Blue Dogs Get the White House Access, But Progressives Aren't Silent
The House Blue Dog Coalition continues to wield outsize political power, thanks to a canny willingness to leverage its votes on key issues, while the Congressional Progressive Caucus must fight to be heard.
Case in point: the Blue Dogs are meeting directly with President Obama this afternoon on the stimulus bill. The Progressives have yet to hear back about their request for a meeting, which was issued almost a month ago.
But that doesn't mean the Progressives are staying silent as the Senate proposes stimulus cuts to education and health insurance for the unemployment. Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), co-chairs of the group, have fired off a letter to the House Speaker protesting the Senate's cuts. Here's an excerpt:
We are especially concerned that the Senate package does not invest in jobs - be they focused on "green" technology, veterans, or sustaining the local prevailing wage. ... As the House and Senate bills move towards conference, we urge you to stand strong and advocate for the above-mentioned House-passed funding, because a bill modeled on the Senate version could be very difficult for many progressives to support.
The final stimulus vote will be the true test of whether progressives are willing to cause trouble for the White House and their leaders by pushing for a stimulus they can support. Goodness knows the Blue Dogs aren't shy about speaking their minds -- and extracting concessions for it.
Late Update: Our own Andrew Golis was able to ask Grijalva today whether the progressives would back up their letter with a concrete vow to oppose any stimulus that too closely resembled the Senate version.
His response was understandable, but likely to take the teeth out of the effort: "I don't know. That gauntlet was necessary to throw down. Will there be the will to sink the package? I don't know."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
The problem is that that they're in a game theory trap. Everyone knows thhat every single one of these people will vote for any stimulus bill that the Republicans hate enough to vote against. And the day the "progressives" team up with the Republicans to defeat a bill that both sides deem too centrist is the day most rank and file Democrats start calling for their heads.
None of the above, alas, applies to the SCMS's (So-Called "Moderate" Senators -- an acronym I'm trying very hard to inject into the blogosphere). Hence, the unfortunate massive imbalance in their current power to brains ratio.
February 10, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that we've enough acronyms, thank-you-very-much!
February 10, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer PMS: pseudo-moderate senators.
February 10, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that is seems that all sides forget is that this isn't the only package, the only solution. There will be future bills to get more jobs created, overhaul transportation, change our energy grid/structure/production. This is a big agglomerate bill that gets the ball rolling in a lot of directions, but more specific legislation is needed in the future to tackle a lot of issues. I feel that the media is playing this up as the make or break moment (and Obama is too), but seriously--we've a lot of tweaking to do in the future.
February 10, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right!
February 10, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean ... this isn't the ONLY bill ... ever?
February 10, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's time for the Progressive Caucus to leverage their power by voting against the conference agreement. They do have 71 members, after all, which is larger than the Blue Dog Caucus.
February 10, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Blue Dogs are really a hinderance and a political machine trying to undermine Obama and the agenda for the country. Their own political gain is what they seek and I would not even those these dogs a bone to chew on!
February 10, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is if you pass stuff over the blue dogs and put their seats in jeopardy then you are back to a dem minority in the house and senate. I don't think that's where we want to go. Also, pretty much any further house and senate pick-ups are in blue dog territory. Unfortunately, blue dog territory is where the game is and where it will be played.
February 10, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael A...you have this wrong. Blue Dogs can and should be replaced otherwise we are giving away votes for this country's best interests and the direction we need to be heading. I don't give in to the belief a letter D beside an incumbent blue dog is better than what we can produce with a blue dog replacement. the blue dogs are actually hurting the agenda and we haven't come close to issues of health care and foreign policy debates coming along later.
