Senate New Dem members give clue to Evan Bayh's new Senate Blue Dogs.

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-17-08 02:29 PM
Original message

Senate New Dem members give clue to Evan Bayh's new Senate Blue Dogs.

Evan Bayh wants to form a new Senate group of Blue Dogs.

This Huffington Post blogger is very outspoken in his opposition to the idea.

The 110th congress saw the most obstruction in history, literally. The Republican minority in the Senate forced cloture votes well over 100 times, shattering the previous high mark of 61. Now that Democrats are likely within reach of 60 votes on major progressive priorities like establishing a universal health care system and capping CO2 emissions, Senator Bayh is determined to sabotage his party.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) is trying to mobilize moderate Democratic Senators to form a group based loosely on the House Blue Dog Coalition.

To suggest that this move is intended to "break the gridlock" is extremely disingenuous. The intended effect is the opposite. Namely, to support do-nothing Republican Senators in their perpetual quest to make sure the Senate is never able to pass any worthwhile legislation. To borrow a phrase from Yossarian, "The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."

...."Not only does he seem poised to move even further to the right, but he also provides incredible cover for Senate Republicans whose legislative strategy has been reduced to gumming up the works at every opportunity. It will be hard for Senate Democrats to place the blame squarely on obstructionist Republicans if a group of worthless conservative Democrats led by Senator Bayh is helping them get to 40 on major issue after major issue.

We can never point blame when we go along to get along.

Here is the latest list I could find of the Senate New Democrat Coalition which was apparently formed in 2000. I would imagine that many on this list who are still in Congress would be interested in joining with Bayh in forming a new centrist group that would very often vote with the Republican caucus.

The following Senators belong or belonged to the Senate New Democrat Coalition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

Current senators
Blanche Lincoln (AR, founder)
Dianne Feinstein (CA, by 2001)
Thomas R. Carper (DE, by 2001; co-chair from 2003)
Joe Lieberman (CT, founder)
Bill Nelson (FL, by 2001)
Evan Bayh (IN, founder)
Mary Landrieu (LA, founder, co-chair from 2003)
John Kerry (MA, from 2000<6>)
Debbie Stabenow (MI, by 2001)
Kent Conrad (ND, from 2000)
Ben Nelson (NE, by 2001)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY, from 2001<7>)
Tim Johnson (SD, from 2000)
Maria Cantwell (WA, by 2001)
Herb Kohl (WI, from 2000)

Former senators
Bob Graham (FL, founder, chair from 2000-2003; retired from Senate in 2003)
Max Cleland (GA, from 2000; defeated in 2002)
Zell Miller (GA, by 2001; retired from Senate in 2004)
John Breaux (LA, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
Jean Carnahan (MO, by 2001; defeated in 2002)
John Edwards (NC, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
Bob Kerrey (NE, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
Richard Bryan (NV, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
Chuck Robb (VA, from 2000; defeated in 2000

I was surprised that Harry Reid gave his blessing to the idea of Evan Bayh forming a Blue Dog Coalition in the Senate. In my mind the House Blue Dogs have made it easier for Bush to get his agenda through in many cases. I wonder if splitting the Democrats in Senate will make it harder for Obama to get his agenda through.

I remember when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer admitted that the FISA bill passed to keep the Blue Dogs happy.

Hoyer said that if House Democratic leaders failed to reach a FISA deal with the White House and GOP leaders, as many as �30 Blue Dogs and another 20 to 30 members� could have signed onto a Republican discharge petition calling for a floor vote on the Senate version of the FISA bill, which was even more anathema to House Democrats than what eventually passed. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) confirmed that �there were a lot of Blue Dogs getting anxious� and �a lot� of them would have signed a discharge petition.

�You can take a position and be a purist and sort of sit around yelling at each across the divide and nothing gets done,� Hoyer said. �The American people, they want us to get this done. That�s the whole thing to me.�

On the bankruptcy bill that has had so many devastating effects, the Blue Dogs in the House joined with the House New Dems to plead and beg with Denny Hastert to bring it to a vote quickly.

Letters from House Blue Dogs and New Dems to Hastert.

Here is a paragraph from the New Dem's letter.

Over the last several years, we have worked to advance reasonable and balanced legislation that would require individuals who have the ability to repay their debts to do so, while preserving the important safety net of bankruptcy under Chapter 7 for those who truly need it. We believe that responsible bankruptcy reform embodies the New Democrat principle of personal responsibility, while at the same time adding important new consumer protections such as requiring enhanced credit card disclosure information and encouraging participation in consumer credit counseling.

Here is what Noam Scheiber had to say about the bill:

This magazine and multiple other opinion outlets on the center-left have written at length about how the bill in question is a truly contemptible piece of legislation. Worse, there is no plausible political rationale for supporting it other than to appease credit card companies. As Paul Krugman pointed out today, the bill makes no exceptions for families wiped out by medical expenses (which make up more than half of all bankruptcies) or for bankruptcy cases involving active-duty soldiers, yet it leaves any number of loopholes in place for large corporations. The political imagery here so obviously benefits anyone who'd oppose the bill you're left to conclude that the only way a congressman could possibly support it is through a craven and reflexive willingness to do the bidding of big business.

But, even worse than that, support for the bill by Democratic moderates betrays a striking obliviousness to the most important debate underway within the Democratic Party. Moderate Democrats have been under assault from grassroots liberals lately for selling out Democratic values in their rush to appease conservative interests. I normally think this criticism is highly misplaced, and that moderates have exactly the right instincts when it comes to social issues and foreign policy, even most economic issues. But in this case the moderates proved the liberals' point for them, which could set back the cause of moderates within the party for months, if not years. It really is a colossal, inexcusable mistake.

The Blogometer at National Journal gives a few views from the blogosphere. This part is just over half way down the page and does not have it's own link.

BAYH: Because You Can Never Have Enough Blue Dogs...
Benen is discouraged by the news that IN Sen. Evan Bayh "is trying to mobilize moderate Democratic Senators to form a group based loosely on the House Blue Dog Coalition": "In the House, the Blue Dogs are not only overly cozy with corporate lobbyists, this is a coalition reluctant to embrace a progressive vision on issues like climate change, and committed to a financial plan focused on spending reductions and balanced budgets -- precisely when the federal government needs to be doing the opposite. That Bayh wants a similar group working in the Senate is discouraging, to put it mildly."

Open Left's Matt Stoller isn't surprised by the news: "Steven Benen is not encouraged, but I have a somewhat different attitude. This shows that the 60 vote threshold argument was nonsense, power is concentrated in the hands of conservative Democrats and a few Republicans, and that's how these guys wanted it."

Yglesias reacts with sarcasm: "This seems like a good idea to me. With Republicans out of power, the GOP can't really block progressive change in exchange for large sums of special interest money. That creates an important market niche for Democrats willing to do the work. It was a good racket for the House Blue Dogs in 2007-2008 and there's no reason it couldn't work for Senate analogues over the next couple of years."

Blocking progressive legislation. Bottom line.

I am disappointed that Bayh feels the need to form this group. They already have one in the Senate called the New Dems. The conservative Democrats really do still have the power because they have the corporate money.