October 24, 2010

United in futility..

Jes' talking back to silly stuff... Boot the Blue Dog Democrats - NYTimes.com:

...Ms. Johnson is right: Democrats would be in better shape, and would accomplish more, with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive caucus. It's a sentiment that even Mr. Dean now echoes. "Having a big, open-tent Democratic Party is great, but not at the cost of getting nothing done," he said. Since the passage of health care reform, few major bills have passed the Senate. [You'd never guess from reading this that we are a democracy, and that the wishes of voters ultimately decide.] Although the Democrats have a 59-vote majority, party leaders can barely find the votes for something as benign as extending unemployment benefits. [Ignoring the fact that this is not "benign" at all, but is a job-killer, especially for the young]

A smaller majority, minus the intraparty feuding, could benefit Democrats in two ways: first, it could enable them to devise cleaner pieces of legislation, without blatantly trading pork for votes as they did with the deals that helped sour the public on the health care bill. [Please do. I'm sure if you make your collectivism more overt you will win LOTS of support. In Ann Arbor.] (As a corollary, the narrative of "Democratic infighting" would also diminish.)

Second, in the Senate, having a majority of 52 rather than 59 or 60 would force Democrats to confront the Republicans' incessant misuse of the filibuster to require that any piece of legislation garner a minimum of 60 votes to become law. [why, precisely, is this "misuse?"] Since President Obama's election, more than 420 bills have cleared the House but have sat dormant in the Senate. It's easy to forget that George W. Bush passed his controversial 2003 tax cut legislation with only 50 votes, plus Vice President Dick Cheney's. Eternal gridlock is not inevitable unless Democrats allow it to be. [If Republicans are blocking things, why is gridlock something Dems are "allowing?"]

Republicans have become obsessed with ideological purity, [Not true; you're projecting] and as a consequence they will likely squander a few winnable races in places like Delaware. But Democrats aren't ideological enough. Their conservative contingent has so blurred what it means to be a Democrat that the party itself can barely find its way. [So what, precisely, does it "mean" to be a Democrat?] Polls show that, despite their best efforts to distance themselves from Speaker Pelosi and President Obama, a number of Blue Dog Democrats are likely to be defeated this November. Their conservative voting records have deflated Democratic activists but have done nothing to win Republican support. [Republican support of WHAT, precisely? Blue Dogs are not writing legislation or leading in anything. What's to support?]

Far from hastening the dawn of a post-partisan utopia, President Obama's election has led to near-absolute polarization. If Democrats alter their political strategy accordingly, they'll be more united and more productive. [United does not imply productive. You will be no more likely to get votes for boondoggles that the American people hate. And your brief period of power has exposed your statist agenda totally.]...
Posted by John Weidner at October 24, 2010 7:39 PM
Weblog by John Weidner