Evidence mounts that a good many “centrist,” “moderate” and “blue dog” politicians only ran and won seats as Democrats because in some corner of their pro-corporate, conservative minds they realized 2006 and 2008 wouldn’t be good years to run as Republicans.
The latest involves House so-called Democrats tipping the balance in favor of easing — that’s right, easing! — restrictions on financial industry greed-crazed predators’ derivative trading.
A bipartisan coalition in the House voted late Thursday to make it easier for corporations to engage in complex derivatives trades without government restrictions, eroding the reach of proposed regulations to govern Wall Street.
Democratic attempts to toughen the legislation failed.
That’s like handing out matches to play with to kiddies who’ve already burned the family out of one home.
Oh, and let’s hear it for Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill., a banking industry errand girl who’s seeing to it state regulators intent on keeping banks in line must bow to federal regulations. Those would be the regulations tailored to banking industry specifications by armies of high-income lobbyists and legislators of easy virtue like Bean.
After all, it’s so much easier and more efficient to buy off a pack of lawmakers at the federal level, wholesale, than to have to go out in state after state buying a few here and a few there at retail.
Democrats hoped to fend off an amendment Friday that would eliminate the creation of an independent Consumer Finance Protection Agency. The agency is a central element of the Democrats’ legislation and the Obama administration’s proposed regulatory changes.
The amendment was offered by Rep. Walt Minnick, a conservative Democrat from Idaho, and seven other centrist Democrats. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been running national television ads against the creation of a consumer agency, said it would base its support for lawmakers in next year’s elections, in part, on how they voted on the amendment.
We don’t think Minnick is even a Democrat in name only. We think he’s someone the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee recruited to run as a Democrat so he could subvert Democratic efforts from the inside, at every opportunity. We wouldn’t be surprised to someday learn Bean and Rep. Scott Murphy of New York are also moles.
The legislation imposes new regulations on derivatives, aiming to prevent manipulation in and bring transparency to a $600 trillion global market. But an amendment by New York Democrat Scott Murphy, adopted 304-124 Thursday night, exempted businesses that trade in derivatives, not as financial speculators, but to hedge against market fluctuations such as currency rates or gasoline prices. The amendment also provided an exception for businesses that are not considered too big to be a risk to the financial system.
A Democratic effort to make more companies subject to derivatives regulation failed 279-150.
The Chamber of Commerce circulated a letter Thursday urging lawmakers to vote for the Murphy amendment and against the broader regulation.
One of the things taught in military basic training is the difference between a military organization and a mob of thugs. It comes down to one word: “discipline.”
Congressional Democrats need to get them some of that discipline. They should start by weeding out some of the Beans, Murphys and Liebermans in their absurdly compromised ranks.
While you may indeed be right about the Blue Dogs and their reasons to run as Democrats. Regardless of party affiliation, should they not reflect the attitudes and concerns of the population that elected them? Or has the “Party First”, country second mentality oozed over from the Republican side and is now infecting the Democrats?
But why blame just the fringe Democrats? Seems to me, all the Democrats in Congress should eat some of the blame. Had the Democrats taken a more measured step by step approach, maybe we would actually see some progess by now. This “all or nothing” approach in my opinion was about wielding power and had nothing to do with Health Care. And guess what? They over played their hand. And in the meantime, we still have nothing to show for all this hate and discontent from both sides.
If ever both sides decide that legislating is more important than proving who can piss the furthest, maybe we will see some of worth come out of DC. I won’t hold my breath.
Maybe once the Republicans have purged those they feel are not Republican enough and the Democrats do the same, fertile ground will be sown and finally a third party of substance may emerge. I am so tired of thinking everything has to come from one side or the other when we always seem to hit the middle anyway.
The republicans, behind closed doors, must laugh and laugh at Congressional Democrats, for all their seats in both house and senate, they wield nothing that vaguely resembles power, it’s OK saying they have a “Big Tent” party, but that tent shouldn’t include republicans.
Wake me when Murka decides more than two choices is okay.
Macrum, I welcome your comment but disagree with your take on this. First, I believe most voters — in Illinois, New York, Idaho and elsewhere — voted for change in the last two cycles. They looked at Democratic candidates as part of a party calling for substantial change in what’s being done and how it’s being done. What’s more, Democrats tend to run to the left when campaigning. Obama sure as hell did that. So, those who voted had reasonable expectations for change, for real reforms, once they elected Democrats.
Democratic officeholders shouldn’t just vote their party first, as a matter of course no matter what the legislation being voted on. But here, we’re talking about health care, which is the party’s signature issue, the centerpiece of what Democrats have needed and wanted to get done for decades. I think on a deal like that, blue dogs, moderates and all the rest have an obligation to put their shoulders to the wheel and get this done, in any season.
Then there’s financial reform. Like I said in a previous post, if the Democrats elected in landslides along with FDR had behaved like so many of today’s Senate Dems, the New Deal would’ve been the No Deal. I don’t see how anyone who’s not a radical Republican partisan can deny the need for extremely powerful and comprehensive reforms. The financial sector is now the mainstay of our economy, and it’s dangerous. That’s been proven in spades. Again, I think discipline is in order for Democrats blinded by special-interest money or political beliefs more in line with Republicans’. The country needs real reforms and for safeguards to be replaced, now.
Finally, Democrats have to play the hand they’ve been dealt. Republicans for decades have pursued a hyperpartisan, anything-to-win strategy on everything. They don’t compromise. They don’t yield a point. They don’t care if people know they lie, cheat and steal to get what they want. They’re OK with intimidating potential voters, with Swiftboating, with a 24/7-365 campaign of negative propaganda through their noise machine. They behave like something halfway between an organized crime family and a special-interest pressure group, not a big-tent party. That’s what Democrats are up against. Well, it doesn’t pay to bring a pocket comb to a knife fight, but more and more it seems that’s what Democrats are doing.
Finally, if you think the public wants harmony between the major parties more than it wants jobs, mortgage reconciliations for the 750,000 who’ve applied and gotten nowhere, health care made affordable and accessible for the 47 million currently stuck without it, and financial reforms so we’re not doomed to yet another big bubble and burst that makes the rich richer and devastates the rest of us, I think you’ve got it all wrong.
If Dems make nice and keep caving to Republicans, the public will look on them as ineffective wimps who lack the courage of their convictions and the ability to get worthwhile things done. And Republicans will thank Democrats by wiping the crap off their shoes onto the Democrats’ collective face.
There have been periods when a relatively high level of bipartisanship worked. The Eisenhower-Johnson years was one of those periods. That was then, and when a very different breed of Republicans dominated that party. This is the era of Gingriches, DeLays, Hasterts, Roves, Bushes and Cheneys.
It’s time for people to make a choice and get behind that choice with all they’ve got, or else get rolled over. That’s the reality. I’m not sure Democrats asked for it, but they must learn to deal with it and get the best of it. People are counting on them.
As for a third party from the middle, good luck. When I see credible third-party people running for seats in state legislatures and congressional districts, building an effective infrastructure of party and party support from the gound up for a decade before even thinking about running a presidential candidate, I’ll tip my hat and acknowledge they might have a chance. Anything else and you end up with an egotistical, head-up-his-butt spoiler like Ralph Nader, helping to give us the Worst President in U.S. History.
I urge you to read John W. Dean’s excellent, very readable book, Broken Government, to understand today’s Republicans, what they’re about, how they operate and what they’ve done to this country, their party and our politics. If you do, please keep in mind that before he was an independent, Dean was a Republican, one who served in the Nixon administration.
Holte, I think you’re right on all counts.
Randal, more than two choices has always been OK. Ever hear of Norman Thomas? How about Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate Peter Camejo, who in 1976 won 90,000-plus votes?
SW I think you’re a bit too optomistic. The change we voted for isn’t happening. Health care is so watered down at present it’s a gift to the insurance companies who bought and paid off the senators. Same thing with this banking bill which has only passed the House. Wait till the senate gets done watering it down.
It doesn’t take a whiz to figure out what the republicans are all about. They lost power and will do anything to get it back. It seems that they would even permit the country to collapse if it was in their interest. Anything to make Obama fail and regain all branches in Washington.
Then of course there’s the money involved but that is another story. Since when does a senator vote against his own district voters saying that that is what they want? Case at point Lieberman who’s against a public option. There was a time when senators would recepricate on bills. You support my bill and I’ll vote for yours. No more. It’s all republicans are against everything. Look at their voting record. Only one republican senator voted for the stimilus bill. One vote!
I just hope the next election cycle goes the same way the first cycle after FDR got in office.
Demeur, I’m not sure where you get it that I’m so optimistic. What I am is deeply disappointed, disgusted and more than a little steamed. In this post and previous ones, I agree with what you’re saying down the line.
As for what happens in next year’s election, I see a real danger people will turn on Democrats for failing to deliver, and for looking like a bunch of Keystone Kops tripping over each other on their way to letting the Republican minority dictate the outcome.
SW Anderson – I used to hope for harmony. Now I hope both parties self destruct. They are but two sides of the same coin. Neither have any interest in the people any further than whatever support they can muscle or cajole out of them. The two party system is a sham. It is no longer working. Both parties are in someone’s pocket and it is not the peoples.
As to John Dean – well I have known him since high school. He and my brother met at American University back in the early 1960s. On several occasions he sat down to dinner with my family. All of this prior to his invovlement with the Nixon White House.
I grew up in a Republican household made up of that different breed of Republicans you spoke of in your reply. I remained a Republican until the day Ronnie was nominated to run against Carter. It was that day I decided American politics had entered a sad new direction. 29 years later, I have to say I was not wrong. And now I just want both of them to go away.
I fear the republicans will regain power in the next 2 cycles, too. And they will take their revenge on the entire country for daring to disagree with them on the smallest little non-issue they can dream up.
Macrum, I regret your cynicism, but right now have to admit there’s ample reason to feel that way. That’s especially so regarding the Senate, although the Democratic Caucus includes a number of good, earnest people who have not sold out.
That’s really something, that you know Dean from way back. He’s one of the dozen or so people I would love to have an extended conversation with. Having read three of his books and listened closely to his occasional appearances on Countdown, I am an admirer.
Bee, I claimed all along that the eight Bush years were one big spite job. As far as I’m concerned the precedent has been set and the radical right’s attitude remains the same.
I’m of two minds about Blue Dog, centrist and DINO Democrats. I’m glad Democrats make up the majority in Congress. And if we try too hard to get the DINOs out of the party — like Republicans are doing in their own party — we could end up with a much smaller party. It’s a tough situation.
I’m also sharing MRMacrum’s cynicism. There’s less and less difference between the 2 parties. There’s been a longtime theory, from both leftwing and rightwing extremists — that Democrats and Republicans are actually the same party; they’re just pretending to disagree with each other so the public will think they’re actually making a difference when they vote.
I’ve never believed that theory, but it’s making more and more sense in these last few months. For Democrats to have this huge majority and do nothing but dither and act helpless — it’s too suspicious. If Mike Tyson was getting the shit knocked out of him in the ring by a 90-pound weakling with a broken arm, people would assume the fight was fixed.
I have to agree with Macrum. There was a time I could at least have respect for republicans. Eisenhower had more sense than the clowns we have now. Then you have the Dems talking a good game but when it comes to actions it’s another story. It’s all about money with no thought to what we need or want.
Tom, Demeur, I think it’s safe to say we need a lot more change to get us to what we voted for and thought we were getting. The ball is in Democrats’ court. They have the power to get it right. They also have the power to do themselves in politically. Part of getting it right is putting the sold-out minority in their ranks and the blue dogs’ feet to the fire. If Democratic leaders and the more-progressive members can’t see that or bring themselves to do it, they will deserve what’s liable to happen to them in the next couple of elections.