Bayh and the Blue Dogs...Losers.
That one word sums them up. Losers. They don't know how to behave as winners.

Losers.

Preserved in amber. What relics!

I have a solution to Republican abuse of the filibuster, and I call it "The 3 Strikes Doctrine."

Conceptually it is simple: The minority is permitted up to 2 "tabled" measures at any time, presumably due to sincerely and deeply felt disagreement making compromise impossible. Once a third measure is filibustered (bills that have achieved 51+ votes for cloture) then the doctrine slams into effect.

According to the doctrine, all other work of the Senate stops, and the general session goes into 24/7 operation debating these three bills exclusively. This means that no committee or sub-committee meetings may occur. No scheduled events of any kind are permitted, including press interviews or press conferences. Nothing. Any attempt by any Senator to break-out of this constriction shall be objected to by the majority leader, backed by his majority party members. Any parlimentary trick necessary will be employed to make life-as-we-know-it for all Senators simply stop, except for debating these three bills.

The point is to draw as much media attention as possible to the fact that the obstructionist party has temporarily "destroyed" the Senate as an institution. Political supporters in the media should be encouraged to compare this situation to a "Hostage crisis" or a "Terrorist attack" blamed upon the minority. This complete shutdown will continue until one of the three "tabled" measures is allowed to "end debate" by passing the cloture vote. Only then will the Senate resume orderly conduct.

The majority party must respect the fact that a minority that is willing to filibuster routinely has already thwarted the will of the people, and that utterly halting the entire Senate is little different.

Note that this is NOT A RULE CHANGE. It is a doctrine, meaning that the majority party can choose to follow it without taking any vote at all, although it would require great DISCIPLINE to insure that at least 51 Senators of the majority party have the courage to stay the course and not "cave in" to pressure to let the minority off the hook and resume operations.

The 3 Strikes Doctrine has the big advantage of being easy to communicate to the press, and easy to rhetorically paint the minority with, which is the whole point. You cannot wait until a dozen bills have been tabled, and then suddenly spring this on them. The Majority party must make a huge deal in the press about this doctrine being the formal policy of the party, and how the minority will be responsible for invoking it.

As moderate leaders, it is not our intent to water down the president's agenda. We intend to strengthen and sustain it.

Similarly, by pouring gasoline on your house fire, I intend to douse the flames.

"Such debates produce better legislation."

Unless you're dealing with the likes of Mitch McConnell & Co.

Digital Dave: I like it! I'm not a parliamentarian, much less an expert on the freakish shenanigans that pass for "procedure" in the Senate, but your three-strikes doctrine sounds like a definite plan.

Unfortunately, it has no chance for the same reason that every other pro-Democratic plan has failed in the Senate:

a "majority leader" who has no interest in leading the majority to anything remotely resembling victory.

Can Harry Reid. Put Bernie Sanders in charge. Then we'll see some fun.

It just absolutely infuriates me that there is this acceptance that EVERY important piece of legislation will have to meet a 60 vote threshold. If you go by the media, Senate observers, and even many Democratic Senators you would think this is just customary operating procedure - it is the norm and not the outright abuse of the filibuster by the obstructionist minority. What the hell!

What a bunch of ding-dongs. 2009 is also not like 1993 in that Clinton's "controversial" budget included marginal tax increases. Obama's does not.

But I agree we need to keep pressuring this "vital center" of boodogs.

We had one candidate for change and one that was going to repeat Bush. He said so. If you belive that the left has some kind of mandate,you will be releived of power sooner than you think. This insane borrowing by the people that make the rules as they go along is going to destroy this republic. You can't borrow your way out of this. You will make make paupers of your your decendents.

The blue-dog democrats are in the banks' pockets. Look into Bayh's campaign contributors. This is all about protecting their own special interests. There was a good bit on this last night on Maddow's show, with a woman from Fire dog lake.

More class warfare.

Steve Benen wrote: "Bayh and the Blue Dogs are acting shell-shocked, and it's clouding their judgment."

You are giving them a free pass by saying that they are "shell-shocked" and their "judgment" is "clouded" -- just as you give the Republicans a free pass when you say they are "confused" or "crazy".

The Republicans are not confused or crazy.

The so-called "blue dog" Democrats are not suffering from "clouded judgement".

Both of them are doing exactly what their corporate masters want them to do: opposing the policies of a populist, liberal Democratic president which would govern in the public interest, and promoting policies that are detrimental to the public interest but serve the greed of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc.

And since openly espousing such an agenda would be political suicide, they lie about it. They are not "confused", or "crazy", or "shell-shocked", or "clouded". They are brazenly, sneeringly dishonest.

Here's what can be said about the "blue dogs" op-ed in the Post: it is a pack of scripted, focus-group-tested, corporate-sponsored lies.

If you think the way to deal with a deliberate, malicious liar is to pretend that he's "confused" or "doesn't get it", then you are the one who doesn't get it.

Republicans are going to vote against most if not everything the President is going to propose Bayh & Co. this just proves to Republicans and Democrats, that you and the others are weak.

The Senate maintains an unconscious conspiracy to bring all significant legislation to a one-vote margin -- whether passage depends on 51 or 60 votes. When it gets down to the single vote, then individual Senators have the maximum amount of power to pursue their interests. The rise of the Blue Dog Democrats was inevitable once the Senate reached close to a 60-40 split.

They are a group of highway robbers who work together to stop the traffic on a road. They may each want to steal a different thing from a different passenger, but none of them get to steal anything unless they cooperate to the get the stage coach to stop. Their problem is that in the case of legislation, many of them won't get what they want unless the legislation actually passes, eventually. So they can be individually bought off, which is what they want.

They call the process of being bought off, "bipartisan cooperation" and "moderation".

Once again, Bayh, et al., are NOT "moderates." Obama is a moderate. Bayh is a "sell-out" or a "Bush bitch" or a Republicrat. NOT a moderate.

2009 is not 1993. The party would be wise to start realizing this.

The party is in considerable disarray, which you mostly neglect to mention. There is also at least as much corruption among the Democrats as there is among the Republicans, and it is more prominent than before because Democrats control the agenda. Obama won the election with barely 53% of the vote, and his approval ratings are tanking over the AIG fiasco (What did the president know and when did he know it?), his proposed budget deficit increases, his ludicrous dependence on visual aids when speaking in public (teleprompter, big screen tv), and the lack of transparency in his administration.

Don't blame the Blue Dogs. At least consider the possibility that they know their constituencies better than anyone else knows those constituencies.

In other Democratic Disaster news, CA Dem Senator Feinstein is trying to block the proposed solar farms and wind farms in BLM-managed land in the Mojave Desert. She is afraid that the farms will destroy the habitat of the native tortoises, despite the fact that the land is already degraded former railroad right-of-way, and the fact that there already are a much larger Mojave National Reserve and Joshua Tree National Monument.

As you say, the situation in 1992 was different in many ways, not the least of which was the fact that more people voted for someone other than Gov. Clinton (and many of those who did vote for him would have rather voted for someone else).

Taking from Dems' consequent losses, the lesson that "moderates" were disillusioned is not only a stretch, but using the occurrence as the basis for a general theory of "moderate" politics ignores the re-election of President Bush*.

Byah has a point. Unfortunately, it's on top of his head. What's he's saying is this: "I'm afraid that progressive ideals really won't fly politically, and I'm more worried about keeping my job than I am in governing well. Therefore, I'm going to do whatever I can to convince everyone that we're not really progressive." Cowards rarely make good leaders, but apparently, they make masterful politicians.

MatthewRMarler,

A)Mr. War-Time President won RE-ELECTION with barely 51% of the vote. So I don't get your attack on Obama for winning 53% in his initial bid.

B)His approval rating is not "tanking" as you say. Unless you consider a +1 in the Gallup tanking.

C) the whole "what did he know and when did he know it" sounds a lot like Hannity's talking points.

D) I suppose you were complaining when Bush and the GOP congress were running up deficits. Right?

E)"ludicrous dependence on visual aids" eh? It's as if you righties have just scrubbed your tiny littles brains of the last 8 years.

F)you are a hypocrite and a dishonest hack.

"F)you are a hypocrite and a dishonest hack." ~to Matthew Marler from Giggisgod

Amen, particularly to the dishonest.

Oh my Matthew, the Dems better just quit and go home, huh?

You're a hoot. If the Dems are in disarray, what label do you slap on the Rep party?

C) the whole "what did he know and when did he know it" sounds a lot like Hannity's talking points. -GiggsisGod

And, I would add, this line of questioning should be reserved for far more important things, such as torture, than for contracted retention bonuses that were publicly known about in October of last year.

I'm far more concerned about who knew what and when about the treasonous war than about some standard, albeit terribly timed, bonuses.

Should we get them back? Yes. Should we act as if it's the most important thing in the whole wide world? No.

I find the last two posts fascinating in combination. Specter -- who I've stated I respect before -- is unwilling to take a position to the left of his right-wing party because he fears a primary opponent. The Blue Dogs can take positions to the right of their center-left party because they don't fear primary opposition from the left.

In both cases the argument is almost precise;ly the same:

Specter: If I support a centrist position, the right-wing of my party will run someone against me. That person will probably lose my party (and me the seat. This gives the Democrats a chance to run a far-left opponent and win. Since I am a Republican -- though I differ with the right-wing element -- I don't want that to happen; since I am a centrist, I would not like it any better if a far-right member of my party ran and won. (And I do love being a Senator, think I am doing a good job, and would hate to give it up.)

Now read the same reasoning only changing parties and 'sides' and you hear the Blue Dogs.

(And, of course, both sides may actually believe in the positions they are taking on the issues. One bad problem with most political discourse is the assumption that the other side 'really' knows the truth but won't admit it. And the fact that we are generally closer to the facts in the case than are the Republicans doesn't mean that they accept the facts as we see them. I still insist that Bush really believed in those WMDs despite the evidence. And Inhofe may be the craziest of Senators, but I've never seen the slightest evidence that he is a hypocrite, mertely badly deluded. Even a Bachman or a King might well believe in every piece of idiocy they try -- badly -- to express.)

The differences are -- I'd argue -- that the electorate has swung much more to the left than it was during the 1980-2002 period, and that the Republican Party has marginalized itself so totally that they are incapable of running a moderate in opposition to a comparatively liberal opponent. And I think in most states a comparatively liberal Democrat would clobber a wingnut Republican. (Okay, maybe Nebraska and Alaska are exceptions, I'll forgive a Ben Nelson, a Blanche Lincoln or a Mark Begich where I won't forgive a Bayh or a Carper.)

Also, btw, I like the '3 strikes' idea.

Keep the pressure on, keep the pressure on. I hope MoveOn & Americans for Change, etc. swamp their states with ads.

MatthewRMarler never has anything to contribute except slavish, rote regurgitation of fake, phony, scripted, focus-group-tested, corporate-sponsored, partisan Republican Ditto-Head talking points.

Bayh is a corporate puppet and needs to be exposed.

From article on web:
http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/03/evan-bayh-is-corporatist-class-warrior.html

excerpt:

A review of the online Federal Election Commission database with respect to Bayh’s contributions is especially instructive. Below is a bullet summary listing some of the donations Bayh has received over the years:

* Between 1997 and 2006, Bayh received eight contributions from the American Bankers Associations Political Action Committee (BANKPAC), totaling $20,000. No wonder Bayh supported bankruptcy legislation in 2005. It’s also noteworthy that Bayh received a $2,300 contribution from the Bank of America Corporation Federal PAC on January 8, 2008.

* Between 1998 and 2004, Bayh received 12 contributions from the General Dynamics Voluntary Political Contribution Plan (GDVPCP) totaling $17,000. General Dynamics is a notorious war profiteer and Bayh voted in favor of our disastrous war in Iraq.

* Between 1997 and 2005, Bayh received 16 contributions from the General Electric Political Action Committee (GEPAC) totaling $17,000. GE is not only a war profiteer but also the parent company of NBC.

* Between 1999 and 2005, Bayh received five contributions from the Citigroup Inc. Political Action Committee-Federal (Citigroup PAC-Federal) totaling $12,000.

* Between 2000 and 2006, Bayh received six contributions from the Capital One Financial Corp. Assoc. Political Fund, totaling $11,000. What’s in your wallet Senator Bayh?

* Between 1997 and 2005, Bayh received eleven contributions from the AFLAC Incorporated Political Action Committee (AFLACPAC), totaling $11,000. I’ve always admired the AFLAC “duck� from their commercials. AFLAC also provides helpful supplementary coverage to your garden variety HMO plan. Nonetheless, real comprehensive healthcare reform would render AFLAC irrelevant. So once the battle for healthcare reform is joined, you can be sure their duck will not be quacking on your side.

* Between 2001 and 2003, Bayh received five contributions from the Aetna Inc. Political Action Committee totaling $8,000. Aetna is an insidious component of the medical industry complex favoring profit over wellness and gouging Americans at every opportunity.

* Between 1997 and 2005, Bayh received six contributions from the Action Fund of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. totaling $5,500. No more need to be said about that.

I forgot to mention that the bill for Democrats failing to stop Republicans from intervening in the Schiavo case is going to come due any day.

We don't know how this financial mess is going to turn out, although many economists agree that the soundest path forward is eschewing government intervention and letting tax cuts do the heavy lifting. What we do know is that we now have the technology to create clean energy powered solely by my wishes and prayers. Details here. Obama jeopardizes his credibility with every day he ignores this information, reminding us that he's at least as vulnerable as Bush to the ravages of history.

Yes, keep the pressure on these fools. The people in their districts who will be suffering the most by their actions needs to let know that their political careers will be over if they don't do what is needed for the interest of the people.

This stupid notion about leaving debt to the next generation...let me say this, what do you think the future will be for the next generation if this mess is not fixed. They have no alternative plan but they want to critize someone who cares enough to offer solutions. These people are crazy.

I know this is going to sound disingenious, but I'm going to say it anyway. I'm a lifelong Democrat, much more to the liberal/progressive side of things, BUT I've been looking at BlueDoggers lately and think that in most cases they are representing the wishes of their states or districts. I cannot get down on them for that fact. I'd rather have a BlueDog in office than a Republican, any day.

Democrats are the Big Tent party and we have to recognise that all Dems don't march the party line at times. It's like herding cats.

No. No compromise with the blue dog dems. Even *if* their districts or their states are more conservative than the rest of the country the decision about when and where to cut them some slack belongs with the party leadership. In other words--when a difficult vote is coming up and we don't need their votes they can be allowed to symbolically stay home, or abstain, or whatever. But on the big issues? They vote lockstep with the majority of their party or they get schooled, whipped, defenestrated and booted.

The argument that these blue dogs in particular aren't seeking the phantom middle just to increase their own social standing as brokers is absurd. The american people voted for this administration and its plans. Now the blue dogs need to stand the fuck on the sidelines if they don't want to be called in to play.

aimai

Could it be that the right wing nutbars are right? The US is still a center-right country? It's starting to look like that at the congressional level.

I guess I just don't understand our government, they need tax revenue, so why don't they go after the 100 billion per year that the rich and the corps are evading with offshore tax shelters. I know Senator Obama tried to do this a couple of years ago but it was stopped by the Bushies. Surely we should try again. There is an article on Crooks and Liars today about it and the amount of evasion is mind boggling.

I wonder where Marler gets his "news"?

Actually, no I don't wonder.

"We don't know how this financial mess is going to turn out, although many economists agree that the soundest path forward is eschewing government intervention and letting tax cuts do the heavy lifting."... Matthew Mauler something or other...

Are you a parody? That line there is, well... ludicrous would be a euphemism.

Please explain to us how the 1.3 trillion dollar tax cuts of the Bu$h administration has helped our economy?

The key phrase that makes the need for this bunch to band together is "reasonable Republicans". There are no "reasonable Republicans" left so there is no need for the Blue Dogs to try and do things to appeal to them.

You know it is funny how these politicans say one thing and do another. Here is Bayh own words on his website regarding healthcare...but on the other hand he is siding with the obstructionist to block the Presidents healthcare polices...These people will try to block anything this president trys to do for the people, and then make up all types of stupid excuses...kinda makes you wonder what the real problem they have with this President...read bayh own words

�Far too many Americans have been without access to quality, affordable health care for far too long. It�s hurting families and children. It�s hurting businesses. It�s hurting our federal budget deficit and it�s hurting our global economic competitiveness. It�s a challenge that we can no longer ignore as a nation.�

Senator Evan Bayh

now what is the purpose of that statement if he is against working towards making this happen...Lies lies and more lies

Profligacy is not the answer.

"Indeed, the same Democrats want to make it easier for Republicans to filibuster health care and energy bills. I wonder why that is?"

Steve - for your enlightenment!

Filibuster health care = Evan Bayh & Eli Lilly
Filibuster health care = Evan Bayh & Anthem Health Care
Filibuster health care = Evan Bayh & his wife on the boards of directors of 2 pharmaceuticals & 3 biotechs & 1 health care insurance corporations

Filibuster energy bills = Evan Bayh & COAL companies

"Indeed, the same Democrats want to make it easier for Republicans to filibuster health care and energy bills. I wonder why that is?)"
How much do you want to bet the lobbyists got to these people with plenty of $$$ and promises?

Indeed, money is the controling factor here. To counteract this...their intentions needs to be exposed. The general public does not tend to like greed...look at the outcry in the AIG controversy. The attack ads are a good idea to get this message out to the public.

.F)you are a hypocrite and a dishonest hack.

With Marler, a simple "F)you" would have been sufficient. Calling him out on his hypocrisy and dishonesty is just gravy.

Has he talked about his brilliant observation that insurgents weren't attacking infrastructure in Iraq? (except, you know, for the daily attacks on the power grid and oil pipelines every day for years). How about his touting of the desalination plant that was allegedly processing tens of millions of gallons a water, proving some arcane point of his -- except that the plant won't be built for three years?

The rambling of an idiot, full of sound and fury....

Consider this. Since the VP can cast a vote to break a tie in the senate (50-50) Why not allow him to also break a filibuster of 60-40 when neither side is willing to change their minds.

Personally, the way the filibuster rule has been abused in the last 4yrs it no longer serves the purpose for which it was created. The spirit of the rule has been lost. Therefore the rule is now only being used to obstruct every policy the minority disagrees with and not to invoke a more cautious and deliberative approach to policy making. Time to end the filibuster rule. The public favors removing the rule altogether.

For those who still don't know the filibuster rule does not require anyone to talk or debate or say a word...just to ask if there is a quorum anytime a request to end debate comes to the floor.(in other words do you have 60 votes). If the answer is no then they object and the filibuster continues to obstruct the bill coming up for a vote. The filibuster could have members just sitting talking to each other or reading a book but they don't even need to be present...just one person to object if a quorum is not present. It sucks.

Only 3more years until MO replaces McCaskill unless she goes back to being the liberal she presented herself as when we voted for her. She's decide republican lite is better and it will get her defeated as we will not only not vote for her again but are going to do everything possible to see she is defeated...letting other dems in MO know there is accountability and republicans will damage us so badly we will make sure the next dem we elect is "nothing" like them.

Only 3more years until MO replaces McCaskill unless she goes back to being the liberal she presented herself as when we voted for her.

Hope you're right. I never bet on Missouri's emergent progressivism. Too many relapses.

GiggsisGod: A)Mr. War-Time President won RE-ELECTION with barely 51% of the vote. So I don't get your attack on Obama for winning 53% in his initial bid.

That could be one reason that Bush's use of his "political capital" to get the SS changes he wanted failed so miserably. My comment that Obama got 53% is not an "attack". He got that 53% against McCain, not widely considered a really strong candidate. That 53% merely reflects a lack of "strong" support for his policies, also reflected in the "blue dogs" reluctance to go along. Who knows the Indiana voters better, Bayh or Obama?

With Obama winning by only seven points in a race with no incumbents, and his approval rating dangerously low at 64 percent (only going up by two points this week instead of the 20 points I'd expected), we can all agree that the new president is overstepping his decidedly lukewarm support.

Predictions: Obama's approval will follow a steady arc down to stabilize at 3 or 4 percent, and arctic ice will completely rebuild thanks to a coming cold snap in the Mississippi Delta. If we're all still here by Monday, we'll see if I'm right.

Let's take them at their word and hold them to it, that they will work to make legislation more effective as well as producing less deficit spending without trying to sink legislation.