Blogs and Stories
Obama's Blue Dog Problem
Jeffrey Thompson / Getty Images
So much for Al Franken’s 60th vote. A coalition of renegade Democrats stands ready to defy the president, writes Matthew Yglesias, and could damage his legislative agenda.
"The way I see it," Al Franken told reporters at his first press conference after officially winning Minnesota's endless Senate race, "I'm not going to Washington to be the 60th Democratic senator. I'm going to Washington to be the second senator from Minnesota." It was the politically correct thing to say, of course. Nobody says he's going to Washington to represent a partisan interest or to be a loyal vote for the White House, and everyone emphasizes their desire to help out the local community. Back in the real world, however, just about everyone expects Franken to be a pretty darn loyal Democrat and supporter of the Obama administration position. Still, Franken's correct to downplay the idea that he'll be a 60th Democratic senator. Not so much because his real responsibility is to the people of Minnesota as because it's far from clear that Franken will be joined in Washington by 59 other Democrats.
Even with Al Franken in the Senate, legislative outcomes are overwhelmingly likely to be a fairly pale shadow of the agenda a majority of the public voted for last year.
Most practically, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) are both suffering from serious medical problems and are not generally available in Washington to do their jobs. In a pinch, it'll probably be possible to produce them to cast a vote, but one can't quite say for sure.
The larger issue, however, is simply that nothing magical happens at 60. When the president's party reaches 50 senators, it gets to use the vice president's tie-breaking vote to obtain a majority. The bare fact of a majority has consequences. Your party's leader gets to be majority leader, which carries with it the right to set the Senate's schedule. Your party's most senior members get to chair the committees on which they sit, controlling their schedules and a majority of the staff positions. A 50-50 Senate is always a dicey proposition, but there are distinct benefits to being in the majority even if the majority is razor thin.
The 60-vote threshold, by contrast, is important because that's how many votes it takes to break a filibuster. But while the Democratic caucus presumably could get together and collectively commit to refrain from joining any filibusters, there's no sign that they actually will. This means that to move legislation in the modern era, the majority party still needs to painstakingly assemble 60 votes. And it's going to be a difficult task.
For example, considerably more people live in the Bronx than live in Montana. But while the Bronx's 1.4 million people need to share Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand with 18 million other residents of the Empire State, Montana's cozy crew of 960,000 people has Max Baucus all to themselves. And not only does Baucus' vote count as much as Schumer's or Gillibrand's, he actually has dramatically more power than the senators from New York (or, for that matter, California) because as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, all health-care legislation absolutely must meet with his approval. The fact that Obama only secured the support of 47 percent of Montana's voters is the kind of thing that must weigh on Baucus' mind. Similarly with Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and Obama's 45 percent of North Dakota's 641,000 residents.
Nor are Baucus and Conrad alone. Byron Dorgan, Jon Tester, Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Tim Johnson, Mark Begich, Claire McCaskill, and Ben Nelson are all representing states that went for John McCain last fall. Collectively, the states represented by these fine ladies and gentlemen contain about as many people as New York, but their votes are the difference between a majority and a filibuster-breaking supermajority. Meanwhile, among the senators representing states Obama did carry, several—but most notably Indiana's Evan Bayh—have made no bones about their willingness to defy the president and the party leadership on key votes. And of course Connecticut's Joe Lieberman went so far as to endorse McCain in the election and is now opposing a key element of Obama's health-reform agenda.
In many respects the main significance of Franken's victory isn't that it brings us to 60 senators, it's that it increases by one the number of serious progressives in the Senate. But Franken or no, the balance of power still rests with a large block of centrist Democrats and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe on the other side. The situation by no means dooms Obama's agenda to defeat, but it does mean that legislative outcomes are overwhelmingly likely to be a fairly pale shadow of the agenda a majority of the public voted for last year.
In practice, a big question becomes how much influence can Obama exert over the fairly large number of Republicans who represent states he won. Throughout the Bush years, "red state" Democrats often seemed afraid of standing up to the White House. But what about Republicans like Collins, Snowe, Judd Gregg, Richard Burr, George Voinovich, Mel Martinez, Chuck Grassley, and Richard Lugar, all of whom represent Obama states? Thus far with the very partial exception of Collins and Snowe, this group has offered essentially lockstep opposition to Democratic initiatives. If that dynamic were changed, then the overall legislative landscape could look very difficult. With some Republicans looking to cut deals, then moderate Democrats would need to worry about getting cut out of deals, giving them an incentive of their own to play ball. More generally, once the belief generally exists that a given piece of legislation is going to pass, members of Congress tend to get on the bandwagon, if only to ensure that they play a role in shaping the final result.
But so far, it's not happening. And as long as that pattern holds up, Al Franken’s 60th vote may not be worth very much.
Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Step Up to the Plate, China
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Next Battle for Health Care
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Defending a Bomb-Thrower
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Having two senators represent each state is really problematic. Not only are our country's population centers on either coasts poorly represented, but the two senator per state requirement gives southern and mid-western conservatives inordinate power and representation.
Blue-dog democrats are, for the most part, more dog than democrat. (Sorry...that's being disrespectful to dogs, which are generally smarter and more loyal.)
Baptox, that's the point of the Senate. In the Senate, all states are to treated as equals. In the House poulations make a difference and often do. The senate is the saucer that catches the hot liquid that sometimes overflows from the cup that is the House. It cools things down.
What you want is that places like New York, Pennsylvania New Jersey, Chicago and California making decisions for the rest of us despite the fact that maybe many of us in flyover country don't like the positions the New Yorkers and Californians hold. The Senate makes sure that all of the people are heard. In the Senate , the cattleman from Montana is an equal to the shopkeeper in Brooklyn. In the House, there is no such equality and that's how it should be.
If you Progressive 'Libs run off the Blue Dogs, they will join the Republicans because people like Mary landrieu are more Republican anad Conservative in their views than many Republicans. Landrieu is pro-life ans pro 2 nd Ammendment. Bill Nelson about the same. Evan bayh...why he never switched to Republican is beyond me.
This user is no longer registered.
No, In the Senate, the cattleman from Montana is 18 times more equal than the shopkeeper in Brooklyn. That is the problem.
Yes, I want our senate to reflect the views of the majority of the people who are affected by the laws enacted by congress. Your contention that a minority should be able to determine those views, as currently exists, is what is flawed.
The constitution is a living document. Just because the framers of the constitution decided to cave to the states' rights folks and develop a senatorial body with two senators from each state does not mean that it should always remain this way.
As far as "blue dog democrats" are concerned, they are an endangered species just like the republican party. Whether you conservatives like it or not, the progressive viewpoint predominates.
bcaldwell is correct baptox...I think I learned that in 4th grade.
But...But...that means we can't pass all our liberal, socialist crapola...that's not fair...power to the people.
This user is no longer registered.
FU... how?
"(T)he two senator per state requirement gives southern and mid-western conservatives inordinate power and representation."
If legislative representation were determined only by population, no state other than the most populous would ever see a dime. Here in New York State, the onerous tax burden principally funds the dense population in and around New York City at the expense (literally) of the rest of the state. The taxpayers Corning or Massena or Jamestown share the same tax burdens as those in the NYC metro area, but most of the money goes toward subsidizing NYC services and infrastructure. Why should a dairy farmer in Penn Yan share the costs of rebuilding the Lincoln Tunnell?
You'r assuming that the farmer from Penn Yan will never use the Lincoln Tunnel. Federal tax money goes to things I don't support either, but it doesn't matter. Pres. Bush started an unnecessary war and the dumb conservatives supported it because he was 'keeping us safe'. We pay taxes for many things we don't support, but we may find that we support them later or maybe not.
Well, for the same reason that capital projects that affect the rest of the state are principally funded by the residents of NYC, and not the dairy farmer in Penn Yan that might make use of it. They may share the same tax burden, but the city provides an outsized amount of the gross, as well as non-tax state wealth production.
Which isn't to say I think that population should be the only determinant for representation, just that the claim you're making is specious. NYC does not survive at the expense of the rest of the state, the rest of the state benefits handily from the city.
newswoman -
1) I am not assuming what you assume I'm assuming. The tax burden on the farmer relative to the use of the service is inordinate. Maybe he crosses it once or twice a year. Maybe never at all.
2) A great many "principled" liberals and democrats agreed to appropriate huge amounts of money to pay for a war that, in the absence of any further domestic attacks, may very well have been effective if its goal was to prevent another attack. Whether it was worth it.... that's a conversation history will have to have.
3) I find it troubling that you respond to the fact that you and I agree that our tax dollars go toward things we don't support with resignation. You attitude seems to be, "if I have to give up my money to support things I don't like, so does everyone else." There's a certain truth to the idea that taxes are a necessary source of revenue for government functions, but when will you decide that the dubious and wasteful demands for the taxes themselves - whether for costly wars or bank bailout - are more objectionable than the person that wishes to see less of his or her money wasted by mendacious and rapacious politicians?
rowland said: "Why should a dairy farmer in Penn Yan share the costs of rebuilding the Lincoln Tunnell?"
The real question is why populous metropolitan areas should share the costs of sparsely-populated rural areas. States like New York and California pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. States like North Dakota and Wyoming (or rural New York) receive a lot more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Rural areas are inherently more expensive to develop and maintain than metropolitan areas, as they have more many more miles of road / miles of electric transmission towers / miles of telephone wire per person.
Want to rethink your position?
AlanD2 - The telephone company provides the telephone wire and the electric company provides the electrical wiring. In Wyoming's case (where I have lived) they paid for the increased costs of highway maintenance by charging high registration fees.
If what you claim were true, rural areas would support federal tax increases. They decidedly do not. The exact opposite is true. Why do you think that is?
Very astute Rowland, don't confuse them with facts.
What's the matter with Dems? We finally have a majority in the House and Senate and the 'blue dogs' decide to become political, that is, worried about their reelection! I think they will rue the day. We need healthcare reform, with a mixed form. Like Ed Schultz said on his show last night, these people should go to Canada and see how their system works instead of just panning the idea of a national/private system. The Dutch system is a mixed system and they like it just fine.
In my mind the Blue Dogs along with Collins and Snowe are the only Senators we can trust to keep things in check. The rest of the Ds are in a perpetual spending mode while the rest of the R's sole existence is to say "NO" to everything just to be obstructionists. The moderates are all we have right now.
Lockstep is an indication of servility, not principle.
Ah! An Ed Schultz acolyte. Now it makes sense. The Left's Limbaugh (although in fairness that honor should go to Randi Rhodes). Does Ed Schultz really doesn't think people have studied other healthcare systems? And not all of them have come to the same conclusions he has? Shocking!
The well-heeled of Canada come here for dire services. Flu? Broken arm? Fine. Prostate cancer or heart surgery? Grab your passport and your checkbook and hop a flight to Mayo or Johns Hopkins. Now the woman who came in to do your laundry, cook your dinner and make your beds for the past 40 years? She's 92 and has been on a waiting list for colonic surgery for seventeen years.
I'm not making this up. These are examples from actual people I know, love, and grew up with.
In my view, many of these 'blue dogs' are actually moderate Republicans who know they could never win an election as a Republican, since they have no chance of winning a Republican primary. So it is not surprising that they are reluctant to support progressive policies.
@ rowland:
22,000 people a year die here in the U.S. because they lack health insurance. Given a chance, I'm sure that they would be glad to move to Canada. And what about the thousands of Californians that go to Mexico for treatment?
Unfortunately, people tend to study other health care systems through the blinders of their own idioligy.
But not you, AlanD2? I agree people tend to start with a conclusion and work backward. The folks who forsake their Canadian system in a pinch will praise it to the sky. The services available in the states simply aren't available to them in Canada.
You throw out a lot of stats with regard to death and taxes which support your own axioms. With all due respect, No, I don't wish to give up my position - even after rethinking it - based on your claims.
I wonder how many people who died in Canada last year who were ostensibly covered by their health care system wish they had the money to access the care they needed in a timely fashion? Really. I wonder. Look it up and get back to me.
And then rethink your position.
The so called Blue Dogs think it is still 1950.
Yeh! Get them folks in the rural areas of the country to pay for the health care of illegals, malcontents that don't have a job, welfare reciepients, on and on, it's the american way.
Uh, Johnnyappleseed, "illegals" do indeed contribute to Social Security and Medicare, often under a false SS # until the paperwork catches up with them, and the NEVER collect on the retirement part of Social Security.
Yes, they do make some claims under Medicaid,etc., but the Social Security Administration, even under Bush, admits that immigrants contribute way more than they get in benefits. This is just an emotional issue backed up with false data to aid fearmongering.
And, just for your information, the Tax Foundation reports that people in rural, Red States receive much more in benefits--for them nice, white, taxpayin' folks than they pay into the system in taxes.
more dog than democrat? does that mean that their opinions and viewpoints are not respected? does that mean that everything Pelosi does is 100% perfect? Absolutely not.
I agree with you, baptox, that blue-dos democrats are more canine than democrat. I call them "Republicans in Democrat clothing". Many of them were elected in conservative states where the people had grown disaffected with their Republican senators. So they elected conservatives who called themselves Democrats so that they could get elected.
A lot of attention paid to the more conservative Democrats, but none paid to some of the more liberal Republican Senators, including Collins and Snowe.
Obama won Maine by larger margins than he lost North Dakota or Montana.
So true. It's not clear cut and not on every issue. Politicians vote according to their conscience, backgrounds, leanings and concerns back home.
Would that what you write here were true. Part of the problem with the Blue Dogs mentioned here is how readily they respond to lobbying interests. They are not the only ones (of course), but they are the focus of the article.
I could not understand the fuss over the 60th vote which is as you said is not what it was cracked up to be. Most people are VERY aware of the blue dogs bcaldwell. Oh, and isn't Mary Landrieu the one who committed highway robbery for her state? We know who she is.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31694260#31694260
It's time for term limits, I believe a senator should be limited to one single term. That would make most of your points moot. Senators actually might start to vote with their conscience instead of by being bullied or worried about re-election. Time for change for the better!!! We need single term senators. With no retirement or medical benefits. Until the entire nation has health care, we must demand our representatives don't have it either. They need to learn to live in our world, not a world of their own.
Isn't our Constitution a wonderful document?
A majority voted for this cap and trade fiasco? What happened to drilling offshore?
A majority voted for this health care boondoggle? Obama is telling barefaced lies about this scam.
A majority voted for stimulus to be done through pork projects? What happened to suspending fica taxes to put immediate money into the economy as Obama promised?
All we got is a Daniel Ortega wannabee running a 16 trillion dollar economy.
Ah, you are sadly so right. But there are many of us progressives who are ready to work hard to defeat these folks. They have no idea what the wrath of millions will look like in the next cycle. Lotsa people with check books ready to contribute to their opponents, MoveOn, etc. They will be shamed and exposed in their home states mercilessly. If they think the Dem label will keep them safe they have another think a comin. Bottom line is if the Dems can't do what the American public elected them to do, then what good is a majority.
I think most of them have just been bought off, and we will have to push them out of the party and put some real Democrats in their place. This country does not need two Republican parties, no matter what some of these Dixiecrats say.
This goes to show the main difference between Dems and Reps. For good or ill the Dems are usually all over the place on any given bill. It shows Dems at least have a thought process while the Reps usually have the lock-step Borg/hive type mentality.
Talk about stereotyping into "one size fits all". Not so. If Obama said to jump off a cliff, many Dem lemmings would. Both parties need to have time to at least read and study the bills before voting on them.
Coleman was condemned on this site for fighting out the election. Where is the condemnation for Kennedy and Bird for not stepping down and having someone else fill their jobs so the people of West Virginia and Massachusetts can have two
Senators working full time for them.
Because illness and obstructionism aren't the same thing.
Don't forget Johnson in South Dakota, works out of his home, but votes with the Democratic pack
Yea, like conservatives haven't enjoyed telling the over 2/3 of the rest of us since Reagan, that we gotta love guns and hate abortion and fags. and government and foreigners and liberals and and and...
u r dumb
Yglesias is crying for nothing. Obama the Messiah has got more than he expected or campaigned for. Blue Dog Democrats better start biting. They are just weak clowns who love to play with media. Tell me what impact Blue Dog Democrats had in Stimulus Bill.
I'm glad that we have a few people in both parties that aren't so locked into party politics that they can thing for themselves. (I don't like supermajorities anyway.) (I do like watching the Republicans suffer after what they've put the country through the last 8 years.) (But if the Republicans shape up, I'll forgive them.)
I seldom agree with you Hawnzzy, but you are right about the Reppubies, they are better at heavy lifting when in the minority.
Makes them get up off their brains.
The Democrats won by a landslide in 2008 and a majority of the rank and file lost because of the Blue Dogs. Lieberman, Landieu, Nelson are Neocon Democrats, and now Spector. The Democrats must heal themselves. The Neocon Republicans are not dead; they are lying in waiting!
The curious dilemma of conservative Democrats & moderate Republicans, who are a minority within their own parties (in the case of moderate Republicans, an endangered species!), provides a strong argument for overhauling the current system of political parties. We should follow the lead of Canada, Great Britain, & other democracies: Let the party which stands for liberal ideas be called the Liberal Party & let the party which advocates conservative ideas be called the Conservative Party. Then politicians can be part of a party where they won't feel out of place.
That would be nice, but neither party will let that happen, makes too much sense.
"""So much for Al Franken's 60th vote. A coalition of renegade Democrats stands ready to defy the president, writes Matthew Yglesias, and could damage his legislative agenda."""
Thank god
Todays' Republican Party is nothing but Blue Dog Democrats from the '60s.
The Dixiecrats became the 'southern-stratagy' Republicans in protest. The Democratic Party was better off without the redneck swamp rabbits and hill stompers.
What a jack ass you are Jerry...
Agreed Jerry is one of those loonies on the left, resorts to name calling when the facts are pointed out.
jerryf is absolutely correct. Google Dixiecrats Southern Strategy and see for yourself. And blahblah is the one name calling, Appleseed.
The majority of folks in NY aren't even ultra liberals! The idea that states like Montana are watering down the ultra liberal agenda of the majority is silly. They're keeping the inmates from taking over the asylum which is exactly what the founding fathers designed the senate to do.
Every time we try to pass reforms in America, we get stabbed in the back by DINOs and Dixiecrats who are bought and paid for by various special interests and could care less about how much time, money and effort it took to win this big victory in November 2008. We are in the first reform cycle since the 1960s, and a few of these Senators are standing in our way. We have to find a way to bulldoze these neo-Republicans, since we won't have another chance like this in decades. This is it, and we have to go all out, and run over these people who are always betraying us.
Grrrrrrrrr! Go for it bucko, it will give you something to do.
I don't believe that congress should just rubber stamp everything the president says like the pathetic republican't congress that gave CrimiBush a free pass to try and destroy the world, but any Politicians that can't work together at this time of crisis to enact legislation to improve the lives of suffering American citizens need to get strung by their toes and beaten senseless. I mean beaten more senseless. Our system of gov't is not working and it's time for an overhaul.
There is a big problem in this article,
it proposes that Obama could have sway over the Republicans from states he won, but look at that list:
Snowe and Collins are already moderate
Voinovich, Martinez, and Gregg are retiring so it doesn't matter what their constituents think
that leaves Grassley and Luger, very populare in their home states and finally Burr who is likely not to be re-elected.
I agree that "Blue-dog democrats are, for the most part, more dog than democrat. (Sorry...that's being disrespectful to dogs, which are generally smarter and more loyal.)"
But these traitorous Blue Dogs better think again. They think they have to vote like Republicans to get re-elected. Baloney!
If they please the right too much they will lose the support of the left for sure and not get re-elected no matter how much they court Republicans. The Democratic BASE is damn tired of being taken for granted.
The Blue Dogs are standing on thin ice. BEWARE You Mutts!
SIGN THE PETITION calling for Prosecute of those in hte Bush Administration that Conspired To Torture at
ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
.
try running Al Franken in Arkansas and see how many votes he gets.
Waste of time and resource.
Will the Democrats ever learn that no matter how much they appease the Republicans.....the Republicans will never support them?
I don't think Obama's Blue Dog problem is worse than Clinton's Hound Dog problem.
I just want to know if the blue dogs all get their hair shellacked at the same salon.
We have a blue dog congressman in our state, votes the way his constituents want him to, I believe it's called representation.
Seems like a good idea to me, as a independent conservative.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.