February 10, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thing is, many - most? - of those Blue Dogs represent districts/states that mostly vote Republican. Like it or not, Rahm Emanuel's fight to get Blue Dogs elected in 2006 was a major factor - perhaps THE major factor - in the Dems' rewinning the Congressional majority. If you've some magic formula leading to liberals winning over Appalachia, you should probably get off the blog and run to Tim Kaine (who knows the area pretty well himself). At the risk of generalizing, we're talking voters who are deeply socially conservative and decidedly non-progressive. The one candidate who knows how to work them is Hillary Clinton, who strongly benefitted from voter racism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI
I'm not happy about it either, but I'd rather have Blue Dogs stirring the pot, than hand Congress back to the GOP. Moreover, if we demand that Dems in Congress put the party before their constituents, we cannot complain about the GOP doing the same.
February 10, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign. I just might add that what liberal or progressive senator could get elected to montana, south dakota, colorado, nevada, north dakota, nebraska, louisiana, arkansas, indiana, florida, virginia, north carolina, alaska, missouri? Take away all those blue dog senators and we lose 19 senate seats. Also, ohio, pennsylvania and west virgina aren't that "progressive." Dems would get wiped out in the senate and wouldn't even have enough votes to mount a filibuster. I think cutting out the blue dogs is totally a non-starter.
February 10, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are also 47 blue dog house members. There would go the house as well.
February 10, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really believe that you could elect a Ted Kennedy in Idaho? I assure you: you could not.
So the question becomes, do you think America was better off with Bill Sali in congress? Again, I assure you: we were not.
Relax. Let the democrats who are represented by blue dogs deal with them. There are progressives who would kill to have blue-dog problems instead of red-asshole problems. I'm sorry if it messes with your idea of party perfection, but I'd prefer not to go back.
February 10, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
whether progressives are willing to cause trouble for the White House and their leaders? Duh! Squeaky wheel, nice guys finish last, nothing to fear but fear, get what you ask for - like what don't they get? Until the Progressives demand attention with a 2 x 4, they'll get nothing.
February 10, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The liberals have been decieved and used.
Look at Obama's, not Geithner's, but Obama's bank bailout to see where liberals really stand with the Democratic party.
The liberals should walk out and refuse to vote. Why not? They have nothing to lose.
The Blue Dogs aren't the problem. The centrist's aren't the problem. The corrupt, bought-and-paid for Democratic party leadership IS the problem.
February 10, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The balance of power is always in center in a two party system. How hard is that to understand? If progressives have 51% of the votes int the house then more power to them. If the progressive caucus has 71 out of 260 democratic members then what the hell do you expect.
February 10, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The progressives in the House as among Democrats generally in the Congress have to decide whether they are a bunch of pantywaiss or not and they need to do so now.
It isn't simply the fact that the Blue Dogs are willing to scuttle the President's plans that gets them the meeting. It is the advice of the Snake of Staff in the White House Rahm Emmanuel who is guiding the President's effort. This is exactly what happened in the House when RE was part of the leadership there.
I think the progressives oughta show some balls here and make it very clear that if, at least the funds for state and local government are not restored they will kill the bill. Then they need to follow through on it.
February 10, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shoot the country in the head if liberal political orthodoxy is not met? The Rush Lib-baugh philosophy?
Please, Put. The. Gun. Down.
February 10, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't what would happen. What would happen is that we'd get better laws passed than when we capitulate to those asshole Republican crackers in Congress. Why is it when it's the Blue Dogs and Republicans it is a problem we have to deal with, but when progressives do it, we have a gun to the nation's head. That's just alarmist hooey.
February 10, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Blue Dogs along with their corporate compatriots with the GOP are much to blame for our current economic problems. They both make up the ever powerful but very unpopular(unless you're a corporatist) MONEY Party. They pushed the deregulation mantra of the past. I don't understand why why President Obama is embracing the policies and people who caused much of our problems to begin with. Blue Dogs are NOT CHANGE, but more of the same.
February 10, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.
To think I had the audacity to believe that SNOWbama would practice what Obama preached ...
February 10, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spoken like someone with his head up his ass!
February 10, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spoken like someone with his head up his ass!
February 10, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink