Bayh and Nelson: We Prefer a GOP Budget
I noted earlier that two of the Senate's most conservative Democrats--Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson--voted against the Democrats' budget. That's not terribly surprising. The resolution wasn't vulnerable to a filibuster, their votes weren't strictly necessary, and, whether they were ideologically opposed to the measure that passed, or adhering to the demands of their conservative constituents, or bending to the whims of special interests, voting "no" allows them to say they voted "no" without necessarily wedding themselves to an alternative proposal.
Enter Mike Johanns, the freshman Republican senator from Nebraska whose amendment preventing the Senate from passing climate change legislation through the reconciliation process passed on Tuesday.
He also authored a different measure--not an amendment, but a "motion to recommitt"--which would have scrapped the budget that passed and replaced it with a much more conservative version. Most significantly, it would have indexed non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending to the expected rate of inflation. It failed 43-55--for all intents and purposes a mirror image of the vote on the final budget resolution. Which is to say that Bayh and Nelson voted for the "Johanns Budget".
I don't have all the details of the Johanns budget motion just yet, but will pass them along when I do. And I'll place a call for comment to Bayh's and Nelson's staffs to see if there's more to this than simply that the two would have preferred a Johann-shaped budget to the Democrats'.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Nelson and Bayh prefer the GOP budget. Well, that says what one needs to know about their view of America's future. I hope Obama will cut them off at the knees for their unwillingness to support his agenda and America's agenda for the next 20 years. It will make for an interesting turn of events when the GOP turns on them for their re-election efforts!
April 3, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"... hope Obama will cut them off at the knees for their unwillingness to support his agenda..."
With us or against us. Just like "surge" in Afganistan, words change but meaning remains.
April 3, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
HE'S BACK!!!
April 3, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that one guy's comment on a blog may as well have come from Obama himself...
April 3, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
With Dems like these, who needs the GOP?
Although I don’t agree with either one of them, I’m still glad they’re Democrats and not Republicans, diversity in the Democratic Party is key to keeping a majority.
April 3, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back when he kept a low profile, I used to tolorate Ben Nelson because I thought he was about as good a Democrat as we could hope to get out of Nebraska. The fact that it was his Republican colleague from Nebraska who pulled this stunt still makes me think he's about as good a Democrat as we could hope to get from Nebraska, at least for the time being.
Much to the anger of "progressives," Reid has always been very tolorant of his people doing what they think they need to do to keep from getting their homies all riled up at them. He comes from a conservative state himself and he feels their pain--and throughout the last Congress, he desparately needed their votes in the organizing resolutions.
But this Congress, Nelson has emerged from the shadows and he's been acting like the Senate is still split 49-51 with a Republican veep and he can do anything he wants because he has the ability to flip control if he changes parties. At the very time when his hand is weakest, he's been strutting around like Foghorn Leghorn, openly and loudly giving the bird to his party and his president at a time of national crisis. That ridiculous crowing he did over how proud he was of cutting measures out of the stimulus bill that were actually stimulative rankles me as much as anything Zell Miller or Traitor Joe ever did.
Nelson's not up for reelection again until 2012. He's never had any trouble raising money. He's got a popularity rating in his home state that hovers around 70%. I am a frequent defender of Reid here. This time, however, I really think he needs to come down on this asshole like a ton of bricks and say, "look, you have no leverage. I don't need your vote to say majority leader so I do't give a damn if you cross the aisle. You need to give the party and your president a couple of years of low-profile loyalty or so help me God you will never see another dime of DSCC money, I will put you on the Capitol Toilett subcommittee and personally ensure that you never bring home an ounce of bacon for Nebraska for the rest of your term."
Maybe it's not something he gets to do more than once, but he needs to do it on Nelson.
Bayh? That's an easier conversation--"hey, moron! Your state is moving to the left!"
April 3, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree and hope the loss of DSCC will become a reality. I believe that his "leverage" position will soon backfire on him.
April 3, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with your analysis is that Reid is only slightly to the left of Nelson and Bayh. By no stretch is Reid a liberal.
Reid will never "whip" these Blue Dogs because he shares their outlook and much of their agenda. We are stuck with a Democratic congress that views its role as one of, if not outright opposition to, at least of reining in the "excesses" of an extremely popular president from their own party. Therefore, we're going to have to settle for watered-down, incremental progess towards all of our goals while Obama is president.
Here's hoping that progessive opposition, both from the mainstream Demcoratic Party as well as the MoveOns of the world, start successfully challenging the Evan Bayhs in primaries. I never would have thought that an 80-year-old cancer survivior could perform a triple backflip and stick the landing, but that's exactly what Arlen Specter has done since a challenger promised to run against him from the right.
I think similar challeneges from the left should be our main priority in 2010 and beyond.
April 3, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
WORD!
April 3, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know that Reid's covert blue-doggism is an article of faith embedded in the Progressive catechism, as is the belief that a more leftist Senate majority leader could a) become Senate majority leader and, b) force more leftish legislation through the senate.
