Democrats: Two Parties Emerging Under One Roof

Up next for Obama: A looming Democratic divide

By: Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman

Progressive America Rising via Politico

January 18, 2013 - As President Barack Obama approaches his second inaugural on Monday, he presides over a party that has largely papered over its divisions for the past four years thanks to the president’s commanding popularity.

But almost as soon as the echo of Obama’s inaugural address fades and he becomes a lame duck, Democrats are going to have to face a central and unresolved question about their political identity: Will they become a center-left, Democratic Leadership Council-by-a-different-name party or return to a populist, left-leaning approach that mirrors their electoral coalition?

(Also on POLITICO: Dems' hard road to House majority)

An immediate answer may come in the entitlement debate and whether Obama and congressional Democrats will agree to any Social Security or Medicare benefit cuts to achieve deficit reduction, said a wide-ranging group of Democratic elected officials and strategists.

“In the short term that’s the flash point,” said longtime Democratic consultant Paul Begala.

But as moderate Republicans become an ever rarer breed and more centrists find a home in the Democratic coalition, the party also must reconcile exactly who they are on a broader panoply of economic issues including Wall Street regulation and public employees. As 2016 grows nearer, and their presidential hopefuls begin openly maneuvering, Democrats must decide whether they want to be principally known as the party of Rahm Emanuel or the party of Elizabeth Warren.

Read More...

Summary only...

Challenge to the Left: Obama Sinks to Historic Lows Among Blue-Collar White Males

 

By Ronald Brownstein
National Journal

The new Quinnipiac University and ABC/Washington Post national surveys out this week converge on one key conclusion: as the election nears, President Obama is sinking to historic lows among the group most consistently hostile to him.

Throughout his career on the national stage, Obama has struggled among white men without a college education. But in these latest surveys, he has fallen to a level of support among them lower than any Democratic nominee has attracted in any election since 1980, according to an upcoming National Journal analysis of exit polls from presidential elections.

Though pollsters at each organization caution that the margins of error are substantial when looking at subgroups such as this, each poll shows erosion within that margin of error for Obama with these working-class white men. The new Quinnipiac poll shows Obama attracting just 29 percent of non-college white men, down from 32 percent in their most recent national survey in April, according to figures provided by Douglas Schwartz, April Radocchio and Ralph Hansen of Quinnipiac. The ABC/Washington Post survey found Obama drawing just 28 percent of non-college white men, down from 34 percent in their May survey, according to figures provided by ABC Pollster Gary Langer. Romney drew 56 percent of the non-college white men in Quinnipiac and 65 percent in the ABC/Washington Post survey.

Read More...

Summary only...

‘Jobs Not War’ Is the Progressive Caucus Priority

 

Progressive Caucus

Co-Chair Vows Dems

Democrats Won't Roll

Over to the GOP

In an exclusive interview, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), co-chair of the Progressive House Caucus, talks with New American Media Political Analyst and Huffington Post Contributor Earl Ofari Hutchinson about the group's strategy in the new, Republican-controlled House. The interview was conducted by New America Media.

Many are not familiar with the Progressive House Caucus. How big is it?

LW: We had 83 members before the election. It is bicameral, with House and Senate members. It's by far the largest caucus in Congress. We lost four members this election. But we also gained a couple of new members. We will not have less than 80 members in the next Congress. The Blue Dog Democrats lost almost two-thirds of their members.

What are the major issues that the Caucus will press Congress and the Obama Administration on?

LW: It is clear that we represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. So, the first item is jobs. We have to have a robust jobs bill. One that we should have had when President Obama first took office and his popularity was at its height. He had a big majority in the House and Senate. We would have doubled the amount of money allocated for the jobs bill that came out of the House, which the Senate cut to shreds. The other priority is combating the notion that the timetable for ending the Afghanistan War is 2014. The war is killing our budget, killing our people, and killing our relations with our allies.

Read More...

Summary only...

'Deficit Hawks' Leading to a Greater Depression

On Jobs and Teacher Bills:
Some Democrats Ignore
Economics and Politics 101

By Robert Creamer

Political organizer, strategist and author

As of Thursday morning, Democratic leaders are having trouble lining up enough votes to pass two critical pieces of legislation before the Memorial Day Congressional break.

One is a jobs bill that would provide continued aid to states whose budgets have been devastated by the Great Recession, extend unemployment benefits and prevent doctors from having their payments for services to Medicare patients cut by 20%.
 
The other is a provision that would continue federal aid to states to avert 160,000 teacher layoffs.
The difficulty is that many swing Democrats have been pummeled by Republican charges that it is "irresponsible" to engage in spending that is not "paid for" by tax revenues and would increase the short-term deficit.

There is no question that Republicans have done a good job promoting the "deficits -- and government -- are out of control" narrative. Left unanswered, it has traction with some swing voters. But anyone who has studied either Economics or Politics 101 should realize that failure to pass measures that create jobs poses a much graver political danger to members -- and economic danger to the country.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Democrat Wars: Left-Center vs. Center-Right

 

Who Let The

Blue Dogs Out?

By Norman Solomon

Media Monitors

April 21, 2010

"It’s one thing to support a Blue Dog Democrat in a general election against a Republican. It’s quite another thing for members of the Progressive Caucus to defend a Blue Dog Democrat against a primary challenge from a genuine progressive Democrat."

This is a grim story about the care and feeding of a Blue Dog.

Right now, Congresswoman Jane Harman is facing a serious primary challenge from a genuine progressive, Marcy Winograd, in Southern California’s 36th congressional district.

Last Saturday afternoon (April 17), I sat on stage with both candidates and other panelists at a forum during the California Democratic Party convention in Los Angeles. The room was filled with several hundred progressive delegates.

Harman has been refusing to debate her opponent, but she couldn’t stay away from the forum that afternoon. The entire convention would be voting the next day on whether to withhold endorsement of her for re-election.

The incumbent is a member of the center-right caucus of House Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition. In sharp contrast, she chose not to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus. When I asked why, Harman dodged the question.

Winograd promptly brought their differences into focus. She called for the government “to invest in housing, education, healthcare, transportation -- not to perpetuate a war economy that is draining us, robbing us of money that we desperately need.” And she added: “I challenge my opponent to stop voting for this war machine.”

While belonging to the largest caucus on Capitol Hill (with a membership now above 80), some members of the Progressive Caucus often say that they need more colleagues who’ll be willing to vote against war and in favor of a truly progressive legislative agenda.

But if Progressive Caucus members want to move the House of Representatives in a progressive direction, you’d never know it when there’s a chance to replace a Blue Dog with a progressive.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Harman -- who once proclaimed “I am proud to be introduced as the best Republican in the Democratic Party” -- has been straining lately to present herself as progressive while she tries to fend off the Winograd challenge.

With that goal, Harman has trumpeted endorsements from several well-known members of the Progressive Caucus. In particular, she has synced up her campaign spin with two of them from California -- Henry Waxman and Lynn Woolsey.

Rep. Waxman came through with a January fundraising letter that declared: “In Marcy Winograd’s foreign policy, Israel would cease to exist.” The powerful congressman went on to trash the co-founder of LA Jews for Peace as an enemy of Israel: “In Marcy Winograd’s vision, Jews would be at the mercy of those who do not respect democracy or human rights.”

In the same month, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Woolsey, startled longtime progressive admirers when her name headlined the invitation to a fundraiser for Harman’s campaign.

Within days, an open letter to Woolsey -- initially signed by Progressive Democrats of America leaders Tim Carpenter, Mimi Kennedy, Donna Smith and me -- gained more than 3,000 signatures from PDA activists across the country. We asked Woolsey to cancel her scheduled high-profile appearance at the Harman fundraiser.
http://pdamerica.e-actionmax.com/showalert.asp?aaid=4409

“Given your longstanding and exemplary leadership on a wide range of peace and justice issues, it would be counterproductive to aid Rep. Harman’s re-election efforts,” we wrote. “Her pro-war record is well known, having voted most recently to spend billions to continue the occupation of Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan. Her October 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq was in stark contrast to the ‘no’ votes by most House Democrats.”

Our letter added: “Harman has an equally appalling record on civil liberties, having lobbied the New York Times to suppress the story about Bush’s wiretaps on the eve of the 2004 election, then going on television to defend the illegal wiretaps. In addition, she voted for the bankruptcy bill, then more recently voted against mortgage relief in bankruptcy court, despite the fact that several thousand of her constituents are facing foreclosure. On the health care front, she recently voted against fast-tracking affordable generic medications for patients with breast cancer, brain tumors, Parkinson’s and rare diseases.”

And we noted that primary challenges to incumbent Blue Dog Democrats are essential for replacing pro-war Congress members with genuine progressives: “The reason that we have Rep. Donna Edwards in the House today as a stalwart advocate for peace and justice is precisely because of her successful primary campaign that unseated a non-progressive Democratic incumbent. Surely such victories are in the interests of all progressives.”

Meanwhile, the entire executive board of the California Democratic Party’s Progressive Caucus -- the largest caucus in the state party -- also wrote a public letter to Woolsey asking her not to go through with the Harman fundraiser.

When Woolsey went ahead with the Harman event, there was scant significance to the modest amount of funds raised. (Money is not a problem for Harman, one of the richest members of Congress.) What Woolsey’s appearance conferred on Harman’s campaign was the imprimatur of a political embrace from a longtime peace advocate who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

As the winter went on, progressives in California hoped that such maneuvers would not be repeated. But the care and feeding of a Blue Dog is apt to be habitual.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

On Friday, April 16 -- just before the opening of the state Democratic Party convention that would decide whether to endorse Congresswoman Harman for re-election -- the delegates received robo-calls from a heavyweight member of Congress. “I’m Henry Waxman, and my congressional district is right next to that of Jane Harman, who I’m proud to support for re-election,” the message began. It concluded: “We need to keep effective leaders like Jane in Congress.”

On Sunday morning, I was one of more than 1,000 delegates to enter the convention hall and find a four-page glossy flyer that had been placed on every chair. Most of the first page was a picture of Harman and Woolsey, standing together in front of the Capitol.

The photo caption was a quote from Congresswoman Woolsey: “Jane has proven herself to be a leader on Capitol Hill, and I join other Congressional progressives like John Conyers, Jim McGovern and Henry Waxman in endorsing her candidacy.” The second page was devoted to a letter from Woolsey extolling Harman.

When delegates voted later that morning, Harman won endorsement, 599-417.

Harman had to go to extraordinary lengths to win a party endorsement that is usually automatic for incumbent Democrats in Congress. She was able to do so largely because one-third of state convention delegates are appointed by elected Democrats -- incumbents who are very rarely willing to support any primary challenge to an incumbent.

It’s one thing to support a Blue Dog Democrat in a general election against a Republican. It’s quite another thing for members of the Progressive Caucus to defend a Blue Dog Democrat against a primary challenge from a genuine progressive Democrat.

In the case of the Harman-Winograd race, the best grassroots response from progressives around the country will be to strongly support the Winograd campaign between now and Election Day, June 8.
http://winogradforcongress.com

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Soon after visiting Afghanistan last summer, I went to Capitol Hill and met with a few House members and staff. All of them were “anti-war” and involved with the Progressive Caucus. Yet the extent of insularity and the lack of urgency were stunning. Official Washington was numb.

What’s propelling the Winograd campaign -- with its passion, commitment, fearlessness and antipathy toward the corporate warfare state -- is exactly what Congress and the country need.

Source:

by courtesy & © 2010 Norman Solomon

Read More...

Summary only...

Blue Dogs: GOP Rightwing Hounds in Disguise

Blue Dog Dems
Threaten the
Obama Agenda

By Bernie Horn
Campaign for America's Future

Remember what happened to the President’s stimulus legislation? It was watered down through a series of amendments followed by a painful “deal” with three Republicans whose votes were needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. It is happening again with President Obama’s budget. But this time, Democrats are the ones threatening to ruin the legislation.

Over the past few weeks, many Democrats in Congress—especially in the Senate—have been speaking out and organizing against crucial elements of the Obama budget. They are trying to weaken or eliminate the most progressive initiatives, including his plans for health care for all, energy independence, and a shift of the tax burden from the middle class to the wealthy.


Activists need to speak up now, before it’s too late. Both the House and Senate Budget Committees are expected to vote on their respective budget resolutions late this week, and the budget battle will likely reach the House and Senate floors next week.

Here’s the short version of my appeal. Please go to a web page set up by the Campaign for America’s Future that makes it easy for you to contact “Blue Dog” conservative Democrats in the House and would-be Blue Dogs in the Senate. Tell them we elected Barack Obama to bring change to Washington—they should stop blocking the change we need.

Now, here’s the longer version.

President Obama is doing something unusual. He is trying to win preliminary approval for a sweeping range of reforms by putting them in the FY 2010 budget. As Paul Krugman explains, “President Obama’s new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years.” Robert Reich agrees, saying that through this budget “Obamanomics finally reverses and repudiates the economic philosophy that has dominated America since 1981…It’s revolutionary.”

It’s a gutsy strategy, and one that ought to succeed because Democrats control both the House and Senate. You see, Republicans can’t kill this budget—only Democrats can. The budget resolution operates under special rules, the most important being it’s not subject to filibuster. So the budget can easily pass both the House and Senate without a single Republican vote. In fact, right now it seems unlikely that any Republican will support Obama’s budget.

Unfortunately, the Obama budget is under intense attack from so-called “Blue Dog” Democrats. The Blue Dog Democrats is a caucus of 47 U.S. Representatives who describe themselves as a “Coalition of Conservative Democrats.” Last week, Senator Evan Bayh announced the creation of a similar group of 16 Democratic Senators (including Joe Lieberman).

Members of both groups have staked out positions against key budget provisions—opposing especially Obama’s health, energy, and tax reform initiatives.

Progressive budget priorities are especially threatened in the Senate. Parliamentary rules allow Speaker Pelosi to limit amendments on the House floor. But the Senate battle over amendments could get ugly with the Bayh bloc holding enough votes to slice out progressive programs.

Senator Bayh’s group wants to be considered “moderate,” but their complaints about President Obama’s policies are conservative complaints. The creation of this organization appears to be a project of conservative special interests. And the timing of Bayh’s announcement makes it obvious that the group’s first priority is to attack the parts of President Obama’s budget that conservatives abhor.

It’s time to make the Blue Dogs behave. Please click here, go to the CAF web page, and tell the disloyal Democrats to support Barack Obama’s budget—and stop blocking the change we need.

P.S. about “budget reconciliation” for all you policy wonks:

There is a parliamentary procedure called “budget reconciliation” which is important to the current budget debate. To trigger the reconciliation process, Congress has to include provisions in the Budget Resolution that instruct the appropriations committees to approve specific provisions by a certain date. Those provisions are packaged into a reconciliation bill that is subject to special rules—the most important being that it is not subject to filibuster in the Senate.

Over the years, presidents have used the budget reconciliation process to pass very controversial matters. As the Washington Post explains, “Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both used the tactic to win deficit-reduction packages, while George W. Bush used it to push through his signature tax cuts.”

Progressives want to include language in the Budget Resolution that make President Obama’s health care and energy “cap-and-trade” initiatives subject to the reconciliation process—allowing them to be approved in the Senate by a simple majority vote. In other words, progressives would like the chance to adopt these crucial policies through majority rule—instead of letting a minority of only 41 Senators block them from enactment.

Seems reasonable. But Blue Dogs in the Senate are screaming foul. According to news reports, they have already killed the possibility of making “cap-and-trade” part of the reconciliation process, and they’re not sure about health care. At present, it appears that the House Budget Resolution will include a reconciliation provision on health care but not “cap-and-trade,” and the Senate Resolution will probably include neither. If that happens, the issue of reconciliation will be put off while Congress recesses for two weeks (April 4 to 19) and the matter will be raised again in the House-Senate conference committee. If the final Budget Resolution includes reconciliation language that instructs the appropriations committees to fund health care reform, that up-or-down vote would probably take place in September.

Read More...

Summary only...