The Era Of "More Democrats" Officially Ends

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 15:23


After vowing not to support cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act in his first day as a Democrat, and then voting against the Democratic budget in his second day as a Democrat, Arlen Specter has now, in his third day as a Democrat, voted against the housing bankruptcy reform legislation known as "cramdown." So far, Specter's party switch has gained progressives a whole lot of nothing in terms of votes.

Specter's post-switch voting record is now a perfect demonstration of why having 60 Democratic Senators is not, and never was, a magic number for Democrats. In June, when Al Franken is seated, there won't be a single piece of legislation that has been defeated so far in the 111th Congress (cramdown, EFCA, 100% cap and trade) but will pass when Democrats have 60 Senators. Not a single one.

We will shortly reach 60 votes in the Senate, but the more progressive aspects of the Democratic legislative agenda will still be stalled. This means we have officially reached the era where "more Democrats" is completely irrelevant to the progressive cause. From now on, all progressive electoral activity must be targeted in support of candidates who will add, or maintain, progressive votes on key pieces of legislation like cramdown, the Employee Free Choice Act, and putting a price on all carbon usage rather than just some carbon usage.

The "D" next to a the name of a Senate candidate or incumbent has become irrelevant. Now we need letters list "B" for bankruptcy reform, "C" for putting a price on all carbon, and "E" for EFCA. No matter what party a with which candidate identifies, Senate campaigns are now only relevant to progressives in terms of which pieces of defeated legislation their election or re-election will assist. And that's it.

Chris Bowers :: The Era Of "More Democrats" Officially Ends

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

The Era Of "More Democrats" Officially Ends | 27 comments
Specter's Switch (4.00 / 3)
Specter's switch was purely done to save his job.  Certainly not because Democrats are the stronger party or have better policy position. Funny how the euphoria of almost 60 Dems in the Senate quickly wore off.  

Specter needs to be called on his job saving efforts.  

RebelCapitalist - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.

Here here time for Better democrats (4.00 / 3)
and don't forget the S for single payer healthcare.
And (T) for torturecrats and (W) for wiretapcrats (0.00 / 0)
Still a ton of those hanging around who haven't exactly decided to revisit their positions on MCA2006 and FISA2008
[ Parent ]
Having "More Democrats" (4.00 / 5)
Is better then having more Republicans and I'd never VOTE for a Republican over a Democrat (at least in the current state of the parties) but as activists we have a choice on where we spend our time and money. And just supporting Democrats is not enough.

Hopefully these votes will encourage Sestak to run. So far he's made the rounds on Morning Joe, Rick Sanchez and I think Andrea Mitchell as well saying he won't be pressured by the Democratic establishment. Sounds like he's thinking very hard about it.

If Sestak is true to his word and runs if Specter doesn't vote the right way then he should be getting ready to run. We've got bad votes on the budget and cramdown already.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

If I was Sestak (4.00 / 6)
I'd keep raising money, but wait and see how Specter acts and votes in these next six months.

Of course, the problem with Specter is that he could start voting more liberally, win re-election, and then just switch back to the GOP if he feels slighted in the least (Lieberman-style).

I've read reports that after the 2010 elections, the Democratic caucus will vote to prevent Specter from keeping his full seniority on the committees. But we saw how that went down this last year with Lieberman. Specter would cry foul, he'd threaten to jump ship, and Reid would fold.

The only way to eliminate bastards like Lieberman and Specter is to defeat them in a primary. And that will be much easier if Specter continues to vote against progressive values.

[ Parent ]
Sestak is a new (0.00 / 0)
dem so we shouldn't get suckered into supporting him when "a better dem" might enter the primary.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Yep (4.00 / 2)
What's the point of having more D's if they vote against your top priorities? If Specter keeps up this BULLSHIT, he is toast no matter what Rendell says.

I just can't see Obama stumping for Specter in early 2010 if Specter continues to vote like a Republican. And believe me, those other Democratic senators who might lose seniority to Specter will not be happy either.

If Specter thinks he can coast to re-election without throwing us some major bones, he's fooling himself.

Obama stumped for Lieberman (0.00 / 0)
n/t

My blog  
[ Parent ]
We must target Bennet in Colorado (4.00 / 4)
Bennet is turning out to be a big-time Blue Dog in the Senate. Worse than Salazar. He voted against cramdown today, he has failed to speak up in favor of EFCA.

I don't know what's going on in Colorado, but we should target Bennet just as much as we target Specter. Because Bennet was appointed, he'd probably be easier to take down anyway.

Thankfully (4.00 / 1)
we've got former state speaker Andrew Romanoff who is progressive and itching to get back into politics. He's already said he's strongly considering challenging Bennet and those stances will make it easier for him.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Democrats are Reagen Republicans (4.00 / 2)
The problem you have is that the "candidates" which the public chooses from are chosen by the Democratic Party which is essientially a conservative remake of Ronald Reagens Republican party.

You won't have candidates that are for universal health care, against bailing out corporations without limits, for regulation, against expanision of meaningless wars.

In fact so many of the Democrats running simply offer oblique answers to questions about their positions that allow the public to have the "impression" that the candidate is "liberal" when in fact their statements could also be interpreted as conservative.

Obama has done this.

I'm amazed.

I read his website before he was elected, and I could see he was Pro Israel ( some Israelis are complaining, but he's pro Israel), Pro war, Pure Capitalist and on and on.

Then his biography, which I believe I have correctly interpreted as being a biography about a person who sides with the strong, avoids the weak (for fear of becoming weak himself....) clearly establishes him as an opportunistic person, whose main goal is self promotion.

He may have wandered around a bit as a community organizer...but lot's of people do that...he found it was a dead end....he became a lawyer and got into politics.

The Democratic Party is actually a version of the Republican Party. It is extremely conservative....and it is comprised of very DUMB people.

People like Joe Biden who promotes this simple flu epidemic into a hollywood contagion 28 days type film.

He says people shouldn't take planes, trains or buses.

He's a nut and he's out of it.

And that's what the Democratic Party is....Dumb, rigid, provinicial millionaires , many with inherited money who have never been anywhere on their own.

It's too bad Obama chooses to be one of THEM because he doesn't come from where they come from.

Has been for almost 40 years. (4.00 / 2)
The "D" next to a the name of a Senate candidate or incumbent has become irrelevant.

40 years? (0.00 / 0)
I'd claim the (D) is more relevant today than any other point in the past 100 years.  The Dixiecrats of 40 years ago are all but dead.

I'm not disagreeing with Chris, mind you.  The corporations still have far too much control over the Democrats.  The line that divides the country in half is still too far to the right.  But don't get nostalgic for the Dems of 40 years ago.

[ Parent ]
My point is only middle/working class. (0.00 / 0)
There was a lot of stuff really wrong, but they didn't stab unions and working people in the back - at least not blatantly.  
[ Parent ]
What happened to your "Grow Liberalism"? (0.00 / 0)
Now it's "Attempt To Seize The Government And Effect Change That The People Are Not Ready For"?

The GOP got booted out because they failed to let people have their cake and eat it too; nothing more.

Obama is popular because for the time being he is reversing that sad state of affairs.

What happens next?

That should be on your mind at some point.

I agree. (4.00 / 1)
Spector's votes are ensuring a primary.

Sestak is far from perfect, a "New Democrat," but he is more of a Democrat than Specter.  

What do we get going forard for Specter's "D"?  He gets a lot, but what do Democrats get besides a kick in the balls on key votes and another "Democrat" who undermines the center-left program of Obama, and trashed progressive policies as "far left."

Durbin had it right about the Senate.  

if you focus on Specter, (0.00 / 0)
you must focus on the following:
Baucus
Bennet (CO)
Byrd
Carper
Dorgan
Johnson
Landrieu
Lincoln
Nelson
Tester
& Bayh (even though he voted aye today).

We all knew Specter was going to be in the bottom 1/5 of senate Democrats. I'm just asking for a bit of consistency around here.  

Some of them are focused on (4.00 / 1)
None of them are in Pennsylvania (although I'll be amazed if Carper doesn't receive a primary threat for 2012).

Specter is low-hanging fruit. That doesn't mean it ends with him.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
thoughts on PA (0.00 / 0)
I find it an interesting bit of information that Casey is the most progressive senator the state has had since Joseph Clark, in 1969 (minus Wofford whom replace Heinz when he passed away). In fact, almost every other state above has had more progressive senators than PA since 1969 (Hart (CO), Kerrey, Burdick (ND), McGovern, Mansfield & Metcalf (MT), Biden & Rockefeller). Louisiana is the lone exception but even Landrieu was more progressive then anything PA had had for almost 40 years when she was elected.

Naturally, things have changed in recent years and PA has appeared to become more progressive then the other states but by how much? I don't know that answer but Democrats seemed to like Specter okay when he was a GOPer. That alone tells me quite a bit.

[ Parent ]
wofford btw, (0.00 / 0)
only served 4 years, Santorum beat him.
[ Parent ]
That was 1994 (0.00 / 0)
Two years earlier, Wofford did win a special election by ten points.

We're also dealing with small sample sizes, the likelihood that incumbents will be re-elected and vastly different political cultures.

There's no way that Bob Casey would be the left flank of what Pennsylvania would accept. There's no evidence to support that at all, because Pennsylvania doesn't just appear more progressive than those other states you mention, it is more progressive.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
yet (0.00 / 0)
even the most progressive senator PA has seen in generations is pro-life (and Casey does score higher in his progressive score then Woffords did). Polling has said Democrats were fairly comfortable with Specter and that was before the great migration of moderate Republicans to the Democratic party.

I'm not buying this idea that PA is a progressive state just yet. It might be well on its way thanks to Philly but the evidence is somewhat mixed.  

[ Parent ]
Special notice (4.00 / 1)
For everyone who prematurely and inadvertently urinated in their pants when Specter made his announcement, and then did a #2 in them after he voted or planned to vote "no" on three important issues in the first 24 hours of "being" a Democrat, The J C Penney Store down the street is having a special sale on washable Dockers. They come in gutless biege, blushing pink and embarrassing red. Sen. Craig is waiting in the restroom to help you try them on.  
10 other... (0.00 / 0)
Democrats voted no on this bill.

and while i'm no Specter fan, I think I'll wait two months before I make any kind of judgment on the man's Democratic credentials.

[ Parent ]
Agree. To paraphrase: (4.00 / 1)
More democrats was a good (and necessary) strategy to stop the Republicans.  Any old democrats would do as long as they would vote against the crazy.

Better democrats is the way to get good legislation enacted.  It's a different fight, but really when you think about it it's easier to win.  Primaries are more localized, cheaper to run a candidate, and volunteer boots on the ground carry more weight.  Plus once you can take down one or two blue dogs a cycle fairly reliably, the remaining congressfolk will become much friendlier to your important issues (who wants to be the last senator to fall in a primary war?)

That is really the point... taking down a blue dog. (0.00 / 0)
I would like to see the netroots band together, pick a target, and finish what they started with Lieberman.  Lieberman got the bloggers a once over by "big dog", then he dumped them.  If they win one or two, they won't get dismissed again.  
[ Parent ]
Picking the state might also be critical... (0.00 / 0)
Lieberman was lucky in that he could just jump over to Independent after he lost his primary.  My understanding is that isn't possible in Pennsylvania.  The best way to get rid of a blue dog is to beat them in the primary and not have to face them again in the general election.  I don't know enough about the various state laws to know which ones are like Connecticut and which ones are like Pennsylvania, but I think it is a pretty critical factor especially for state-wide Senate elections.
[ Parent ]
The Era Of "More Democrats" Officially Ends | 27 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox