In addition to the Rove Dogs, otherwise known Democrats who support legislation that is damaging to long-term Democratic electoral interests, I would like to close today's writing efforts by offering up another caucus, this time in the Senate: the Onos, or Opposition in Name Only caucus. Who are the Onos? They are Senators who claim they oppose something conservative, and who even vote against that conservative something, but who refuse to actually filibuster that conservative something. Ono's also can be spelled "Oh no," as in, "oh no, I'm not actually going to stand up for what I believe in."
The classic example of an Ono comes from the Samuel Alito confirmation hearings. While 42 Senators voted against Alito's confirmation--enough to sustain a filibuster--only 25 Senators actually voted to filibuster. The 17 Senators who voted no on Alito, but who refused to filibuster Alito, are the Onos (those still in Congress in bold):
Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bignaman (D-NM), Cantwell (D-DE), Chafee (R-RI), Dayton (D-MN), Dorgan (D-ND), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (I-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO)
So, the nucleus of the Ono caucus are those fourteen Democratic Senators, plus Lieberman who voted against Alito, but didn't filibuster him. The Onos are the answer to Glen Greenwald's question from earlier today. If Democrats claim they need 60 votes to do anything, then why wasn't 44 votes enough to stop Mukasey?
Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey's confirmation -- more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?
It is because of the Onos, the name I have given to Democrats who claim they oppose conservatives, but who are not willing to actually put themselves on the line in doing so. This is a group that hands Republicans ten free votes on every issue before the Senate. This is very much the wimpy, frightened, paper mache caucus, whose opposition to conservatives is only skin deep. Sure, they will vote the right way, but beyond that they won't do a single damn thing to actually stop the conservative working majority. I have little doubt that the "Oh, no!"s were the difference on Mukasey, too, since thirteen of the fourteen Democrats identified in the caucus voted against Mukasey. Although a cloture vote was never held, I have little doubt most of them will unwilling to filibuster. Also, in this instance, Mary Landrieu left the caucus entirely, in order to join Ben Nelson in the more overt "I just prefer voting with Republicans" caucus. (Granted, in her case it can also be known as the "FEMA destroyed by voting base" caucus.)
Even if Ono's, or "Oh, No!"s is not the right language, we need to develop a narrative around this group of Senators. We need a narrative about them that has popular resonance. By handing ten free votes to Republicans on every issue before the Senate, their unwillingness to take further action to stop conservatives is a serious detriment to the Democratic and progressive causes. However, they can always defend themselves in town hall meetings, or even primary elections, by pointing out "I vote with the party all the time." In order to change that, the necessary procedural steps that are required to really oppose Republicans and conservatives need to start having popular resonance. Right now, half the country thinks that Democrats need to be doing more to, for example, end the Iraq war, but most of them probably don't know exactly what "more" means. They want Democrats to do more to stop Republicans and conservatives, but no one is getting out the message on what more means, and on who isn't doing that more. Of course, there is plenty of more to do, as even the Politco pointed out a couple months ago. In the Senate, it is the Onos preventing this "more" from happening. In the House, it seems to be Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer. But how does one get a populist message out as to who the problem is and why, much less run a primary campaign against these Democrats, when they can simply fall back and claim "just look at my voting record and you will see I am with you?" In other words, how does one put pressure on Democrats who are not taking the proper parliamentary maneuvers to forward a progressive agenda? That is not an easy question to answer.
This is a serious problem. Our disagreement with a large number of Democrats is primarily procedural, and that it is very difficult for a message like that to make a major, populist impact. We political junkies in the blogosphere know what the problem is: they (the Onos) are not filibustering, they are not forcing the other side to actually filibuster, they are not calling enough votes, they are intentionally recruiting conservatives, they are shifting party money to target red districts that will be difficult to hold, etc. However, all of these disagreements are mainly procedural and insidery. As such, they are not the sorts of things that it is easy to put pressure on someone for not doing. I would love to run primary challenges against Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer on these grounds, since they are the major roadblocks to a more aggressive Democratic caucus in the House. However, how do you convince the Democratic base to reject their own leaders when those leaders seem to have very good voting records? That isn't easy, as bringing mass public pressure on behind the scenes operations never is. And yet, these are the same brand of Democrats who are responsible for Republicans only needing 50 votes, while we need 60 votes. They hand ten votes to Republicans on every issue before the Senate, but the arguments to be made against them are very much inside baseball.
Personally, I am simply going to start by naming them, and then documenting their actions as time goes forward. Any ideas beyond that point are more than welcome.
|
