Why do "fans" of Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy Oppose Mary Landrieu, Begich & McCaskill?

[TomCADem]

Immediately after the election, we saw posts saying that we need to bring back Howard Dean and his 50 State Strategy. I agree. But, many of the same folks who are in favor of this strategy simultaneously express indifference if not hostility toward Democratic Senators from Purple or Red States like Begich, McCaskill, Manchin or Landrieu. For example, Manchin is very pro-coal, which should not be surprising, since he is from a coal producing State that employs many people in the coal industry. Likewise, Landrieu is very supportive of petroleum industry, which is not surprising since she is from Lousiana.

Back around 2008, I remember many progressives complaining about Howard Dean's 50 State strategy and the types of Democrats he attracted such as former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a former Republican. Jim Webb was very pro-military, which again should not be surprising since he is from Virginia, a State with a lot of defense contractors. It is contradiction to say that one supports Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy of trying to expand into purple or red States, but also insist on ideological purity. Heck, one need look no further than Scott Brown or even Mitt Romney to see how Republicans themselves are willing to bend their so-called rock hard philosophical stances in the interest of electoral expediency.

My personal take is that it is far easier for Democrats to make progress with Senators like Landrieu, Manchin or McCaskill who are supportive of industries that are strong in their respective States, then it is to deal with Republican Senators from such States who have no incentive whatsoever to cut a deal or compromise with Democrats. I support Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy. I also understand that to pursue it, you are not going to be successful fielding a Henry Waxman clone in West Virginia in pursuit of West Virginia's mythical anti-coal progressives.

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. I came across one of those today. Excoriating Obama for "firing Dean", and complaining that the....

party ain't liberal enough. Dean was smart. He knew that Blue Dog Democrats would put the gavel in Reid & Pelosi's hands. Hell, as governor of VT, Dean was no wild-eyed liberal, that came much later.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. Again, I think you and I have been asking this question for many years and it never gets answered.

Wonder why?

Crickets...

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. I guess we'll just have to settle for *crickets*.

[dionysus]

21. excuse me? thems fightin woids! that's it... PUT UP YER DUKES!!11!1

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. Dion's back, and he's in fighting form.

[Cha]

2. Great point, TCADem.. I hope you get some answers..

I'm sorry Mark Begich lost.. he was out there working his ass off!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. I've been asking this question now for 10 years! 50 State Strategy gave us Blue Dogs.

And every single time I ask this question, I get no answer.

But Dr. Dean--who I love, coincidentally--is always let off the hook around this place and by the Liberal Elite.

And get this:

When Obama is forced to work with the Blue Dogs and therefore has to forego the public option, for example, he is blamed. Not Howard Dean who implemented the 50 State Strategy; not the Blue Dogs themselves for rejecting the more liberal option. No! It's the black Kenyan Muslim in the White House who gets blamed for every damn thing.

[DFW]

5. Howard worked with the voters he faced, not the ones he wanted

If faced with the choice of a blue dog or a Louie Gohmert, the choice isn't hard to make.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. And I accept that. You accept that. So why is it when it comes to the president,

Very few can accept this? After all, he's working with many of those same Democrats that Dean's strategy helped to elect. So why the different standards, especially considering how awfully this president has been mistreated?

[DFW]

27. I wish I had an answer for you

Personally, I think than much of our current woes stem from one fundamental error Obama made before he even took office, and that was letting Rahm Emmanuel set the tone of the administration's make-up by making him chief of staff.

Howard was THE logical choice for HHS Secretary, and he certainly deserved it--or whatever position he wanted!--for the amazing turnaround of our party's fortunes in 2006 and 2008. Instead, he was turned out into the cold, and in two short years, we got clobbered. Instead of reconciling, Howard was put out to pasture and relegated to the talk shows. He did, as he told me in February 2009, spend his time "raising hell for causes he cared about," but what he SHOULD have been doing is campaigning for single payer as the country's very high-profile HHS Secretary at a time when Obama's political capital was at its zenith.

Rahm had Obama's ear at the worst possible of times, and history took a very nasty right turn because of it.

I don't know Begich or Landrieu. I do know McCaskill slightly. She knows full well that her current term is due to Akin's "legitimate rape" comment, and she would not have her seat without it. Things will have to change drastically in Missouri for her to retain it in 2018 if she even wants to keep it.

As a Southerner myself, I know only too well that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would struggle to get 20% of the vote in Louisiana or Missouri. We will have to accept that some of our elected representatives will necessarily reflect the states/districts they come from, or we get more Louie Gohmerts and Joni Ernsts. There is no escape from the question of whether Mary Landrieu is 100% as bad as the whack job that will probably replace her, and the answer is no.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Because they have heard the term ...

and remember Democrats used it in a winning election cycle; but have no idea what it means/meant?

My personal take is that it is far easier for Democrats to make progress with Senators like Landrieu, Manchin or McCaskill who are supportive of industries that are strong in their respective States, then it is to deal with Republican Senators from such States who have no incentive whatsoever to cut a deal or compromise with Democrats.

Absolutely. And as one DUer observed, and this past election demonstrated, politicians drive policy enactment; policy doesn't drive voters to politicians.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. Agreed

[caber09]

9. Excellent Question...

Lots of people think running candidates to the left of Bernie Sanders in Red/Purple states would win elections and thats what Dems should...the same people think that was Deans strategy and thats why we won...couldnt be further from the truth....Deans strategy was smartly match up the candidates to their local population (after vetting them carefully), Blue Dogs are better than RW Nut jubs, lots of people dont understand that unfortunately.

[Darb]

10. I know, I know, right?

Not.

Backing a Landrieu type Blue Dog under normal circumstances is probably a good idea during normal elections in normal times. These times and this election is not normal. You are alienating a big portion of the dependable, rock solid base by bending over and backing that loser of a pipeline. Weakening the Party's overall support for what? For a little bit less of a minority against those lunatics on the right which will not make a damn bit of difference. You weaken the whole for nothing.

It makes us not only look like our positions can be horse-traded to win elections. Let Landrieu win her election on her positions, do not compromise the entire party base because you think 48 is so much better than 47. Or 47mis better than 46, or whatever it is. All we really need is a solid 40.

I, myself, me, a rock solid Democratic voter sees this as candy-assed capitulation to the rabid dogs on the right, and for what? It weakens my resolve tremendously.

Let her dangle.

There you go, there's your goddamned answer. Oh, and fuck Manchin, too.

[beerandjesus]

12. Beat me to it.

Thanks for saving me the typing!

I'll just add that I believe there's room in the party for Blue Dogs. I just don't believe that the 50-state strategy means "every Democrat needs to be indistinguishable from a Republican".

And that's perfectly obvious to anyone who's actually LISTENED to Howard Dean, too.


To those of you pretending we don't get this: You do realize, don't you, that the conservative Democrats we've had issues with were RUNNING AWAY from President Obama, right? Seems to me you ought to be pouring contempt on them for that, not just on DU posters!

[Darb]

13. Blue Dogs are welcome, but don't get to call the shots.

They need to stand on their own on their local issues, like Landrieu being a slave to Big Fuel, but she cannot be allowed to water down the party platform on the whole, which is what this bullshit pipeline deal is, it hurts us.

Thanks beerandjesus, we've got to hold the line, they will give away the whole kit and kaboodle. Their true colors usually come through about now, and always in surrender.

[beerandjesus]

14. Amen.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

22. Louisiana perspective here...

Landrieu must support the pipeline, if she is to have ANY chance to be re-elected. She can't ignore the wishes of the gas & oil folks. But she has voted with the Obama and the Democrats most of the time... her opponent's ad claims 97% of the time.

Sure, she's not perfect. But kicking her to the curb is only going to elect someone who will be in lockstep with the Republicans. Is that what you want? Not me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. I'm a proud leftie but I get it. I understand that a Democrat from GA is not

going to be a liberal like a Democrat from New York. But this purity test will destroy the Democratic Party if we let it.

I have huge respect for Landrieu because she bravely stood up to the racism and bullies in her state. She is infinitely better than any ReThig! But people were going in on me because I wouldn't denounce her for being a Blue Dog. Fuck that! We need more Democrats in the motherfucking Senate!!!

[B Calm]

11. Probably because she left the democratic party.

[TomCADem]

24. Landrieu v Cassidy On The Issues - Where is she not a Democrat?

Last edited Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:53 PM - Edit history (1)

I know the media loves to push the narrative that Democrats are running away from President Obama and his agenda, but courtesy of the Huffington Post, which compiled the candidate's stated positions on the issues, how does she not generally fit within stated Democratic positions?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/campus-election-engagement-project/mary-landrieu-vs-bill-cas_b_6014592.html

Budget: Did you support raising the Federal debt ceiling with no strings attached?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Campaign Finance: Do you support the DISCLOSE Act, which would require key funders of political ads to put their names on those ads?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Campaign Finance: Do you support the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations and unions?
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Unknown

Economy: Do you support raising the minimum wage?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Economy: Do you support extending unemployment benefits beyond 26 weeks?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Economy: Do you support the Dodd-Frank Act, which established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and sought to increase regulation of Wall Street corporations and other financial institutions?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Economy: Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: Yes

Education: Do you support refinancing of student loans at lower rates, paid for by increasing taxes on income over a million dollars?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: Unknown

Environment: Do you believe that human activity is a major factor contributing to climate change?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Environment: Do you support government action to limit the levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Environment: Do you support government mandates and/or subsidies for renewable energy?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: Yes

Gay Marriage: Do you support gay marriage?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Gun Control: Do you support enacting more restrictive gun control legislation?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Healthcare: Do you support repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare?
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Yes. Also authored bill permitting people to keep insurance policies that didn't meet the coverage standards of the law.

Healthcare: Did you support shutting down the federal government in order to defund Obamacare in 2013?
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Yes

Immigration: Do you support the D.R.E.A.M. Act, which would allow children brought into the country illegally to achieve legal status if they've graduated from high school, have a clean legal record, and attend college or serve in the military?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Immigration: Do you support the comprehensive immigration plan passed by the Senate in 2013, which includes a pathway to citizenship and increased funding for border security?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Social Issues: Should abortion be highly restricted?
Landrieu: No, although supports ban on late-term abortions
Cassidy: Yes

Social Issues: Should employers be able to withhold contraceptive coverage from employees if they disagree with it morally?
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Yes

Social Issues: Should Planned Parenthood receive public funds for non-abortion health services?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Social Security: Do you support partial privatization of Social Security?
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Unknown

Taxes: Have you signed the Americans for Tax Reform Pledge to oppose any tax increases to raise revenue? (The answer to this question is taken from the database of signatories of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, created by Americans for Tax Reform. Signers to the pledge promise to oppose "any and all tax increases" meant to generate additional revenue.)
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Yes

Taxes: Would you increase taxes on corporations and/or high-income individuals to pay for public services?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No. See above

[B Calm]

25. She also voted for the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court and wire tap

expansions, etc etc etc etc. . .

[TomCADem]

29. Yet, Haven't We Argued That Republicans Should Not Oppose...

...qualified appointees purely on ideological grounds? In other words, are you seriously expecting Bush to appoint a moderate or even liberal? Again, which of those positions would you argue renders Landrieu no different than Cassidy?

Afterall, it is not like Landrieu is running against Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. She is running against Cassidy, and the notion that there is no difference between the two is what is laughable.

[hollowdweller]

15. I'm a fan of the 50 state strategy and I don't oppose the people you mention.

I don't like a lot of the things that the Blue dogs are for, or against, but even if they vote for a cause I like 10% of the time that's better than any republican that would vote against my interests 100% of the time.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't push for more progressive candidates, we should.

However I don't think anybody but a minority of democrats think that the blue dogs should be defeated and replaced with republicans if that is what you are inferring.

I DO think that the blue dogs should do a better job in their states and districts at educating their voters about the DIFFERENCE between the parties and why the dems represent their interests more, rather than trying to say they are LIKE their opponents and NOT LIKE the DEMOCRATS.

Another thing besides the 50 state strategy is what Dean said about if you run on republican lite the voters choose the republican.

Blue Dogs need to couch their cross party votes within the Democratic framework of helping the middle class be prosperous and as consistent with other party staples like fair wages and equal opportunity for all, not as "vote for me because I voted like a republican".

I think that is what most people who complain about blue dogs are complaining about. NOT that they are voting the way their electorate wants, its that they want to be cast as like a republican by their vote, not as a democrat who is doing this to help the little guy suceed.

[beerandjesus]

18. Great post. And, from the posters doing high-fives between midnight and 9 am....

*crickets*

[mazzarro]

16. I am a fan of Howard Dean and I disagree with your perception...

Your rant missed explaining why the blue-dog Dems tend to be the the first and loudest to condemn and disrespect the liberal base all the times; why they are the first and loudest to go against a Dem president when he pursues core liberal agenda but slow, if ever at all, to stand up to reThug president when they push their crap; why they are the first and loudest to rubbish the Dem platform if they disagree; why they are the first and loudest to jump on the bandwagon of the reThugs and Teabaggers whenever they perceive that issues are getting hot.

The claim you make that reThugs welcome all sorts in the midst overlooks the fact that so called moderates in reThuglican party hardly do similar things to their side. Even when the reThug moderates have disagreements with their party/leaders/president they tend to deal internally with them and show united front in public or don't vehemently show their opposition as such in public like the blue-dogs always do

Tell us how much the reThug moderates did to show their disagreement on ACA despite stringing the Dems along while ACA was being put together or during the debate? Tell us how much the moderates rebelled against the reThug leadership when government shutdown was being threatened and eventually imposed on the administration?

I think the key issue why the blue-dogs are disliked by some on DU, IMO, is that they tend not to have regard or want do much for the party when things get hot; and so are seen as politically selfish, disrespectful to the party, and eager to sellout the base for their own financial gain.

[Hestia]

17. Well said - here here!

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

23. It is probably easier for Republicans to follow their party leaders...

Because the Republican policies typically support corporations and the wealthy, it is easy for Republican pols to go with the flow: they will get favorable media treatment and the donations will continue to roll in.

Because Democrats tend to be concerned with things such as civil rights, education, job creation, health care, and so on, they are caught in a balancing act between these ideas and the demands of the businesses that they can't afford to ignore -- they need favorable media and donor dollars, too.

These opposing pressures are probably why individual Democratic politicians are more likely to defect from the party line on some issues.

[still_one]

26. Because they really don't understand what Howard Dean's 50 state strategy is

[Rowdyboy]

28. I'd rather have someone like Landrieu representing me who votes my way 50% of the time

than an ass like Bill Cassidy who would NEVER vote my way. Dean was 100% right about the 50 state strategy.

[dsc]

30. I think there is a big difference between say Landrieu supporting the pipeline

and the rest of the Democrats indulging a vote on it. Yes, Manchin has to support coal, she has to support oil, Begich has to support oil too, but that doesn't mean the rest of the caucus has to as well. Especially when Landrieu has pretty much no chance of winning as even the DSCC apparently figures since they have cut off her money. I think some of Dean's candidates were problematic. Webb being one of the worst. It wasn't his being pro military I had a problem with it was his anti woman and anti gay past that I had the problem with. In NC, I had a real problem with Schuler. Honestly I think we have nearly gotten to the point in the South that it doesn't matter who we run they will get about the same amount of the vote. That being the case, we may as well run economic populists as there is a history of those candidates doing well in the South.

[craigmatic]

31. Is the Alaska senate race over? Who won?