New England Republican Party is running the country

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 16:00


Just in case you hadn't noticed, the New England Republican party is, in fact, the governing party of America right now.

Consider health care reform, which was delayed three months to try and appease Olympia Snowe, and stripped of a public option by Joe Lieberman (who was re-elected because of Republican support).

Consider Wall Street reform, which is now goingback to conference committee in order to appease Scott Brown and Susan Collins.

Consider unemployment benefits and jobs.  The bill was defeated at the behest of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Scott Brown.  However, now that Snowe has said unemployment extensions should be passed as a stand-alone bill, well, it looks like Congress is going to try and do just that (the House failed to pass such a bill a few minutes ago, but only because it required a two-thirds majority since the rules were suspended).

The country is being run by a regional rump party.  Or, perhaps more accurately, it is being run by two regional rump parties, as Blue Dogs still hold the balance of power in the House. The junior partners in the coalitions are effectively wielding majority control.

Chris Bowers :: New England Republican Party is running the country

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
New England Republican Party is running the country | 22 comments
Seems fitting (4.00 / 1)
since Brown, Snowe, Collins and Lieberman were elected receiving crossover votes from voters who voted for Obama. This is how the people of those states wanted it.

The people of Maine, Massachusetts and Connecticut had perfectly good progressive candidates to replace Collins, Brown and Lieberman, they chose not to elect them. Olympia Snowe got over 70% of the vote in Maine in 2006!  

It seems fitting (4.00 / 3)
if you don't think much about democratic theory.  'The voters of a small number of small states wanted it that way' is not an idea one ever hears until someone is trying to justify whatever the Senate is doing at the moment.

One more thing - what are the odds that any of those people would have gotten elected if they admitted to voters that they would be using parliamentary rules to block Obama's / the Democrats' agenda after bargaining in good faith? Do you think Lieberman wins in that scenario? Snowe? 'Vote for me - I'll make sure a majority in the Senate can't do anything about the financial crisis or jobs!'

I'm skeptical that this is what the voters of those (few) states wanted.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
I don't think this is what those voters wanted (0.00 / 0)
but it's what they voted for and Scott Brown is the  most popular politician in Massachusetts, what does that tell you?  
[ Parent ]
Ignorance (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
It's a de facto multi-party system (4.00 / 1)
I wouldn't be shocked if similar factions turned out to hold the balance of power if we had electoral reform that was friendly to third (and fourth and fifth....) parties.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
The third party (0.00 / 0)
The Centrist Party actually has one more member in the Senate, Nebraska's Ben Nelson.  These jerks helped to ruin an already inadequate stimulus package.  They may be the columnists dream but they are America's nightmare.
[ Parent ]
Except then they're easier to smack down (0.00 / 0)
In Britain, the Lib Dems don't run things. Some ideas the Tories quite like have been adopted by them. Other things the Lib Dems are leading on (such as budget cuts) are just hospital passes that they've been dumb enough to catch.

The New Englanders derive their position of power from being literally the only swing votes. In a multi-party system, where coalitions are normal and compromise is therefore necessary, you'd have that much less ideological rigidity and parties would be punished more for stubbornly refusing to make a deal.

Third parties holding out for more in such a circumstance in essence pronounce themselves uninterested in government, and are hence punished.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
bipartisanship (4.00 / 1)
this is reminding me of the past era of "bipartisanship" that rested on the Dixiecrat faction in the Democratic Party. which leads to wondering, are the New England Republicans heading for the same fate?

is there any particular geographic concentration to Blue Dogs? i had the impression that they were more of a cultural slice, spread all over.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

predominantly rural America (0.00 / 0)
the south, the midwest
[ Parent ]
CA (4.00 / 1)
California has more Blue Dogs, 8 IIRC, than any other state.  They are rural, with slightly lower per capita income.  PA and NY also have quite a few.  
[ Parent ]
don't forget the fact that we wound up with Mitt Romney's healthcare plan (4.00 / 3)

Another crock of crap from Bowers and the Obama apologists (4.00 / 1)
"The country is being run by a regional rump party.  Or, perhaps more accurately, it is being run by two regional rump parties, as Blue Dogs still hold the balance of power in the House. The junior partners in the coalitions are effectively wielding majority control. "

Gee where did Obama and the Democrats go while all this was happening? They must have squealed and yelled so loud and insistently, we all could hear them and rally round while they fought the popular battles ( they were, after all, capable enough of winning the messaging war with progressives...according to Bowers as he threw in the towel at least).  

Bob Herbert (not exactly a progressive flame thrower) (4.00 / 5)
puts it more accurately and honestly as follows:

"Mr. Obama and the Democrats have wasted the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity handed to them in the 2008 election. They did not focus on jobs, jobs, jobs as their primary mission, and they did not call on Americans to join in a bold national effort (which would have required a great deal of shared sacrifice) to solve a wide range of very serious problems, from our over-reliance on fossil fuels to the sorry state of public education to the need to rebuild the nation's rotting infrastructure.

All of that could have been pulled together under the umbrella of job creation - short-term and long-term. In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Obama's historic victory, and with the trauma of the economic collapse still upon us, it would have been very difficult for Republicans on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of a rebuild-America campaign aimed at putting millions of men and women back to work.

Mr. Obama had campaigned on the mantra of change, and that would have been the kind of change that working people could have gotten behind. But it never happened. Job creation was the trump card in the hand held by Mr. Obama and the Democrats, but they never played it. And now we're paying a fearful price. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06...

[ Parent ]
But [unexplained thing] might happen if they eliminate the filibuster (4.00 / 1)
We couldn't handle the consequences of [nobody has ever bothered explaining why this didn't happen]
[ Parent ]
I guess it seems to me that if you endlessly defer to New England (4.00 / 1)
Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats and these then exercise their power they are behaving as anybody would (and should). To constantly be blaming these politicians and not the ones responsible that is Obama and the Democrats is only possible if you are not interested  in progressive change and policy but instead have determined your primary focus and goal is in maintaining the Democrats in power.
[ Parent ]
it's their fault that the alleged progressive leadership caves to them at every turn (0.00 / 0)
if the DNC didn't make the Democratic brand meaningless they might seem unsportsmanlike, or something
[ Parent ]
Blame Progressives for that as well as Conservatives (0.00 / 0)
Feingold doesn't want to get rid of the filibuster.  
[ Parent ]
Why don't the Senate Democrats (0.00 / 0)
just suspend the filibuster rule on important votes?  I mean, really the Republican Party is not acting in good faith.  The Democrats have a responsibility to suspend the filibuster at this point.  I frankly think they don't because they are covering for Democrats who oppose Democratic legislation.
because DNC leadership has no interest in actual progressive legislation (4.00 / 2)
see: everyone in charge
[ Parent ]
I am actually stunned and sickened. (4.00 / 1)
And I don't know how they think they'll get away with this.  You don't hold the House and Senate by large majorities and the WH, and then say, well, we tried to pass stronger wall street reforms, an extension to  unemployment insurance benefits, a Medicaid extension, a jobs bill, etc., but gosh darn it, the Republicans just wouldn't let us.  You suspend the filibuster rule and pass important legislation.  We know the Republicans are acting in bad faith.  But that is precisely why the Senate needs to act, and suspend the filibuster.  They owe it to the country for god sakes.
[ Parent ]
Because they don't have the votes to do it (0.00 / 0)
Conservatives and Progressives alike want to protect the filibuster,  
[ Parent ]
Realism at last?! (0.00 / 0)
That's how it is because
  • that's how the Constitution sets things up; and
  • that's how enough Americans like it.

Because not only is there are supermajority requirement in the Senate, but there's a HUGE supermajority needed to change the Constitution to make things a little less screwed. (Like mandating public-only funding of Federal elections, for instance. Or making voting power in the Senate closer to state population ratios. Stuff like that WILL NEVER HAPPEN. (Give or take a world war.))

This is how the Corporate Party would have set it up it had been around in 1787 - every move towards wider democracy since has been largely negated.

Nothing since the advent of Obama has substantially changed the balance of power away from the Corporate Party - mostly (as with health care), Corporates have only extended their gains.

New England Republican Party is running the country | 22 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