Might you be giving Lott to much credit? (0.00 / 0)

Maybe he's resigning for more "personal" reasons:

http://bigheaddc.com...

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 16:22:25 PM UTC

Kudos for Progressive Partisanship (4.00 / 1)

Every other Democrat-friendly blog is jumping for joy over the prospect of a Michael Moore candidacy in Mississippi.  But as you rightly imply, swelling the Democratic caucus with conservatives is no cause for great joy.

I really appreciate the "working conservative majority" and "Bush Dog" themes that Open Left has advanced.  I have always felt that winning more seats in Congress can actually work against the Democratic Party and the progressive movement if these seats are filled with DINOs representing conservative areas - particularly in the South.  Unlike the Clintonian wing of the party, I don't see the "loss" of the South as anything to mourn.  Sure, it meant a loss of power, but it also meant (or I hope it will mean) a natural realignment of the party to a more coherent progressive platform where Americans can point to the Democrats and know in their guts what Democrats stand for - an advantage that the Republicans have capitalized on for 25 years.  If we start to take back seats in the South with New Democrats like Bredesen or conservatives like Moore, we just return to the old ideological muddle where maintenance of power is the only unifying force behind the Democratic Party.  That is a sure recipe for another 1994 in the future.  We are emerging from the 14-year "dark night of the soul" a stronger and more values-centered party just as the Republicans begin to enter their own dark night.  We should concentrate on solidifying our power in progressive areas of the country and then move gradually outward (metaphorically, not necessarily geographically, speaking) from there.

Rudy is a Tyrant

---

by: lassallean @ Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 16:46:27 PM UTC

1992 vs. 2006 (4.00 / 1)

One of the odd little anomalies about the election results, pre-Newt and now is that they serve as a test of your theory.  Democrats in the 1992-1994 period, held 258 House seats plus could count on the vote of Independent Bernie Sanders.  After the 2006 election, Democrats held exactly 233 seats in the House: 26 fewer (counting Sanders).  Those 26 seats came entirely from the South with Democrats holding 84 southern seats in 1992 and 58 in 2006 (figures are for 13 states including WV and KY plus the 11 states of the Old Confederacy.

Non-southern seats are aligned differently from 1992 and include more members from the Northeast (12 more) and fewer from conservative states like Oklahoma (-3), Missouri (-2), Ohio (-3) and Indiana (-2).  Democrats "should" have far less clout than in the first two years of the Clinton administration but despite 26 fewer House seats and the same number of non-southern seats there is not a noticeable drop.  The 258 plus one were unable to carry much of the Clinton agenda and passed his budget by a single vote.  We would do at least as well in a Democratic administration with the present membership.

The process seems likely to continue or even accelerate.  Bush Dogs make up less than 15% of Democratic membership in the House but account for 58% of the 12 Toss Up or Lean Republican Takeover seats held by Democrats in a recent diary on Swing State Project.  Several other Bush Dog seats are vulnerable in a primary this year.  We seem likely to pick up seats and shed Bush Dogs at the same time in 2008.  Jim Marshall is, after all, a vote for Speaker and little else.  Carol Shea-Porter is a real vote.  So why is the DCCC likely to dump a lot of money protecting Marshall and spend no money protecting Shea-Porter?

We are seeing realignment within the parties as well as realignment in the two-party totals.  That realignment is actually improving the chance of real change.  The next thing we can do is dump Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel.  That will really accelerate things.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 18:32:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Few Good Things Could Come of It (4.00 / 1)

I am very sympathetic to this argument -- I don't want to see the Democrats stand only for their own power. And if Moore is really just a Republican, then his victory would be worthless.

But I see several possible positive outcomes from his candidacy:

1. If the Republicans have to defend a seat in Mississippi, they won't have money and energy to defend other seats we might win. This makes 23 Republican seats that they have to defend in 2008!

2. If Moore wins, it will show incumbent Republicans that they are all very vulnerable and encourage more of them to retire in 2010. As it is, Lott's retirement already helps reinforce the meme that the Republican Party is collapsing. I'm hoping Senator Voinovich in my state of Ohio will be saying to himself: "Why bother being a Republican Senator if I have little clout and have to actually work for my pay?"

3. If Moore is actually an economic populist (as Populista says below), and he campaigns on economic populism, then the people of Mississippi will get a chance to hear a populist perspective. If he wins, then he would be a good vote on many important issues.

4. As progressives in the South gain more power, they can push people like Moore to vote more progressive. I believe immigrants from the North and from other countries are making the South more progressive and issues like the occupation of Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, and healthcare are moving many people to the left. So it may be possible for progressives to have more clout in the South -- I certainly hope so. And I assume they would have more clout with a Democratic Senator than with someone like Lott.

Still, our efforts as progressive activists should be devoted to challenging conservatives and electing progressives, not supporting moderates or conservatives. So we can look favorably on Moore's candidacy, but do not need to devote any energy or money to helping him get elected.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:26:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eh (0.00 / 0)

If the situations were reversed, I would expect Democrats to try to plan their retirements in ways that preserve seats for the party.  Sure, the ethics stuff sounds bad, but the other stuff just feels like normal politics.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 17:11:16 PM UTC

former Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore (0.00 / 0)

Wouldn't be that bad. He won big against tobacco and seems like a fighter. He'll be bad on social issues but he seems pretty good on economic issues. And he would have a real chance to win.

What if Alexander runs for whip but loses like he lost to Lott. That might be too much for him and that might force him to retire. I'm not saying that's going to happen but the con's might revolt.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 17:23:31 PM UTC

I don't get it (0.00 / 0)

How is this sticking it to Dems?  Haley Barbour -- wasn't he RNC head? -- would never in a million years appoint a Democrat to senate, nor would any voter expect to him to appoint even a moderate Republican.  Lott taking a lobbying job is not something I'm going to lose sleep over.  I don't see how an actual open seat in Mississippi is worse than making an unlikely open seat in Tenn slightly more likely.  A bird in the hand is worth more than one in the bush.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 19:02:02 PM UTC

Hate to worsen the pile-on, (4.00 / 1)

but it also looks like Lamar Alexander won't even be running for Minority Whip.  It'll be Jon Kyl.

In retrospect, the fact that Alexander couldn't beat a disgraced and exiled conservative like Lott means that he's not strong enough to beat an entrenched and well-regarded conservative like Kyl, which apparently he also realizes.  Also Kyl currently occupies the #3 spot, while Alexander is outside the leadership entirely since upon losing to Lott for #2, he had no position at all.  So Kyl gets to move up and Alexander is still on the outside.

It will be interesting to see if he goes for any of the lower leadership slots.  If he sits them all out, when they're all open, then maybe he's retiring after all.

It'll also be interesting to see if the gay escort angle catches on.  Like Craig and McConnell, people have been talking about Lott for years.  I would be THRILLED to see this go down, since nothing speeds the realization that some significant percent of people are gay and there's really only one civilized response to that, than the ongoing revelations that even conservatives are gay.  Outed conservatives do absolute wonders for the gay rights movement, and Lott would be a big one cause everyone already knows he's a frickin seggie, the hardest of hard-core conservatives.

And of course, if we can out Craig Lott and McConnell in the same 12 month period... well, maybe we'll get to make up for that stupid argument that "gays ruined 2004", by delivering 2008.

A guy can dream, can't he?

---

by: texas dem @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:10:50 AM UTC

Slightly off-topic (0.00 / 0)

I noticed this reference in your post:

"well, maybe we'll get to make up for that stupid argument that "gays ruined 2004""

I must have missed this particular excuse for the Democratic loss in 2004.  I thought that the Deaniacs and the Naderites were the scapegoats.  Not to flog a "stupid" dead horse, but is the essence of that argument that the anti-gay marriage initiatives that the GOP forced onto ballots all across the nation in 2004 to ensure a strong incentive for the religious right voters to get to the polls actually the responsibility of the gay couples that are seeking equal protection under the law? 


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 14:10:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]