Will Centrist Dems Defect Giving Bush a Congressional Majority?

Back during the first two years of the Reagan administration when the President enjoyed rather strong approval numbers, a significant core of Democrats in Congress -- the old conservative Southern bulls, mainly -- joined with Republicans in the House to effectively give the GOP (or at least conservatives) control over the trifect in Washington. With George W. Bush having lost his congressional majorities last month, many pundits are talking about the possibility that this President will be able to replicate the successes of his predecessor in crafting a governing coalition in Congress even without a Republican majority in either chamber. To this end, the President has made at least some efforts to reach out to the New Democrats and Blue Dogs within the House Democratic caucus to see if he cannot garner the requisite support to push his agenda. Yet as Edward Epstein reports today for the San Francisco Chronicle, Bush may be hitting some road blocks.

But the president's effort is running up against a major obstacle. The Democrats he has targeted for cooperation are the same lawmakers who are most critical of the huge budget deficits and increased national debt that have been amassed during Bush's six years in the presidency. They also want major changes in Bush's Iraq policy and have pledged their support for Democratic Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi's "six for '06'' platform of major legislative items that she will push in the early days of the new Congress.

Bush met with leaders of the 44-member Blue Dog Coalition and the 62-member New Democrat Coalition at the White House last Friday, at his invitation, and all pledged to try to cooperate in the new Congress. But beneath the surface, the tension and the Democrats' pique at being ignored by the Bush White House until now were obvious.

Make no mistake, the centrists among House Democrats today are a far cry from the true conservatives that once ruled the roost in the party. True, a number of these self-professed moderates have been all-too-willing to defect on key legislative items, from the Iraq War to Bankruptcy Reform. But in other areas they have largely stuck with their caucus, most notably on the President's plan to partially privatize Social Security. And they have good reason to. As Alan K. Ota notes in CQ Weekly (no link available), President Bush and his political apparatus have a history of going after their one-time allies within the Democratic Party.

During their time in the majority, the Republicans wooed the Blue Dogs mainly by trying to persuade them to switch parties -- and several did, including Nathan Deal of Georgia, Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, and Texans Greg Laughlin and Ralph M. Hall. When the target list for such switches was exhausted, the GOP worked to defeat some conservative Democrats, most famously Blue Dog founder Charles W. Stenholm, who was a victim of the Texas redistricting that Tom DeLay engineered in 2003. [emphasis added]

Others who faced the wrath of the White House even after welcoming its entreaties include Mary Landrieu and a number of other Democrats who supported the President's tax proposals and general legislative agenda during the 107th Congress.

Given George W. Bush's record of stabbing Democrats in the back and his woefully low approval rating, there's little reason to for any Democrat to sell out his party over the next two years. Yes, newly-elected House Dems from tough districts, like Brad Ellsworth from Indiana and Nick Lampson from Texas, are going to have to think long and hard about balancing their views with the political realities of their districts. But any Democrat that falls prey to the same old trick from the White House and takes a bite out of the forbidden fruit of false bipartisanship deserves to be exiled from the party -- not only for disloyalty but also for a complete and utter misunderstanding of the political system and climate.

Tags: Bipartisanship, Blue Dogs, House Caucuses, house democrats, New Democrats (all tags)

Comments

18 Comments

Re: Will Centrist Dems Defect Giving Bush a

Any Democrat that would go over and support a President with a 30% popularity rating deserves whatever they get.

by rikyrah 2006-12-12 11:03AM | 0 recs
I'm sure there are some Blue Dogs

stupid enough to make jailhouse vows to a dead man walking; I'm sorta hoping Mother Pelosi will forbid  such weddings in the best interest of her wards.

by dksbook 2006-12-12 02:29PM | 0 recs
Its possible

Your article is well written, if the President wishes to get some help from this group I would suggest he triangulate, it worked with the previuos President real well but so far he is reluctant to do that.  So while he may get some where on some issues he will mostly have a difficult time with it.

by THE MODERATE 2006-12-12 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Centrist Dems Defect Giving Bush a Congre

Not gonna happen. By my count, 15 Dems would need to switch parties to give the GOP a majority. Even after 1994 not that many did it, and that was after the Republicans cleaning the clocks of the Dems.

No one's gonna switch. Chill, everyone.

by raginillinoian 2006-12-12 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Centrist Dems Defect Giving Bush a Congre

This post isn't about official defections, but instead Democrats who will be easily accessible to the White House to flip on crucial votes.

by PsiFighter37 2006-12-12 11:41AM | 0 recs
Any Dem seduced by Bush

Needs to remember that as soon as the Republicans didn't need the Tx Dems as beards, they stabbed each and every one of them in the back with great enthusiasm.

As Charley Stenholm, Pete Laney, Martin Frost, and any number of conservative Texas Dems can testify.

Bush will be as "bipartisan" as he absolutely has to be for only as long as required to get what he wants.

And not one moment longer.

by boadicea 2006-12-12 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Centrist Dems Defect Giving Bush a Congre

Republicans are far, far more likely to defect from the party line than are the Democrats.

The current Republican agenda being pushed by Rove and his ilk is flat-out bad policy.  Moderate Republicans know it, but when you're in the majority, there's a strong incentive just to go along and ride the tide rather than rock the boat.  The remaining moderates like Chris Shays sure aren't going to be voting with the White House 80-90% of the time any more.

by Steve M 2006-12-12 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Centrist Dems Defect Giving Bush a Congre

The funny thing about this is that it seems to me that one of the big prevailing political trends this year, at least before the election, was one of Republicans distancing themselves from President Bush. It would be quite funny if the Republicans continue moving away from Bush while a handful of the right-wing/centrist Democrats start moving toward him.

Then again, am I being naive to think that the Congressional Republicans will continue moving away from Bush now that the election is over? After all, approval ratings or no, Bush still controls a branch of government and they don't, so suddenly there's a pretty strong incentive to get in good with him...

by Silent sound 2006-12-12 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Centrist Dems Defect

"many pundits are talking about ... blah, blah, blah!

Three words:
Not Gonna Happen

(1) It is a lot easier to do this in the first two years of the administration than the last two. No point earning favors from someone who is leaving politics in two years. Take a look at what happened in the final two years of Reagan's presidency.

(2) Reagan's approval ratings were high, Bush's are sinking

(3) What occurred in 1980 was in the midst of the Southern realignment. The realignment has already happened.

by bushsucks 2006-12-12 11:59AM | 0 recs
Not gonna happen

    Absolutely correct on all three points.

by MarvToler 2006-12-12 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Will Centrist Dems Defect Giving Bush a

I don't think they will in large numbers enough to block our agenda. Why?

Nancy Pelosi's agenda is a consensus approach, rather than focusing on hot-button social issues and other socially conservative things that many blue-dogs feel they need to abandon the party on for their constintuency. I mean, what Democrat that calls himself a Democrat is going to vote against the minimum wage increase? Just not going to happen.

Pelosi+Reid knows this, and that's why as long as we have a razor thin majority in the US Senate (with conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson, Mary Landreui and Max Baucas), they will both pursue a centrist agenda, or at least one not liberal enough to merit the defections of these people. I don't think it'll be a huge issue in the long run.

by KainIIIC 2006-12-12 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Will Centrist Dems Defect Giving Bush a Congre

I have to agree with Steve M and SIlent Sound. I think this diary's contention is far-fetched and not well-funded and the reason is right in the opening "Back during the first two years of the Reagan administration when the President enjoyed rather strong approval numbers."

Currently you have a president who is wildly unpopular and whose numbers are plunging even within his own party. The programs he has pushed have failed even within a GOP-dominated congress and were repudiated by the voters this November. In fact, ANY congressperson of either party who would go along with them at this point is probably risking reelection in 2008, unless they live in the most staunch of Republican districts.

The problem is going to be the reverse of what you are proposing. Republicans, especially in the House, will be caught between going along with a lame duck president who no longer has a mechanism to punish them since they no longer have power in the House, or voting for programs that benefit a majority of Americans and that are supported by enormous majorities. These are the things that Nancy Pelosi has proposed to attack first. I think that many Republicans will have a difficult time not supporting them, and Democratic defections to an unpopular lame-duck president won't be an issue.

by anastasia 2006-12-12 12:04PM | 0 recs
Way different dynamic vs. Reagan era

A lot of the House "Democrats" who voted with Reagan became Republicans.

The Senate was majority Republican from 1981-86 so Republicans could reward the House "Democrats" who voted with Reagan.

Reagan was popular.

Way different dynamic now with Bush Jr one of the most unpopular presidents and Democrats in majority in Senate and able to punish those who vote with Bush Jr.

Webb turns Democrat to win.

Republican Gordon Smith has a good sense for which way the wind is blowing and he's turned on Bush Jr, coming out for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, getting ahead of a lot of Democrats.

Republicans are deserting the party and those left don't want to be associated with Bush Jr so probably not much need to worry about House Democrats defecting to Bush Jr agenda.

by BrionLutz 2006-12-12 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Will Centrist Dems Defect Giving Bush a Congre

The current "conservative" Democrats are really just the "most conservative" Democrats who, in who scheme of things, are generally moderates.

In Reagan's time, the most conservative Democrats were really conservative and in some instances reactionary.  A lot of them were Southern Democrats who became or were replaced by Republicans.   (Just think, in 1990, David Duke change his registration from Democrat to Republican.)    

Even if you look at the Blue Dogs in Congress, they are generally more moderate than the Conservative Democrats of old.  There may be a handful of old-school conservative Democrats, but definitely not a large bloc that can defect to the Republicans the way those Democrats did when they joined the Conservative Coalition.

by robstephens 2006-12-12 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Will Centrist Dems Defect Giving Bush a Congre

Certainly, the Blue Dogs and New Dems will have to be watched. And I disagree with the contention of some commenters that we'll gain more votes from Republican moderates than we'll lose from conservative Democrats, because moderate Republicans were rare in 2004 and many of those toppled in 2006 were amongst the more moderate in the party.

Nevertheless, if Congress concentrates on economic issues, there isn't that much wiggle room for the right of the Democratic party to claim to be representing the concerns of their constituents, because a host of referenda show that their constituencies favour minimum wage hikes and the like.

by Englishlefty 2006-12-12 02:01PM | 0 recs
I don't think Bush is interested in Dem switchers

Well - for reasons discussed upthread - he's not going to get any.

But he'll likely find support on particular issues from particular Dem MCs - like the GOP majority did (bankruptcy, energy, CAFTA, estate tax repeal - whole slew).

Quick question: was Stenholm the subject of a GOP hit, or did he just have his votes carted off to other districts under the DeLay redistricting?

by skeptic06 2006-12-12 02:07PM | 0 recs
A distinction with no difference.

Delay wanted more Republican seats in the Texas delegation, and he carved one out of Charley Stenholm's hide.

You really think Charley Stenholm, or the resulting loss of seniority to Texas, cares whether it was intentional or a byproduct?

by boadicea 2006-12-12 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Will Centrist Dems Defect Giving Bush a Congre

It was intentional. The Texas GOP launched a specific campaign to target all the anglo Democrats in marginal districts in the state, specifically Stenholm, the last of the old Texas Dem Bulls.

That said, I concur that this handwringing about Democratic crossover is way overblown. On the first front is the difference between Reagan, an incredibly popular president with something of a mandate, and Bush II, a lame duck if there ever was one.

Secondly, the political landscape is just different than it was in the 80's. The "leave us alone" coalition of Reaganite Republicans & Southern Democrats couldn't exist today. The Southern Boll Weevils don't exist anymore. The types of Democrats that could theoetically give their party trouble by crossing over, have all retired or become republicans by now.

The Blue Dogs could be considered the conservative wing of the party, but they aren't nearly as big a faction as the Boll Weevils were in the Reagan years and not nearly as conservative either. Take your average Blue Dog, like say, John Barrow, and compare his voting record to someone like Ralph Hall (who used to be a Boll Weevil when he was still a Democrat) it's a huge difference.

Moreover the Blue Dogs are not movement conservatives, and their conservatism is more tempremental than ideological. The Blue Dog coalition is basically a group of socially conservative, economic nationalist Democrats from rural districts all across the country. They'll be more interested in getting their farm bill shored up and their Ag subsidies lined up than trying to push draconian right wing legislation.

And this is just the Blue Dogs. Consider the same comparison with the pro-entitlement, socially cosmopolitan "pro-business" Democrats of the NDC? Now we're talking about the difference between Ralph Hall & Ron Kind.

basically, their days of setting the agenda are over.

by DRR7979 2006-12-12 07:05PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------