Democratic Party
The Democrats who hate the unemployed
Meet the so-called moderate Democrats in Congress who bucked the party and voted to let the jobless suffer
L-R - Senator Ben Nelson and Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Here are the House Democrats who voted against emergency extension of unemployment benefits yesterday:
John Adler, D-N.J.
Brian Baird, D-Wash.
Melissa Bean, D-Ill.
Marion Berry, Blue Dog-Ark.
Bobby Bright, Blue Dog-Ala.
Travis Childers, Blue Dog-Miss.
Jim Cooper, Blue Dog-Tenn.
Joe Donnelly, Blue Dog-Ind.
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Blue Dog-S.D.
Baron Hill, Blue Dog-Ind.
Frank Kratovil, Blue Dog-Md.
Betsy Markey, Blue Dog-Colo.
Jim Marshall, Blue Dog-Ga.
Walt Minnick, Blue Dog-Idaho
Glenn Nye, Blue Dog-Va.
Heath Shuler, Blue Dog-N.C.
If you can come up with a coherent reason why anyone would decide to seek office as a member of the Democratic Party and then not support a Democratic proposal that is not simply popular but also vitally necessary for hundreds of thousands of desperate people, then I would like to hear it!
Throughout the entire post-New Deal era there have been massive divisions in the Democratic coalition, but they usually break down more like “people who think we shouldn’t let Americans starve on the streets vs. people who agree with that but hate black people” or “people who understand that a strong social safety net is vital for the health of the entire nation vs. people who agree with that but who also want to nuke commies.” This new brand of Democrat, I am unfamiliar with.
According to South Dakota Blue Dog Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, the problem is “the deficit.” In addition to the deficit, Herseth Sandlin also seems pretty concerned with making sure that her coalition gets to extract concessions from the liberals on all their major proposals, even if what the liberals initially draw up is by all rational accounts the correct policy.
“It’s not just a Blue Dog concern any more,” she said. “Blue Dogs … are grateful that we finally have not only some wind at our backs in terms of public sentiment, but we have colleagues in our Caucus and Republicans who are now expressing the same amount of concern about the debt and deficits that we’ve been expressing for a number of years, regardless of who has been in the White House and who has been in control.”
Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf says deficit-cutting “while economic activity and employment remain well below their potential levels would probably slow the economic recovery.” But whatever.
Almost 5 million people are currently on unemployment. Millions more are jobless, and still millions more are underemployed. According to Pew, one in three American workers were unemployed at some point during the recession. Ninety-five percent of those polled believe we’re still in a recession. But, you know, we’d better get that deficit under control right now, on the backs of the needy.
Let us also not forget the wonderful work of Senate Democrat Ben “The Even Worse Nelson” Nelson, from Nebraska, a state made up of six people who all have jobs, thank you very much. He is joining heroic Republicans like Scott Brown and Joe Lieberman in voting against putting more money into the economy and preventing people from becoming destitute. And because of his bravery, the deficit disappeared last night, forever, and we are all rich again.
Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene More Alex Pareene.
Senate Democrats heroically fund TSA
Democrats score the dumbest political victory of 2012
(Credit: Reuters/Frank Polich) On Tuesday, a Senate Appropriations Committee vote effectively highlighted everything that is stupid about politics.
The Transportation Security Administration, a universally loathed government agency, is facing a shortfall, despite its more than $8 billion budget. Instead of having a debate over what effective airport security might actually look like and how much should reasonably be spent on the honestly rare threat of commercial-air-travel-based terrorism, there was a debate over how best to come up with the money needed for all the radioactive naked picture machines and bomb-sniffing dogs. The Democrats suggested passing on the cost of ineffective, cumbersome and intrusive security theater to citizens, via higher fees on airfares. The Republicans, even more predictably, suggested cutting spending that directly helps poor people to ensure there is enough to spend on stopping imaginary future 9/11s.
Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene More Alex Pareene.
The Democratic Senate might just survive
A Senate map that looked bleak a year ago is now littered with surprise pick-up opportunities
Charles Schumer and Harry Reid (Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst) The growing likelihood that Richard Lugar will lose next Tuesday’s Indiana Republican Senate primary is the latest in a string of unexpected developments that have bolstered Democrats chances of hanging on to the Senate.
As I wrote yesterday, Lugar’s conservative primary challenger, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, lacks the incumbent’s broad cross-partisan appeal and is closely identified with Tea Party-flavored Republicanism. Democrats, meanwhile, are poised to nominate Joe Donnelly, a moderate third-term congressman who defied the odds to hold onto his seat in the GOP tide of 2010. Mourdock would still probably be the favorite over Donnelly in the fall, just because of Indiana’s red tint, but the seat would be in play – something that would never be the case with Lugar as the GOP nominee.
Continue Reading Close
Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki More Steve Kornacki.
Dems desert the left
Why aren't Democratic candidates for Senate promoting liberal causes on their websites?
Victories in two Pennsylvania House districts over two conservative Democrats who voted against healthcare reform gave liberals something to cheer about this week. And they’re quite right to focus on primary elections: Nomination contests are really fights over who will control the political parties. And yet liberals appear to be missing some major opportunities to influence the next round of Democratic senators, just when they have the chance to do so. A look at the websites of the 10 Democratic candidates most likely to become U.S. senators reveals that few of them are interested in several of the issues that have been the hallmark of liberal activism and often frustration during the Obama years: marriage equality, a public option on healthcare, filibuster reform and civil liberties.
Continue Reading CloseJonathan Bernstein writes at a Plain Blog About Politics. Follow him at @jbplainblog More Jonathan Bernstein.
All for none and none for all
Forty years of culture wars and racial battles wrecked the country and the GOP – but it's not too late to change
(Credit: AP Photo/Gregory Bull) My March 4 post “What’s the matter with white people?” was Salon’s top story that week, and it got a lot of comments and online attention. I went on vacation a few days later, but I’ve wanted to address a few arguments, if belatedly.
I asked “What’s the matter with white people?” because my people are increasingly coming under fire from the right and the left. Republicans have begun to blame not the economy but “dependency” on government and rising rates of single parenthood for the economic troubles of the white working class. On the left, meanwhile, whites are dismissed as the backward base of the increasingly radical GOP, and working class whites, in particular, are derided as racists who won’t vote for Democrats because the party is now led by a black man (ignoring the fact that a larger share of working class whites voted for Barack Obama than for Caucasians John Kerry, Al Gore or Bill Clinton.)
Continue Reading CloseJoan Walsh is Salon's editor at large. More Joan Walsh.
The economic story Obama must tell
We need government investment to restore prosperity. The president needs to explain that in a way that makes sense
(Credit: AP Photo/Susan Walsh) Look at it this way: If the Wall Street banking crisis had taken place in 2007 instead of 2008, George W. Bush wouldn’t be able to leave home without being jeered. (As it is, he rarely leaves Texas.) Hardly anybody would buy the brand of tycoonomics GOP presidential candidates are selling. People would understand that save-the-millionaires tax cuts and deregulation had dramatically failed. President Obama would get more credit for pulling the economy out of a nose dive.
Alas, people have short attention spans and a weak understanding of abstract economic issues. You have to tell them a story. The failure of policymakers to do that has been driving progressive MVP Paul Krugman crazy. How can it be, he asks, that governments foreign and domestic are repeating the mistakes of the early 1930s — slashing government spending to reduce budget deficits, putting more people out of work, reducing demand, and inadvertently increasing deficits? Rinse and repeat.
Continue Reading CloseArkansas Times columnist Gene Lyons is a National Magazine Award winner and co-author of "The Hunting of the President" (St. Martin's Press, 2000). You can e-mail Lyons at eugenelyons2@yahoo.com. More Gene Lyons.
Page 1 of 165 in Democratic Party