Herding Cats, Or Blue Dogs
From www.captainsquartersblog.com

Now that the Democrats have won control of both chambers of Congress, their real challenge has begun -- big-tent governing. The Democrats took control by nominating center-right candidates to replace Republicans, and now they will have to find ways in which to unify their caucus to get their issues advanced. As the departing Republican leadership can tell them, it's not as easy as it looks:

They wear cowboy boots, chew tobacco, love hunting, hate abortion, want less government spending — and some voted for Ronald Reagan. Now they are headed to Congress as Democrats.
Although the Democrats’ victory was above all an overwhelming repudiation of the conflict in Iraq, it was also built on the back of moderate, often conservative candidates recruited to compete in traditionally Republican territory.

When Congress returns in January, both the House and Senate will see something of an ideological shift, with an influx of freshmen Democrats who, while unified in their opposition to the war, are well to the right of the party’s current caucus on cultural issues.

Their success reflects a resurgence of “Blue Dog” Democrats — socially conservative but generally economic populists — across the Midwest, and a bold new strategy to target the Republican-leaning West and South West — states such as Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico — as a way of winning back the White House in 2008.


Conservatives have spent the last few years wondering what happened to the Blue Dog Democrats, and the easy answer was that they became Republicans. The parties began to divide by ideology during the Reagan years, and the migration became significant in the 1990s. Out of sheer political expediency, the power brokers in the Democratic ranks backed candidates like Heath Shuler and Jim Webb -- who resembles a Buchananite more than a Blue Dog -- for the sole purpose of winning majorities in Congress.

If one doubts that, when was the last time the national party put so much of its efforts and treasure behind pro-life candidates? At their last national convention, the party erupted into criticism when a pro-life politician merely wanted to address the delegates:

On Tuesday afternoon, a few hours before the Convention adopted the party's platform, the Democrats for Life of America rallied outside Faneuil Hall and in front of the statue of Samuel Adams. They cheered the great advances pro-life Democrats had made in recent years and decried the new party platform. In 2000 the party's platform included big tent language, saying: "The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party." In 2004 that had changed to excluding all pro-life Democrats from the party. The US Senators, Congressmen, ambassadors, state legislators, clergy and ativists from around the country rejected the new language that said it was only "Republican efforts" at work to protect pregnant women and their unborn children.
Now that they have a majority, though, these same candidates that they actively recruited will now want to vote their conscience on these matters, and the Democrats may have some tough battles with their special-interest groups. Many of them oppose new taxes, for instance, and the New Direction plan for Democrats calls for big increases in social spending. The newbies did not join the Democrats in order to instill socialism, and some in the activist community may find these new members very trying indeed.

Democrats could abide the Blue Dogs in days gone by because they had large enough majorities to make them less relevant. With the razor-thin majorities they have now, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi may find herding Blue Dogs as frustrating as herding cats.

Woof!

The house majority is solid. The senate one is less so, but "all about me" Joe is essentially stuck with the Dems, unless he wants to risk being in the minority for a good long time.

He will sit right where he sits for the time being.

As for the big tent, that's how things are supposed to go. The reality is on all but a small number of divisive issue, to be avoided right now, there is plenty of agreement to go forward with few worries.

The debate will be about how to get these things done, not if they will ever get done at all. Big difference and entirely healthy for all of us frankly.

Too much unity is a bad thing. Checks and balances, even within the party, is where the solid ideas come from. It's also the source of sane governance we have been missing for the last 6 years.

I find it interesting how discussions about the fillabuster have changed too. Good for the GOP, bad for the Democrats huh?

Big ass double standard there.


I'll be watching the fresh blood though. We've some new faces that have few, if any entanglements and are not jet jaded members of the establishment. Very cool. They are either gonna cause problems, or be catalysts for great things to come.

Wish we had more of that. I know I'll be contributing to the netroots people powered politics this next cycle. I like how that turned out.

Had we let the establishment play out it's ideas, we would be talking gains right now and how that will affect '08. The greater direct involvement of people in their government, empowered via the Internet, made a huge fricking difference. --Bigger than anyone realized.

Going forward, I've no problem with that on all sides of the asile.

"Too much unity is a bad thing."

Right. Keep thinking that way.

Spin on.

Herb

I'd sure as hell rather have majorities in the House and Senate than not!

Andrew

So, again with a post by Herb, I am genuinely unclear about what I am supposed to do with that information. Am I supposed to just give up hoping? Is it a warning that no matter how much the Democrats try and do something for which they were elected, it's futile because...why again?

The Democrats will have a tough time.

Yeah?

So?

And?

It's all a bunch of chest thumping, IMHO.

You have to keep the value judgements in mind. To Herb, nothing else matters but fighting terror and getting rightie court appointments. These two things form the basis for a biblically correct governance in line with his morality.

That's why the party unity bit is so important. There really can't be any dissent, otherwise why bother with the hard line message on morality in general?


Think of it this way too. If he can make any positive look like a marginal effort toward a futile goal, then he's pretty much got you on the defensive at all times.

This leaves the door open to consider his view at all times.

If, on the other hand, the everyday issues see a greater focus and recognition of their importance, then the extreme divisive stuff will be seen for what it is to a larger group of people. That puts the whole affair at longer term risk.

Took 'em about 25 years to get this shot and go for everything they could get. I'm fairly sure the original plan was to establish a more enduring majority, supported by courts to effect some real change.

Clinton was the last upset. Had he lost, we would be neck deep in a theocracy right now.

Herb is secretly terrified that the Democrats will win an even bigger majority in 2008 and maybe even the presidency. You're right, it IS just chest thumping from someone scared of losing power!

Andrew

You know it.

I'm hoping we see the single subject legislation issue brought up, then bill after bill passed in the house to make a whole string of points.

That alone would tee things up for '08 nicely.

The hilarious thing is it all would have probably worked out well for a longer term majority, but greed and corruption got in the way of that.

I have made this point before. The 12 disciples that Jesus hand-picked were a diverse group. Some were sworn enemies to each other. You had a tax collector, scum of the earth in biblical days. You had religious zealots, or in today’s vernacular-terrorists. They disagreed many times yet Jesus was able to use them and their many unique gifts.

Debate among your peers is good and clarifies positions and clears the way for other creative thought.

There are going to be some battles in the House and Senate but our governing body is set up that way. The founding fathers certainly made debate all apart of the process even with those who were are the same side. It reflects much of what the constituency wants and is all about.

"If he can make any positive look like a marginal effort toward a futile goal..."

Oh, you mean like the left's years of bellyaching over Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Halliburton, and how we're 'losing in Iraq?'

The real truth is that leftists are experts in their attempt to marginalize anything THEY don't like.

The fact is, the left now has an incredibly HUGE problem. Unless they deliver on their big talk, impatient voters will give them the boot in an election that REALLY matters. And THAT one will determine who sits on the Supreme Court for the coming decades. All this with a marginal majority, and plenty of social conservatives in the democrat party's midst.

We've been hearing on this board how conservatives should walk the walk. Now the left will walk the plank.

Captain Herb

More sour grapes from the resident extremist.

Oh, we see.

When the left takes issue with the right, it's fine.

When the right takes issue with the left, it's 'more sour grapes from the resident extremist.'

Guess what? The left is now going to have to do more than armchair quarterback. And you can't blame Diebold anymore.

Spin on.

Herb

" Guess what? The left is now going to have to do more than armchair quarterback. And you can't blame Diebold anymore."

You say that as if that's a curse or something. Isn't that what we wanted? Isn't that why we ran and won?

So you are basiclaly saying " Well now you are getting what you want. You lose! "?

I don't follow that logic at all.

Leftists can no longer play the blame game.

It's time to put up.

Herb

"Leftists can no longer play the blame game.

It's time to put up."

I think the same can be said of the Bush administration.

Show some bargaining skills ... look like an ass.

No attacks on American soil since 9/11.

The ball's in the left's hands now.

Herb

Man, that's just funny. It must just completely chap your ass that the GOP was that fully rejected!

Love it!

Actually, there simply have been no attacks. Until we get the 9/11 recommendations put into place, there is no defensible position for attaching an attack onto the Democrats, who have not yet even assumed their proper role.

It's not a binary thing where the blame is concerned. Afterall, the GOP still has the Presidency. And that President has the say on foreign policy and the military.

A smart and effective President would remain able to do great things with a democratic congress. How some things get done, and in what order would be up for grabs, but still plenty for a President to do.

Oh yeah. Forgot!

You guys are stuck with a Resident, not a President.

Damn. 08 is gonna hurt.

" Leftists can no longer play the blame game.

It's time to put up. "

RIGHT! That's what many of us are saying, Herb! We're sick of blaming others too. But since the GOP was in control, we were frustrated. So now that we have our own chance, we WANT to " put up." You are trying to rub it in our faces that we've won! How is that a bad thing for us?

"No attacks on American soil since 9/11."

And who was president during our biggest attack, 9/11? Oh yeah, George W. Bush.

Yeah - but he only had 8 months and 7 minutes to try to do anything about it. Not enough time.