I would respectfully suggest, however, that, as a Senator, Reid behaves exactly the way you would expect a senator from a deeply purple state to behave and, likewise, behaves exactly the way you would expect a Senate Majority Leader to behave when the political spectrum of his caucus runs from Feingold and Kennedy to Nelson and Traitor Joe. I also seriously doubt that it's possible to elect a senate majority leader much more to the left without it becoming a pyrrhic victory--i.e. without losing the ability to anyone in the right of the party to not vote with the Republicans.
I think Reid's doing the best he can to get as much of the president's agenda he thinks he can through the Senate he's got with the rules he's stuck with. I haven't seen any indication that Obama, or Rahm, disagree with that assessment. Strictly my opinion. Many others here disagree with that assessment, I know.
But even with that opinion of Reid in general, I think that in the special case of Ben Nelson, Reid needs to get in touch with his inner Lyndon Johnson and give the grandstanding asshole "the Treatment."
April 3, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, whatever the overall color of Nevada, Reid is currently the most endangered Democratic senator on Nate Silver's list. Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't learn the lesson of Tom Daschle, who was a fine senator from a difficult state for Democrats, and had his own electoral concerns pulling in the direction of the opposition. Reid's in a similar situation, and I think it's fair to argue that there would be more pressure on the Blue Dogs if we had a leader from a safe Democratic state.
April 3, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I don't appreciate the condescension dripping from your comment, one has to wonder why the Blue Dogs fail to appreciate the argument that the success of Obama's agenda will likely lead to greater success for the Democratic Party, Blue Dogs included.
But that would lead one to wonder why certain Democrats oppose an agenda celarly tilted back towards the working and middle classes, and, if they are opposed to helping those people, why they are Democrats at all.
It seems to me that an effective Democratic leader might attempt to persuade his incalcitrant members, or promise to run Democrats for Democratic offices in the future. I guess you're fine with Reid not even trying to whip his caucus; I'm not.
April 3, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm interested in hearing the answer to the question "Does the Senator prefer the GOP budget?"
April 3, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the one with no numbers, or the one that uses Bush's numbers to project economic catastrophe in 2085?
April 3, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, good point. Do you prefer the budget that isn't, or the budget that's fiction?
April 3, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My budget on mint.com has more substance than the GOP one, and it's automatically generated!
April 3, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nelson, being from a deep red state, at least has an excuse, but Bayh needs to realize that his state voted for Obama. It seems obvious to me that he's just throwing a hissy fit because he got passed over for VP.
April 3, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
And thank goodness he did!
April 3, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kinda thought that too, although I hate to say it. His dad Birch is probably rolling in his grave.
April 3, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Waitin' on that follow-up post, because I can't wait to hear the explanation....
April 3, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting to think Bayh might be looking to jump to GOP come 2010, and could become an independent sooner than that. I think he still has Presidential aspirations and realizes that there really isn't a chance of that as a Democrat as Obama runs in four years, and then Obama plays kingmaker in 2016 and Bayh knows he's not in the Obama inner circle.
Bayh also sees a leadership vacuum on the Right, and sees a much more direct route to getting a 2012 or 2016 Presidential nod.
Bayh has always been about Bayh, he's been planning his Presidential run since middle school, and has always voted accordingly in politics.
April 3, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're nuts sometimes.
April 3, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes?
April 3, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems spend a great deal of time guffawing about the latest GOP this or that.
It's fun, but it is also pointless
The real political problem isn't them
It's our own Senators
April 3, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
dear lord, screw these guys! glad to see they're not getting their way by just whining a lot. but really they need to be called out and shamed. are they with the Republicans or the American people? why, at this point in history, are these two IDIOTS standing in the way of the agenda the people elected Obama to enact? why, and why shouldn't we primary them out of existence? F$CK these sellout DINOs.
April 3, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The most salient argument the Republicans will have in 2010 (IMO) is that it's bad to give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Americans seems to shy away from one-party rule, so that argument will carry lots of weight in moderate states.
If that's the case, then it's to the Democratic Party's advantage if both Nelson and Bayh leave the party and join with the Republicans.
1. We're not getting their votes anyway, so it really doesn't matter if we have 57 or 59 nominal Democrats.
2. The Republicans lose their best 2010 argument.
April 3, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easiest solution to get rid of these idiot dems.
Their states do not get any stimulus money or earmark funds.
No one is going to vote for the reps that cannot bring any money to their states.
Bye-bye losers!
April 3, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say get rid of the stupid filibuster rule. When pissant states like Wyoming with less population than Washington DC gets two senators, and New York and California have the same number of senators as Mississippi and Alabama ....... then who gives a shit about a supermajority to get anything done. Just do 51 for everything like the god damned reptile republicans did when they could get away with it. Enough already! People are suffering and dying each and every day we do not move forward out of this war/healthcare/education/climate mess! Enough!
April 3, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink