A Former Bush Adviser On The Blue Dogs
This morning I met with a former economic advisor to George W. Bush. He's a nice guy and I'd just name him here except that I didn't plan on blogging about our meeting and didn't tell him I'll play it safe, not name him and just ask you to trust me that he's a Republican who worked for the president, is interested in politics and knows a thing or two about it.
At one point he mentioned Bush "ramming" something through congress, uysing party discipline to get his way. Since we were having such a good chat I went ahead and vented my frustration at our side's seeming inability to do the same thing. "Why does their 50 seat majority work and ours doesn't?" I asked.
His answer was interesting.
"Your southern Democrats have more in common with Republicans than they do northern Democrats."
Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't but the guy has dealt with congress and he believes it. I think I believe it too and I think that the Republicans count on it.
At one point he mentioned Bush "ramming" something through congress, uysing party discipline to get his way. Since we were having such a good chat I went ahead and vented my frustration at our side's seeming inability to do the same thing. "Why does their 50 seat majority work and ours doesn't?" I asked.
His answer was interesting.
"Your southern Democrats have more in common with Republicans than they do northern Democrats."
Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't but the guy has dealt with congress and he believes it. I think I believe it too and I think that the Republicans count on it.
Advertisement
Dunno. A couple of thoughts:
Centrist dems are by definition closer to centrist republicans than to the far left of the party. So what the hell does it ultimately mean to say they're closer to the republican pov?
The theory is that it's better to have them inside the tent, because it's harder to vote against cloture on your own party's bills. We'll see if that theory stands up pretty soon
It's a strange kind of myth that Bush was so extremely effective. He passed easy bills, that required no one to stand up to special interests, that made spending seem 'free', that got no oppo in the press. He got nowhere on the harder stuff like Social Security reform.
The dems institutionally don't use committee assignments as a tool in whipping. So that leaves them with a structural disadvantage compared to the GOP. Of course, easy enough to change, but Dems seem to prefer the more aristocratic 'seniority' approach to the more meritocratic GOP approach to such things. who knows why...
August 28, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a really great point about changing the way we make committee assignments. Seems way more effective than wishing the blue dogs would go away.
August 28, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, Obey. But, I think you’re partly wrong here: “It's a strange kind of myth that Bush was so extremely effective.” You're right that Bush was not usually an effective proponent or spokesman for controversial proposals when they were honestly debated, but that rarely happened. Bush, Rove, Cheney, Delay, et al. were nothing but propagandists (liars), bullies and extortionists that would have their way at any cost (even with their own like Frist or Specter).
First, one must note that legislation ( almost all under a Republicans and a lot under Dems) was produced and driven by the Bush WH in contrast to some of the current administration’s work so far. It’s true that much of Bush’s legislation appeared easy to pass. But is that a product of the smooth operation with an intimidated, lock-step congress or bills that everyone could agree on?
Reid said today that he's been working bipartisanship because they only have 58 Dems on paper with Kennedy's passing and Byrd's deteriorating health. Strange, they were both still present when the compromising began. Besides, when did the Republicans ever have 60 votes? Even when use of the nuclear option came up, Dems caved.
I think most of the salient laws and programs enacted under Bush were highly controversial, especially: tax cuts that benefited corporations and the wealthy; stem cell and abortion restrictions; faith-based initiatives; Bankruptcy “Reform;” and the Medicare Prescription Drug Act (forbidding negotiating lower prices).
But most importantly was all of the WOT related legislation Bush bullied through. A small sampling would include: the AUMF; Patriot Acts I & II; Homeland Security; MCA, FISA, DAA (Warner Defense Authorization Act that allows “ the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."). Where were the filibusters?
A review of the passage of the MCA, eliding habeas corpus for detainees, with such weak opposition (hardly a peep from Dems for fear they would once again be labeled weak on terrorists, and then a compromise from the “mavericks” that seemed an obvious feint to everyone but Harry Reid) provides the perfect picture of congress under Bush.
At least the court struck down as unconstitutional some of the most egregious claims by the unitary executive, but all of it slipped through congress like a greased pig. On top of the legislation Bush was attaching questionable signing statements to everything negating congress and the courts anyway, and congress forwarded no challenges, none, to the signing statements. Congress was Bush’s bitch.
August 29, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
okay, I'll have to think harder about that point. But my main claim is that Bush did not try to do anything 'hard'. Now how do you define 'hard'? Votes where you go up against harsh press criticism or industry lobbies are 'hard'. If they had tried and succeeded in passing tax hikes, or cuts in government programs, or cuts in industry subsidies. That's hard. Never tried any of that. Easy bills are most often irresponsible bills. And nothing is as easy to whip as irresponsible bills.
August 29, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Obey. You're right, and I didn't mean to sound harsh. Point taken-it wasn't hard for Bush because he had no resistance. I guess that's what pisses me off the most.
August 29, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the advisor said is true if you have a picture of present-day Republicans as possessing any level of sanity. The truth is that unless you froth at the mouth at the mere mention of democrat, liberal, or progressive, you have nothing in common with present-day Republicans.
August 28, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
But why do people who take our party's name aid and abet them?
August 28, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because our tent is bigger. Yes, they are Democrats and we do not demand absolute allegiance to a single objective. At the end of the day, they represent their state and it is that constituency that is responsible for their votes. But I do believe we should do what we can to replace them.
August 29, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you mean to say modern republican politicians and pundits? Because I know plenty of actual republicans who do not fit your definition in any way, shape or form. Myself and generations of republicans before me included.
August 29, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
JEM, you scream you are a Republican, but how much ownership do you take for Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Sanford, Ensign, and etc.? To this day, Rush Limbaugh is the unchallenged Leader of the GOP. Your party has not, IMHO, rejected that proposition.
From my perspective, I see there are these self-labelling Republicans who have this nostalgic view of what the GOP is, but they are not aware of the moment in which the GOP lives, especially in Washington DC. If you want to change the world by pulling off people who are too extreme, it would be better that you got your own party in order first before proclaiming yourself the "man with the mirror". Take your mirror to the GOP so that the GOP leaders can have a rational conversation about the issues with the Dems.
The argument that Obama has made the effort to bring the GOP to the table does not need a link. That is gratuitous. It's common knowledge and has been a irritant to those who want HCR reform achieved this year.
August 31, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Limbaugh was labeled that by democrats and the media. Plenty of republicans around here have put a pin in that particular canard. None of the current crop are my people, so I feel no need to take responsibility for them. I didn't vote for them. I don't agree with any of their stances. I am quite consistent in my opinion that they are a blight on the republican party and the national dialogue.
I have always called for a much more holistic view of history and politics than any one label can afford.
Any republican who is willing to listen to reason is either already here or waiting for the primary election to get rid of a bat-shit incumbent. Not sure what mirror is necessary to hold up to them when their insanity is not in dispute. It is the far left's inability to see their "enemy's" tactics in the very practices they condone.
That is why I am here. To help democratic party actually accomplish the very important progressive changes this country needs to survive in the 21st century by hoping to show how their messaging and solution set could be modified slightly to be much more palatable to Americans as a whole.
August 31, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Leader of the GOP canard was uttered by Rush Limbaugh himself. He made that declaration on his national radio program. It's never been refuted. It was not a Democractic invention, it was merely an observation with an earth-shattering lack of rebuttal. Or, more accurately, any GOP who dared to suggest Rush was not God on Earth was not long later found to be apologizing to Rush on his national radio show.
Okay, you're not screaming, but you are inistent that people see you as a Republican. I have a hard time with it other then that you say you are, but the leadership of the Party in DC, as opposed to at the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, do not bear much rememblance to your politics as I understand them to be.
August 31, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I am not disputing that there are some crazy mouthpieces for the party right now, they just don't resemble a single republican I know in real life. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but it is all I can go on given the historical inaccuracy of the media.
My ideas of where I would take the country only resemble the liberal side of the house insofar as some of the end goals are concerned. The similarities end there, however, because I do not think that the government is always the best vehicle by which to deliver those ends.
There are at least two republicans who come to this site regularly that aren't that far off of where I am politically, they just started in a different location. I would see the party of Lincoln return to those roots before the total implosion of the party distracts the country from all of its very important work.
That seems an easier task to tackle than convincing democrats that the solutions they keep offering don't have a hope of working and no one is buying them anyway.
August 31, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I don't "scream" anything, so that is more of the inadvertently belittling language democrats seem to be unaware of when they post comments such as this. I am a republican because I have more in common with their moderates than I do with democratic moderates. I was a long-time independent before that, but have never been one for stereotypical expressions of any ideology.
August 31, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
not always so. But what is a mother to do?
I am looking at the northern conservatives. I think Baucus and his roomate are having problems.
THEY HAVE CONSTITUENTS AND THIS IS A DEMOCRACY.
I would rather have dems in conservative areas than repubs. So-called blue dogs must play more chess.
But I am impressed Destor. Thank you for this. REally.
August 28, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject the defeatism inherent in acceptance of Blue Dogs. They vote against every issue that matters to me. They muddy the Democratic message so badly that Americans have no clue where the Democratic Party stands.
Iowa elects Harkin, a liberal, and Grassley, a conservative. If you follow the conventional wisdom that Democrats must pretend to be Republicans in order to sneak into office and vote just like Republicans, you'd have another Blue Dog in Iowa instead of a liberal like Harkin and one less vote for the public option.
August 28, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
They muddy the Democratic message so badly that Americans have no clue where the Democratic Party stands.
I disagree. They muddy the PROGRESSIVE message so badly etc. The Democrats have no policy message, unless you count ineffectual centrist whining.
Look who they got into the White House.
August 28, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is to say southern democrats are perfectly fine with a betrayal of the public trust that advances their own interests without regard to the effect it has on their constituents or the country. This is a trait common of many republican senators and most all of the blue dogs. Their lies are in fact criminal in nature because the end result of their lies is serious harm to the country and are knowingly committed for the exclusive purpose of enriching themselves or other persons through fraudulent representation. Their intent to defraud is conclusive. Their derived conclusions are logically prohibited by their access to information, both public and private.
August 29, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink