Matt Stoller|Waking Up to a Working Republican Majority

[Demeter]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-stoller/waking-up-to-a-working-re_b_59839.html


......
I don't have a good strategy on how to 'fix' the Senate, but to get to a progressive working majority in the House, we need to pick up 41 more reliable votes, either by beating Republicans or by converting or beating Blue Dog Democrats. If we can get to an uncompromising progressive majority in the House, then the Senate will be dragged along through conference committees and a Democratic White House. In the Senate, we'll need 16 for a clear progressive majority, but because of institutional dynamics we'll probably need less to have a working majority. There are several paths to making this happen in the House:

Pick Up Safe Seats Progressives: This is what we are trying to do in Massachusetts 5th, where a reactionary Niki Tsongas is facing four other candidates, including progressive Jamie Eldridge. There's also a primary in TN-09, Harold Ford's old haunt.

Convert Reactionary Democrats: Both Al Wynn and Ellen Tauscher are good examples of how this can be done, and this is continuing against Daniel Lipinski, Al Wynn, and Henry Cuellar.

Beat Republicans: In 2006, Democrats picked up 30 seats in the House. Out of those pickups, 11 voted for the FISA expansion, and 19 didn't.

Convert Republicans: I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq is trying to crack Republicans, but this is very very difficult. Republicans have run right-wing primary challenges against dissidents for 30 years, since 1978. Countering that is extremely tough, though recent moves by the Mainstream Partnership could have effects.

If there is a Republican working majority, with the Blue Dogs as the swing group, that should have one very significant effect on our strategy. In a House with a minority role for Democrats, electing a Blue Dog Democrat is far superior than electing a Republican. But in a majority Democratic House where conservatives have a governing working majority, electing a Blue Dog Democrat is little different than electing a Republican when it comes to public policy choices. Electing a Blue Dog is not going to help us restore out Constitutional fabric, hold these people accountable, deal with global warming, energy, health care, or restore a progressive tax code. More significantly, more Blue Dogs aren't going to give someone like Pelosi the leverage she needs to do any of these things.

What this means is clear. No longer should we as progressives particularly care whether a Democrat is in a swing district or Republican district when considering how to evaluate them. It is more important to elect progressives and destroy the power of Blue Dogs than to increase our partisan advantage in the House, though these goals are complements and not substitutes. The Colorado example, of turning a libertarian-esque red state into a Blue Dog state at the behest of wealthy billionaires, is not something to emulate. Rather, we should look at the New Hampshire example, which has turned a libertarian-esque red state into a deep blue progressive libertarian area.

There's one other important rhetorical consequence here. When Blue Dogs vote with Bush, they are not 'betraying' us any more than Republicans are when they vote with Bush. Blue Dogs just don't agree with us. And when they vote to expand wiretapping or to cut taxes for the wealthy or to support endless war, they are acting like Blue Dogs, and Blue Dogs support President Bush and the conservative movement.

I HAD TO CUT A LOT--RECOMMEND READING THE WHOLE ARTICLE!

[Warpy]

1. When people point out the Democratic majority in Congress

over many years after the Depression, I always have to rub their noses in the fact that there have always been conservative Democrats who voted consistently with the Republic Party. First, they were the southern racists and now they're the midwestern bedrock religious.

There has rarely been a liberal majority, and that is where the trouble arises.

[Demeter]

2. You Are Forgetting the Way Too Old and Out of Touch Dems

who style themselves as "statesmen" and have no working knowledge of history, government or the Constitution. Waxman with no knowledge of inherent contempt? Doesn't he have sharp staffers to keep him up to date? Dingell with his gas tax insanity--where's the windfall profits tax of 1970's? And let's not even start on Impeachment! I'd like to keep at least one meal down today.

[EST]

4. Dingell has staunchly defended the auto industry in all its moves

to keep supplying product after product that people didn't really want and is still defending that dying, hide-bound industry, even now.
Their marketing model can't change, even though it's killing them. Dingell should have applied for emeritus status at least twelve years ago.

Waxman is such a dedicated bull dog that he would be extremely difficult to replace. His extreme pro-Israel can often be overlooked because of his ethical steadfastness.
You mentioned that he seemed indifferent to or ignorant of standards of inherent contempt. That is surprising, given his position near the center of so many ethical investigations. I had not heard of this.
Could you please enlighten me a bit further about it?

Thanks in advance.

[EST]

3. A very good read-thank you for posting it.

The pattern we need to follow, in order to come at this with a combined front that adapts for local conditions is bit like the old waste, fraud and abuse trick that works so well for republicans-as it should.

Do a lot more shouting on the absolutely pitiful condition of the economy.
We know that the "economy" that is allowing the pukes to consistently post numbers that are easy to spin and don't show the cryptic bones they haven't quite hidden. The economy is a hollow shell, built on the republican "borrow and spend, off the budget" pattern. Those doing well are doing well, indeed, but those in the increasing poverty ghetto are growing in numbers that could almost be considered epidemic.

With all the fraud being exposed, the job should be considerably easier than it could have been, had the cover stayed on.
The term, "honest republican" is an oxymoron.
We are broke because of the crooks getting richer at the expense of the poor and newly poor.
If it weren't for the calumny, corruption and ferocious, shark-like greed of republicans, for both money and power, we'd all be shittin' in tall cotton.

This has the advantage of being true, and with the conditions as they are and getting worse, there won't be very many republicans willing to run-except, maybe, as democrats-another problem entirely.