Obviously he needed more time. One more hour, man. That's all he needed. He would have got Bin Laden if he just had more time.

He had over a month.

Mr. Clinton could have had Bin Laden several times, but was too busy with interns in the Oval Office.

Herb

For the sake of argument, let's say that that is true; He had chances, but was too busy with intern(s?). You obviously have given it a lot of thought and after considering all angles, came to that conclusion. You also must have all kinds of resources from which to pull data. I mean, someone didn't just say that, out loud, and you accepted it at face value. I believe you. You're right, let's say.

So use all those resources and data mining reports and answer this;

What is GWB's reason for not catching Bin Laden? Seems like there is MUCH more pressure on Bush to make it a priority, especially post 9/11, to find him. Or do you not agree that Bin Laden is worth searching for?

You'd be agreeing with your President if you thought that - so maybe that's your answer.

Damn that Clinton. Had he not chased skirt around the whitehouse, Bush would look so much better than he does today. Clinton RUINED Bush's chance at greatness. Now all Bush is gonna be known as the most inept president ever (6 years, no bin Laden, no WMDs ).

"What is GWB's reason for not catching Bin Laden?"

A valid question. It's certainly a lot harder now that he has escaped our cross-hairs, knows our methods [he stopped using cell phones when he found out we were able to better locate him], he uses only trusted messengers and is likely holed up in one of thousands of caves near the Pakistani border.

Like bringing a lunker to the side of the boat and losing him, a fish is much more wary after that.

Mr. Clinton had the opportunity but missed it repeatedly.

In Mr. Clinton's defense, we knew Bin Laden was a bad guy and a killer, but who would have imagined 9/11 occuring? There's plenty of blame. Don't throw it all on Mr. Bush.

Herbert Milhous

No Bin Laden = failed presidency? Guess that makes Franklin Roosevelt and truman failed presidents, look at all the nazis they let escape.

President Bush has removed Bin Laden from having any practicle control over his terror organization, and the worldwide terror networks are reduced to individual, or small groups with no over control.

Who would have imagined 9/11 occurring? Certainly not the Bush Administration! People tried to tell them, but they had other priorities.

LOL!!!

That's a damn good reason for not condoning blind party unity.

Oh, and I think Bin Laden is probably dead.

If Mr. Clinton hadn't 'loathed the military' and stripped our intel, whilst selling it to the Chinese, we likely would never have had a 9/11.

Herb

"Clinton Did it"

That's outta style now Herb. The nation has moved on, leaving you to bitch, grunt and moan.

The real biggie now is the growing reality that Bush has lost the war on terror. Iraq is a complete and total clusterfuck. The best we can hope for is to get out nicely and cut our losses.

Bin Laden got away on Bushes watch. He diverted the resources we might have used to nab him to support the lie that is Iraq.

Doing this bred more willing and able terrorists than we've seen to date.

What Clinton did or didn't do is years past now. It's all about what Bush did or didn't do. He is afterall the Resident President. The trouble we have today is on his watch, his deal, his accountability.

The recent election results did not give him a passing grade. Your party is now in a far more diminished state, and with it your chance at legislating your morality through the GOP, all because of what Bush did or didn't do.


What was that you wrote: Denial is not a river...

Tell you what. Hope is not a strategy either.

"If Mr. Clinton hadn't 'loathed the military' and stripped our Intel, whilst selling it to the Chinese, we likely would never have had a 9/11."

Actually, Bush had the Intel, he chose to not pay attention and take it seriously. This has been proven. He was too busy being the most vacationed president and trying to get a missile defense system on line to worry about terrorism. Bin who?? Oh yeah, never mind the Aug 6 PDB warning Bush about Bin Laden wanting to attack. Clearing brush on the ranch was much more important that to be bothered by such silly details.

Let's see.

Loathing, then stripping the military.

Intern shenanigans.

Impeachment.

Yeah, you've got a real winner there and I didn't even begin with all his gates....travelgate, etc.

Herb

9/11 with 3000 dead on our soil ranks ahead of all of that, added up! Then top it off with the Iraq war and the complete bungling of Katrina. That's why a majority of Americans think Bush sucks and give Clinton a much more favorable rating as a person AND a president. It's also why the GOP just got swept out of the both houses of Congress, and lost governorships and state legislatures nationwide, including Oregon.

Darned thing about all those "gates" -- no conviction.

It's funny that Herb always says to spin on??? The noe-CONers are the worlds BEST spinners and he keeps thinking that YOU lefties are spinning.... He must not read a GD thing he types.
God, Guns and Gays.... 3 things that Herb and WW live by.