenn deconstructs the argument made by Broun and other anti-ACORN Republican members of Congress. Here’s where he arrives:

For those who want to ignore the actual law and insist that it’s not “punishment” for Congress to prohibit specific people from receiving discretionary government benefits (such as government contracts), it should be the case that you’d have no Constitutional objection to bills which provide for the following:

* Only registered Democrats, but not registered Republicans, shall be eligible for unemployment benefits.

* Any individual belonging or contributing to the NRA shall be permanently barred from government employment.

* Anyone who has been employed by Blackwater at any time during the past decade — including those who performed contracting services for said corporation — shall not be permitted to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid program.

* Any organization which helps more Republicans than Democrats register to vote shall be barred from holding tax-exempt status.

* Any person or company providing services, or entering into contracts with, Fox News shall be barred from receiving government contracts.

By the reasoning of Rep. Broun and his defenders, such measures cannot be unconstitutional because Congress is not “punishing” anyone here.  Nobody has the “right” to receive unemployment benefits, or be employed by the government, or to have government-provided health care benefits or to receive special tax-exemptions.  Those are purely discretionary benefits which the Congress is free to dole out, or not dole out, as it wishes.  Nobody who is singled out by the Congress can possibly complain that they are being unconstitutionally “punished” merely because Congress has decided to deny them these discretionary benefits.  Is that what anti-ACORN crusaders are prepared to defend?

There are days where it must be truly embarrassing to be a Republican member of Congress. I’m guessing yesterday was one of them.

Lieberman & Vote Counting

Yesterday I wrote about some lessons from Robert Caro’s biography of LBJ’s years in the Senate, Master of the Senate, especially as they regard to the health care reform fight and Harry Reid’s failures of leadership. I wrote:

One thing that Caro’s coverage of LBJ’s Senate tenure makes clear, segregation was preserved and civil rights were delayed for upwards of half a century because of the dominance of conservative Southerners over liberals when it came to understanding the rules and procedures of the Senate. Time after time, liberals were out maneuvered in the civil rights fight. Often their troubles came from an inability to properly count their votes; other times they simply were outsmarted by the master legislators of the South who knew Senate procedure cold. The South had to know how to use the rules to their advantage and they had to know how to count their votes, because they did not control the majority on civil rights and they hadn’t for decades.

Well today it looks like liberals have a golden opportunity to show whether or not we learn our lessons from LBJ or from our liberal predecessors who repeatedly lost civil rights fights in the first 60 years of the last century. Joe Lieberman has come out with a half step in the right direction:

Lieberman said he was “inclined to let the motion to proceed” (or cloture) go forward, but “I haven’t decided yet.”

So he’s saying he might not vote against cloture, but he hasn’t decided. Sadly, my friend Jonathan Singer at MyDD thinks this is equivalent to Lieberman “walk[ing] back his threat” to oppose health care reform. Sorry Jonathan, but this is exactly the sort of vote counting mistake liberals of LBJ’s era made.

I’m much more inclined to take a page from LBJ and not put Holy Joe in our column until we definitively know how he is voting on cloture. As there is still doubt, he should remain in the Nay column.

Lieberman is someone who loves being the center of attention. He loves being the deciding vote. His statement to the New Haven Register today, which shows that he is open to voting for cloture on a bill he will ultimately oppose, is something that might get people to  think he’s no longer relevant in the horse trading for cloture votes. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Lieberman wait while Nelson, Landrieu, and Bayh get their price and back off hard when his vote is finally the critical one. Remember, for Lieberman it is all about him, his ego, and his place as a Serious Bipartisan Gentleman. Everything else is the path to his increased importance.

The Failures of Leadership

I recently finished reading Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate, the volume of his biography of Lyndon Johnson that covered his years in the Senate.

One thing that Caro’s coverage of LBJ’s Senate tenure makes clear, segregation was preserved and civil rights were delayed for upwards of half a century because of the dominance of conservative Southerners over liberals when it came to understanding the rules and procedures of the Senate. Time after time, liberals were out maneuvered in the civil rights fight. Often their troubles came from an inability to properly count their votes; other times they simply were outsmarted by the master legislators of the South who knew Senate procedure cold. The South had to know how to use the rules to their advantage and they had to know how to count their votes, because they did not control the majority on civil rights and they hadn’t for decades.

This Politico post by Glenn Thrush on Reid and Schumer’s back and forth on the public option shows how lacking Senate Democrats are when it comes to both knowledge of Senate procedure and the vote counts on this issue. Much is made by conservative Democrats, Max Baucus, and Harry Reid’s office that the health care bill has to be something that can get 60 votes to overcome the Republican filibuster. But this simply isn’t the case. As long as there are 100 sitting Senators, a filibuster requires 41 votes to be maintained. Republicans only have 40 seats. There is simply no such thing as a “Republican filibuster.” A filibuster can only take place when one or more members of the Democratic caucus joins the Republican minority to stop an issue from moving forward. Any Democratic Senator who is complaining about a Republican filibuster is being at best dishonest with the public and at worst revealing how little they know about the legislative body in which they serve.

Yesterday Markos hit Reid hard for abdicating his leadership role in the Senate. I can’t say that, to this point in the health care debate, Reid has done anything other than fail to manage the caucus. Going back to Caro and LBJ, what made Johnson the “master of the Senate” was that he knew it cold. He knew the rules and procedures. He knew the vote count. He knew what would get every member to where he wanted them to be on a vote. When members of his caucus weren’t with them, he would beg, bully, or horse trade to get what he wanted. If a member of his caucus still didn’t go with him — if they weren’t on his team — he would punish them. For members who’d been in the body for a while, that would often mean simply ignoring their existence, both in terms of legislation they wanted moved forward and refusing to talk to them, turning his back when they entered a room. For more junior members, he would keep them off of the committees they wanted to be on (though he certainly did this to more senior members who’d waited a while for a spot to open up on a desired committee).

LBJ redefined the Senate during his tenure as Leader of the Democratic caucus. He dramatically shifted power from the major committee chairs to the leader. By the time he was done, the Majority Leader had infinitely more power than when he started. But it doesn’t seem that’s the case today, to judge by the performance of Harry Reid.

One of the things I’ve heard in the past during my work in politics is that Reid was first able to get the position of leader in the Democratic caucus by making a deal with the chairs of the major committees: they would back him in exchange of him giving them the power to run the show on their issues of jurisdiction. In a sense, Reid came to power with the agreement that he neuter himself as a leader. This decision in itself shows the sort of leader Reid would be: one without a strong desire to have power or use power to control the caucus.

There are not 60 votes against the public health insurance option in the Senate. There are not 41 Republican votes to filibuster health care reform. Quite simply, the fate of health care reform lies in the ability or inability of Harry Reid (with assistance from President Obama) to control the Democratic caucus. Harry Reid must be accountable for getting reform an up or down, simple majority vote. He can do this if he can control his caucus and he can do it on a bill that includes a public option if it is in the underlying bill he brings to the floor. And anyone in his caucus who stands in his way could face consequences for years following a move against him.

But we’re talking about Harry Reid and as such, I can’t expect anything that resembles leadership from him. He is a leader in title only and he resembles the incompetents who preceded LBJ – Scott Lucas and Ernest McFarland, men who had no control of their caucus and were completely ineffective majority leaders. Of note: both Lucas and McFarland were voted out of office after their short tenures as feckless majority leaders, something that should worry Harry Reid deeply.