Possible correction (4.00 / 1)

"While the NYT article is probably correct that the majority of newly elected Democrats are either moderates or conservatives, keep in mind that none of them replaced progressives. They all replaced either moderate or conservative Democrats."

I think that the last word in the second sentence above should be Republicans.

---

by: Xanaqui @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:35:21 AM CST

That article irked me too. (0.00 / 0)

NYT says: Granny Smith apples greener than oranges.  If they want to see which philosophical direction the party is headed in, they need to compare the Democratic caucus now to the last time the Democratic caucus had 250-some odd members, which is 1992-1994.  I don't have voting records in front of me, but I'm not willing to bet much that the Democratic caucus is more conservative today than it was back then...

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:03:56 AM CST

I doubt it (0.00 / 0)

In 1992-94 we still had a whole load of Dixiecrats in the House and Senate. Perhaps we still had more veterans from the class of '74, but I'm positive today's Democratic caucus is more progressive.

You'll see legislation come out of this upcoming Congress that would have been DOA in 1993.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:29:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

oops (0.00 / 0)

I didn't read dreaminonempty's last sentence correctly. So yes, I agree with him on this one.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:30:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

mckinney (0.00 / 0)

The only member of the progressive caucus to experience electoral defeat during this stretch was Cynthia McKinney, and a couple of other members either retired or passed away.

I'm not sure you can even call McKinney's loss a loss for the progressive caucus since she lost to someone who immediately joined the progressive caucus.

---

by: jstrick @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:17:57 AM CST

Progressive Caucus (4.00 / 1)

The "progressives haven't lost any elections" argument is frankly a bit hokey. Of the 70 or so CPC members, they have an average PVI of D+20.9.

In short, the only way most of these members are going to lose their districts is through a primary or if they're found with 90,000 worth of cash in their freezer.

Considering that the three non-scandal related losses the Democrats suffered in 2008 were in district that were respectively R+7, R+7, and R+15, the Progressive Caucus has to be pretty safe.

However, the thrust of the Chris' argument is correct: The House has gotten more progressive.

There has been a strong shift from Dixicrats to the North and West since 1994. There's literally been a 15 seat shift within the caucus from Texas-Louisiana-Oklahoma alone to the Northeast since the 103rd Congress, and with the gerrymandering done in the South the tangible effect is even more.

Southern Democrats don't even make up a majority of the Blue Dog Coalition anymore, leaving a lot of the control in the hands of historically more amenable Midwestern and Western conservative Democrats.

Which leads to the last point: In the 103rd Congress, the Conservative Democrats were outright mutinous. The Blue Dog Coalition didn't form in 1995 because Southern Democrats felt they needed a new social club. It was formed to stick it to Dick Gephardt and particularly Dave Bonior. Right now, the current Blue Dogs don't even have a fraction of that sentiment.

---

by: Mjm @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 13:26:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

agree about gaining, but "control"? (0.00 / 0)

"It has been a consistent refrain here at Open Left that progressives have made substantial gains in the U.S. House, and are now in control of the chamber."

I don't see this, at least from the bailout debate.  I don't follow these things closely though, so anyone who wants to feel free to correct me.  It is open left! :)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:44:17 AM CST

today's ny times (4.00 / 1)

unbelievably sour on all things Obama/Congress swear in, including also Burris and
Panetta appointment.

---

by: werner @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:55:19 AM CST

Yeah, I read that article (4.00 / 2)

and was wondering what you would think of it.

That Jacobson guy sounds like a total duchebag. What does he consider "wild, left-wing policymaking"? What is the Berkeley wish-list?

The article almost makes it sound as if the Democrats will stick to Republican-lite legislation, which makes no sense given how badly the Republican philosophy has been rejected by voters. Even if the author does believe his own premise, why wouldn't the article be about whether the Democrats are making a mistake by copying failed Republican policies?

This DC villager shit really grates on my nerves sometimes. We win a blowout presidential election with a guy named Hussein, we get 59 seats in the Senate, we take a bigger lead in the House than the Republicans have had in at least 50 years, and yet the Dems are not inclined to actually implement any left wing policies.

I know there's some truth there because of the Spineless Caucus, but still...

---

by: existenz @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:27:01 AM CST

A bit off topic, but also a bit on topic (0.00 / 0)

is the latest from Obama:

"We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part" of efforts to curb federal spending, Mr. Obama said at a news conference. By February, he said, "we will have more to say about how we're going to approach entitlement spending."

Alluding to the projected deficit, Mr. Obama said: "And we know that our recovery and reinvestment plan will necessarily add more. My own economic and budget team projects that, unless we take decisive action, even after our economy pulls out of its slide, trillion-dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come."

Mr. Obama did not offer specifics on how he would address Social Security and Medicare, which are financed by payroll taxes. The programs are crucial to millions of Americans, and talk of cutting benefits has long been considered politically explosive. On the other hand, both programs face long-range problems, given the growing legions of baby-boomers and the ever-rising cost of medical care.

So Obama is going to use the occasion of the stimulus to figure out a way to do something deeply Republican to Social Security and Medicare? How funny that some people thought that the stimulus was great evidence of how progressive Obama was! Are you laughing yet?

Clearly, Obama has taken to heart the idea that the country has, if anything, moved to the right in recent elections. (How this miracle has taken place in the wake of the utter disgrace of the Republicans and the right is, of course, never explained.)

---

by: frankly0 @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 12:28:47 PM CST

POS article (4.00 / 3)

Democrats have picked up 54 seats from Republicans. Fact. Blue Dogs are outnumbered by Progressives within the Democratic caucus by more than 2-1.  Fact.  The Speaker of the House is a Progressive.  Fact.

These people may work for a hugely famous newspaper but the authors depend heavily on anecdote and spoon-fed story lines rather than doing even rudimentary research.  The article is, at the least, shockingly bad. At the most it represents either extreme laziness or somebody's need in editorial or corporate to run with this story no matter what.

Enough with the spleeen.

The single most rudimentary fact over the last two cycles is that Republicans in the Senate have been reduced from 55 seats to 41 (-25%)and Republicans in the House have been reduced from 232 seats to 178 (-24%).

Republicans had been ruling with an iron hand despite having a very small majority.  Compared to 1992, the big change was the virtual extinction of the white southern Democrats who had dominated both chambers for decades.  Mostly, they were replaced by white southern Republicans but a considerable number of the House seats were handed to black southern Democrats in a racial gerrymander meant to win seats for Republicans.  The signature shift from "Bubba Days" in the House came in two states.  Democrats gained 8 seats in New York going from 18 in 1992 to 26 in 2008.  Democrats lost 9 seats in Texas going from 21 to 12.  Like this is the kind of change that makes things all "conservative."

Aaron Schock is hardly worth the huge pub job that the Times gives the little creep.  We had to deal with Patrick McHenry and Adam Putnam when theRepublicans actually held power.  Giving any coverage outside Peoria to that little turd is incredible.

What we had here in 2006 was the growth of the Democratic party with about half of the 30 new seats going to Blue Dogs.  Last election was entirely different.  Democrats lost but they were all either Dogs or Jefferson (who is not so liberal, especially for his district).  The addition of the non-Dogs means that the ability of the Dogs to block legislation in the House is minimal.  The need to reach across the aisle is non-existent.  If Nancy Pelosi can win five Dogs for any particular piece of legislation she can easily pass it and throw a few bones and they will come running.  The NY and CA Dogs are not the same as the ones celebrated in the article.

Read the article carefully.  The new celebrity Dogs are already pretty aging.  Parker replaced one of the most conservative Dems in the House (Bud Cramer).  Minnick replaced a batshit crazy Republican that Idaho GOP pols thought was nutso.  How does this show the rise of conservatism.

Fact.  Democrats hold a majority of all districts at each Cook PVI up to R+3 now.  Only 10 Republicans hold seats with a Democratic PVI.  Those Dogs rpresent some pretty "Republican" districts at times and Minnick, Mattheson, and Chet Edwards are a whole lot more liberal than the deep conservative Republicans they replaced.

Fact.  Diversity in the Republican Party is shrinking.  The number of women is down from a high of 27 after 2004 (22 House and 5 Senate) to 21 now (17 House and 4 Senate).  There are no blacks and the Republicans claim six Hispanicsa but one is Portuguese with the first name of Devin (Devin Nunes of CA) another is named Trent (Franks of Arizona) and the other four are Cubans from Florida.  Playing up Joe Cao to show increasing diversity is an outright fraud.

By the way, as recently as after the 1986 election, there were more Republican women in Conress (13, 11 House and 2 Senate) than Democrats.  Now the margin is 71 Democrats (58 and 13) to 21 Republicans (17 and 4).  As for the rest of the non-diversity a quick run through of the names provided 12 that sounded ethnic outside of British Isles (English, Irish, Scotch) and German.  LoBiondo and Manzullo.  Radanovich of California.  Cao of LA. La Tourette of Ohio. Nunes of CA. Martinez (Mel) of FL, the Diaz-Balart brothers (2) of FL, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of FL, Leutkemeyer of MO, and Issa of CA.  I may have missed a few but not many.

Research?  Do these writers think it ended in college?

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 12:33:17 PM CST

The establishment media, like the establishment whose interests it represents (4.00 / 1)

is not interested in fact-based reporting and analysis. Sure, they sprinkle in some "facts" to make it all seem legit. And not everyone who works for them is an establishment-enabling liar (e.g. Dana Priest, Sy Hersh, Bob Scheer, James Risen). But by and large, they are in the business of spinning their reporting and analysis in a way that favors, and in no meaningful way challenges, the power establishment. Some do it knowingly and deliberately, to curry favor with and/or avoid the ire of the establishment. Some do it because they're too stupid and lazy to realize what they're doing, and are engaged in mindless template and narrative-based "reporting". And some do it because they're told to do it.

The establishment media's job is to protect and advance the interests of the establishment. That's why they do what they do: lie.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 14:08:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey, it's a center-right country! (4.00 / 2)

The more progressives in office, the more center-right it is! George Will said so, so it must be true! And FDR worsened the Great Depression! And ACORN stole the election!

For the life of me I will never quite understand the hatred and fear of the left displayed by the right, center and even portions of the left. Ok, I understand why the right hates and fears the left, because it represents and promotes a true threat to their sense of entitlement and acquired prerogatives. But why the center, and especially the left itself?

The RWNM sure did a number on them, especially the latter, whose self-loathing and need for establishment approval is truly astounding. The ongoing need to Sister Souljah the left in order to prove their centrist bona fides is amazing, and sickening. Here, look, I cut off my own balls for you and put them on a silver platter! Do I get a cookie and pat on the head now? Or at least a gold star? I'll even lick yours!

Interesting, and revealing, how the people who repeatedly beat up on the evil, crazy, irresponsible left never have the guts to explain what, specifically, they don't like about it and its policies. Instead, they focus on meaningless generalities like how the left is supposedly soft on terror (i.e. opposed to torture, but they'll never actually say so, not wanting to be on record as being for torture, which they clearly are), or on optics, i.e. dismissing some caricature of what they left is like based on Abbie Hoffman circa 1970.

You've got to hand it to the RWNM, which has managed to convince lots of people to despise policies that are good for them, and to favor ones that are bad for them. It's not working quite so well among everyday people anymore. But among the establishment types who still dominate politics and the media, it still holds sway: torture is good and necessary, opposing it is crazy and irresponsible. We need to bail out Wall St. executives and traders, everyday people need to buck up and make do. The war was based on bad intel, anyone who says that we were deliberately lied to is just playing the blame game.

We will never win over these people. Once you cross certain ethical and cognitive lines in order to join the Village, you rarely come back. The psychic and social costs are too high, and the enticements of staying in too great. You don't win them over. You beat and replace them. Establishmentarianism is usually a terminal illness, with few known cures.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 14:01:31 PM CST

Democratic Open Seats. (4.00 / 1)

   There are good things going on with Democratic open seats.  The new Democrat is nearly always more progressive than the last one.  Tonko replaces McNulty in New York, Polis replaces Udall in Colorado, Lujan replaces Udall in New Mexico, Speier replaces Lantos in California.  The only sucky replacement I can think of now is Laura Richardson for the late Juanita Millender-McDonald.  Is Kurt Schrader an improvement over Darlene Hooley (I dunno)? And we have a great opportunity to replace Rahm Emanuel with a fighting progressive.  We must turn our attention to Democratic open seats in 2010.  It's much easier than primarying lousy incumbents, which needs to be done too.
 I'd also like to add that we are making great progress in the Senate, even our hill is harder to climb there.  Tom Udall, Al Franken, and Jeff Merkley will be in the most liberal quarter of the Senate Democratic caucus.  This Senate class is soooooo much better than the class of 2006.  SO MUCH BETTER.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 18:12:37 PM CST