Dec 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Evan Bayh Organizing Senate Version of “Blue Dog” Caucus
This seems like a good idea to me. With Republicans out of power, the GOP can’t really block progressive change in exchange for large sums of special interest money. That creates an important market niche for Democrats willing to do the work. It was a good racket for the House Blue Dogs in 2007-2008 and there’s no reason it couldn’t work for Senate analogues over the next couple of years.
51 Responses to “Evan Bayh Organizing Senate Version of “Blue Dog” Caucus”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Denmark
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 14th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
300 million people is a lot for two parties to represent. That’s not to excuse blue dog politics, it’s just to say that coalitions are an inevitable for third parties to find footing in our two party system.
Political priorities between regions are becoming more and more divergent, with different states having wildly different ideas of how to create and sustain prosperity, as well as whether it’s even society or economics that provide the superstructure for growth.
December 14th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Wonder how many commenters will fail to realize you’re being facetious, Matt?
A Different Matt: this isn’t about popular coalitions, though. Yglesias is right: this is about finding a place for the monied interests to at least partially block the results of an election.
December 14th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
No, it creates a Republican majority. The Republicans combined with a Blue Dog caucus is everything we need to ensure that nothing good will ever get done. I still can’t figure out why the Republicans can control the Senate with 41 votes and we can’t control it with 59 votes. Is a spine really so hard to grow? The Republicans can rule the Senate with ruthless efficiency. Why can’t we do that?
December 14th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Obama almost named this guy as his VP. Bayh and Lieberman are best Senate buds.
December 14th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Why can’t we do that?
Because I don’t want to!
December 14th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Can’t we just agree that an unopposed party is bad news for everyone involved? The auto-bailout was a disaster because the Republicans couldn’t articulate a coherent reason to block the legislation, and couldn’t put forth an alternative plan better than “let them fail.”
The auto-bailout became a fight between two groups of special interest senators – those representing Detroit and those representing non-unionized foreign corporations. If there had been a group to stand up and take a principled stand for a sort of pseudo-bankruptcy where the companies could cut their dead weight and restructure, we might have found a compromise, and that DEFINITELY would have been better for the auto-companies at this point.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
So, ly-ing, having more factions will help legislation get passed more smoothly?
December 14th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Your humor can be a little subtle, matt.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
That’s why it’s time to abolish the filibuster once and for all. On January 6 the Senate Democrats should, by majority vote, enact new Senate rules that don’t contain the filibuster.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
On January 6 the Senate Democrats should, by majority vote, enact new Senate rules that don’t contain the filibuster.
It takes 2/3 to invoke cloture on a motion to amend the Senate rules.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“That’s why it’s time to abolish the filibuster once and for all. On January 6 the Senate Democrats should, by majority vote, enact new Senate rules that don’t contain the filibuster.”
Matthew Yglseias, trust-fund scumbag who has been allied with the Republicans in trying to force the auto industry into bankruptcy and cause a neo-Hooverite depression, should be fired from CAP by John Podesta once he gets done with transition business.
But Yglesias, while being wrong on almost all major political issues he’s covered, was right on one big one. Matt was correctly in favor of letting the GOP exercise the “nuclear option” in 2006, which would have provided the groundwork to destroy the filibuster, which was, is, and will always be the biggest impediment to bringing about a more progressive governance in America.
Matt was one of the only “professional Democrats” to understand in 2006 the amazing opportunity the GOP was offering us to be rid of the filibuster. He may have been wrong on the Iraq war, the auto bankruptcy, and pretty much everything else, but no one can take the filibuster issue away from him.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
ly_ing undercuts his own argument. An opposition party that exists for opposition’s sake is certainly not beneficial to the overall health of our democracy. In the auto bailout scenario, Republicans opposed the bailout because they had to play the opposition, opposing whatever the plan was. Had it been some nuanced plan with the pseudo-bankruptcy in it, it still would’ve been opposed, because that’s what the Republicans are supposed to do.
This is not to say an unopposed party is a good thing, certainly not. But the kind of opposition being put forward matters as well. Just look at the Democratic opposition from 2003-2006
December 14th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
“It takes 2/3 to invoke cloture on a motion to amend the Senate rules.”
It takes 50 votes and the Vice Presidency to change any Senate rule.
The entire edifice of Senate rules exists only with the forbearance of the majority.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“Wonder how many commenters will fail to realize you’re being facetious, Matt?”
If getting the assent of Evan Bayh is what’s necessary to pass a given piece of legislation, that’s a pretty decent America to be living in.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Well, Petey, that’s true in a sense. No set of rules — up to and including our Constitution — can exist in the absence of a willingness of people to abide by them. I happen to think that a fundamental respect for the rule of law is important and a valuable good in itself, but obviously you disagree. What I wonder is why you limit yourself to what a majority will support, since that is merely another rule. Why not state that the rules exist only with the forbearance of those who are capable of the force necessary to make their will a reality? That’s what you’re really advocating, isn’t it?
December 14th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“Well, Petey, that’s true in a sense. No set of rules — up to and including our Constitution — can exist in the absence of a willingness of people to abide by them. I happen to think that a fundamental respect for the rule of law is important and a valuable good in itself, but obviously you disagree.”
No. I’m a big fan of the rule of law.
I just have a significantly better understanding of the Senate rules than you do.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
“I just have a significantly better understanding of the Senate rules than you do.”
To clarify, what the GOP was attempting to do in 2006 fell utterly within the rule of law, Senate precedents, and the US Constitution.
It fell short solely because it didn’t have 50 votes.
December 14th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Petey, the notion that you have a significantly better understanding of anything other than your own navel has been proven incorrect time and time again on this blog. The “nuclear option” was so named precisely because it was premised upon the chair making a ruling in deliberate contravention of the Standing Rules, and then having the majority uphold that ruling on appeal if necessary. There is, of course, a technical sense in which that is “within the rules,” but in reality the acceptance of such a maneuver as legitimate would have meant the obliteration of all rules except for whatever the majority says at any given time goes.
December 14th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
“in reality the acceptance of such a maneuver as legitimate would have meant the obliteration of all rules except for whatever the majority says at any given time goes.”
Welcome to the U.S. Constitution.
When I previously said…
…I was being fer reals.
There are perfectly good political reasons why many of the anti-majoritarian rules of the Senate have persisted, but still, they persist only because changing them not had majorities.
But if you have 50 Senate votes and the Vice Presidency, you can rewrite all the Senate rules you want and impose new ones that require all Senators to wear purple furry hats when voting. And those rules, also, will persist as long as they have the forbearance of the majority.
December 14th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
The Republicans can control the Senate with 41 votes while the Dems can’t control it with 59 because the goal of the Republicans is to do nothing while the Dems are trying to accomplish something. It’s way easier to make sure nothing gets done and then blame the party in power than to make sure something gets done.
December 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
The problem Petey is that even if the Dems had let the Repubs do away with the filibuster in 2006, they probably still would have reinstated it when they regained power, intoning peiously about how they were putting principle above partisan interest. Many Democrats, like Bayh, consider the progressive wing of the Party their true enemy and act accordingly.
December 14th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
“The problem Petey is that even if the Dems had let the Repubs do away with the filibuster in 2006, they probably still would have reinstated it when they regained power”
What will keep the Democrats from eliminating the filibuster rule through majority vote on January 6th is that they would pay a heavy political price for doing so.
Had the same maneuver been successfully done in 2006, the maneuver would seem far less shocking on January 6th, would thus exact less of political price, and would thus likely be actually done in three weeks.
December 14th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Blue Dogs, no problem. They’re fiscal conservatives but nobody gives a shit about deficits now. They’re social conservatives but Obama doesn’t give a shit about hot-button social issues. They’re pro-military but nobody wants to stay in Iraq except a fringe Republican element and precisely one Democratic senator.
December 14th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I find it interesting that so many people regard the filibuster as sacred. It wasn’t used at all till the 1840s or 50s and since then the precise rules surrounding it have been modified many times.
December 14th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Re: . The Republicans combined with a Blue Dog caucus is everything we need to ensure that nothing good will ever get done.
That should be weakened to “Nothing good that isn’t particularly popular”. Things like SCHIP expansion (and probably a major healthcare overhaul in general) won’t be blocked because they will be too popular even in Blue Dog and (some) GOP districts. The alternate technique of corse will be to see to it that the special interests get a cut of the action in any reform, the template being Medicare Part D.
December 14th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“I find it interesting that so many people regard the filibuster as sacred. It wasn’t used at all till the 1840s or 50s and since then the precise rules surrounding it have been modified many times.”
FWIW, the filibuster rule was modified by majority vote (moving it from 2/3rds to 3/5ths) quite recently. This was done in 1977.
If I were Harry Reid, I’d bite the bullet and abolish the thing on January 6th. Short-term pain, long-term gain…
December 14th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
The filibuster seems like a very childish game to be playing while the world burns. Perhaps Congress could get rid of riders while they’re at it—write one bill at a time, read it before voting on it, and such.
December 14th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
instead of getting rid of the filibuster, how about making the fuckers actually stand up there and do the talking?
this whole implied filibuster thing is a sham and Reid’s a spineless asshat for allowing it to go on.
December 14th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
“…the GOP can’t really block progressive change in exchange for large sums of special interest money. That creates an important market niche for Democrats willing to do the work….”
Does Matt really think there’s anybody in Congress NOT willing to do “the work”? If so, he really needs to spend lots of time at the opensecrets website.
December 14th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
What will keep the Democrats from eliminating the filibuster rule through majority vote on January 6th is that they would pay a heavy political price for doing so.
Ya think? I mean, I suppose this is correct in the conventional wisdom sense of the word, and no doubt many Senate Democrats probably fear they would pay a price in 2010 or 2012 (although I strongly suspect the real reason most Dems don’t have the balls to do the deed is fear of diminished comity and collegiality with their GOP counterparts), but I wonder if they really would pay much of a price. Short term there would be a media shitstorm as all the Great and Good intone against “liberal overreach.” But I have a notion that, like most federal elections, the midterms and the 2012 round will mostly be about the economy. If the economy sucks, dumping the filibuster is probably not going to add very much to the bloody nose the Democrats are likely to get in any event. And if the economy is once again growing strongly (I see no chance of this by November of 2010, but hopefully it will be the case by November of 2012) few voters outside hardcore Repubs are going to punish the Democrats for having dumped the filibuster. Voters care about the filibuster about as much as they care about campaign finance.
If I were Harry Reid, I’d bite the bullet and abolish the thing on January 6th. Short-term pain, long-term gain…
Word. Such a move ought to be able to be made sound very reasonable — because it is. Reid just has to say:
1) We believe the filibuster is excessively undemocratic and therefore not in the country’s interest.
2) We believe we have the votes in the Senate to change the rules; this is something that is done from time to time, and is perfectly constitutional and indeed healthy, given the need for any system of government to adapt to changing times.
3) If the loyal opposition disagrees with this policy they’re perfectly welcome to reinstate it when they have the votes — that’s the beauty of our democratic system.
Again, there would be a hail of criticism from Broderites of various stripes — not to mention Murdoch — but by November of 2010 it would be water under the bridge. I’d personally love to witness the spectacle of the GOP campaigning on the issue of “bringing back the filibuster.”
December 14th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“The Republicans can control the Senate with 41 votes while the Dems can’t control it with 59 because the goal of the Republicans is to do nothing while the Dems are trying to accomplish something.” -Earnest Dodge
That’s true — and more perceptive analysis than you’ll find, for example, in the pages of Roll Call — but it also suggests a second analytical point: Democrats can’t control the Senate with 59 (58+Lieberman, which I shudder to call “59″) votes because Democrats are not united behind the concept of controlling the Senate.
Democrats have chosen not to exercise prerogatives available to individual senators (e.g., Reid declining to uphold Dodd’s hold last fall).
Democrats have chosen not to exercise prerogatives available in senate committees (e.g., judicial nomination fights — or rather, the *absence* of fights, because too many Democrats didn’t actually intend to oppose Bush nominees effectively, e.g. Dianne Feinstein on Leslie Southwick), whether in the majority or in the minority.
Democrats have chosen not to exercise prerogatives available to 41 senators (if you need a list of things Senate Democrats have chosen not to filibuster, you haven’t been paying attention) (read: yeah, I’m being lazy here, but we’re all friends, right?).
Democrats have chosen not to exercise prerogatives available to a Senate majority in the past two years, though I’ll admit it’s been more obvious when the House, which is a straight-up majoritarian institution, has *its* leader declare, “We have to send the president a bill he can sign.”
Why, exactly, are we hoping that Senate Democrats will do much of anything that requires either working together as a unified caucus, or successfully opposing Republican obstructionism?
It ain’t like they’ve been training for either goddamn eventuality.
December 14th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Evan Bayh actually has a pretty damn good record for a senator from Indiana. It makes sense for democrats from red states to be more conservative than I would like, but given his voting recodr it seems like there are a lot worse people to lead these senators. I hope they aren’t more destructive than necessary.
December 14th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
This isn’t that significant a development because of the difference between the House and the Senate. The House has 435 members and everything happens based on majority rule. That means that unless you really need at least 30 or so members voting a bloc to get anyone to pay any attention to you.
On the other hand, almost nothing happens in the Senate by majority vote. It’s mostly done by unanimous consent (and occasionally by a supermajority). That means any one Senator can have an enormous amount of influence (see Tom Coburn’s objections). Given that, it really doesn’t matter if a group of Senators gets together because they could have pretty much the same influence apart, and usually they will end up doing their own things anyway. (The group of 14 on nominations is the exception that proves the rule– it was a huge deal for 14 Senators just to get together and ask for up or down votes.)
The fact that the Senate operates by unanimous consent is one large reason why no one wants to get rid of the filibuster. If the majority tries to run over the minority too much in the Senate, the entire business of the Senate would likely grind to a halt, with nothing being accomplished at all.
December 15th, 2008 at 4:39 am
As far as I’m concerned, the big question is how much Max Baucus will let us stuff through in budget reconciliation, since that has limited debate and you need just 50 votes + Joetrak.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am
“As far as I’m concerned, the big question is how much Max Baucus will let us stuff through in budget reconciliation, since that has limited debate and you need just 50 votes + Joetrak.”
In terms of healthcare, you may well be correct. (And I hope you are.)
But in the longer term of what Obama will be able to accomplish over the next eight years, biting the bullet and eliminating the filibuster on January 6th would be a very bright idea.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:13 am
“On the other hand, almost nothing happens in the Senate by majority vote. It’s mostly done by unanimous consent (and occasionally by a supermajority). That means any one Senator can have an enormous amount of influence (see Tom Coburn’s objections) … The fact that the Senate operates by unanimous consent is one large reason why no one wants to get rid of the filibuster. If the majority tries to run over the minority too much in the Senate, the entire business of the Senate would likely grind to a halt, with nothing being accomplished at all.”
To repeat myself a second time:
The rules that allow a rogue Senator like Coburn to practice extortion to get his way exist only because the majority accepts those rules.
If a majority changed the rules to make “holds” expire after a month or two, they would. If a majority changed the rules to make an objection to a unanimous consent resolution expire after two weeks, it would.
What the Senate rules really need are some version of the petition of discharge. If a majority of Senators sign, the measure comes to the floor for a vote. Given the historical traditions of the Senate, I’d be fine with a delay of a month or two before the vote, to allow for full debate. But a law or a judicial or other confirmation that has majority support should be able to get a vote if the majority stands up for it.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Evan’s stock in trade is misleading progressives into thinking he is on of them and then always shorting them. He is the only son of minor political aristocracy [Birch who actually was a progressive] though born in a manger err in a small backwards province was raised in the imperial capitol. Returned to the sticks to jump start his career. Caught a break in his first run for office. Was a do nothing but look good governor. Has never led the charge [or even been in attendance] for a progressive cause. After biding his time in the sticks lusted to return to the imperial capitol. Did so and has lusted after the purple ever since. He is Joe Lieberman’s replacement once Lieberman returns to Jerusalem err Hartford. He is almost Zell Bayh. His dealings with regard to gaming licenses in Lake County would never stand up to scrutiny. He is both anti-progressive and corrupt. A common pairing.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:54 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 5:29 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:17 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra