Ed Kilgore is writing at Steve Benen’s blog while Steve takes a much-deserved vacation. I thought his definition of party loyalty was pretty good:
[…] I do think any Senate member of either party should be held to three simple rules: You must not endorse candidates (particularly for president) of the other party; you must not habitually attack your own party and its leaders to establish your alleged “independence;” and you must support your party on key procedural votes, including cloture motions.
Ben Nelson failed #2 and #3, while Joe Lieberman fails them all. I’m trying to think of someone other than those two who routinely violates these rules. Any ideas?
Nellcote
Manchin of West Virginia
Baud
I saw that definition also. Really liked it.
amk
baucus
landrieu
tester (traitor)
mccaskill
amk
dkos dahling feingold, the purity troll. Thank god he is gone.
Villago Delenda Est
Looserman is a member of the caucus, but not the party.
So is Bernie Sanders.
The difference is, Bernie Sanders isn’t a backstabbing asshole.
EconWatcher
Joe Lieberman is an independent, not a Democrat. Just sayin’.
Schlemizel
can anyone name a single Republican that falls into this category?
EconWatcher
@amk:
Really? You’re happy that Ron Johnson has that Senate seat, rather than Feingold?
I think you’re on the wrong blog. Try redstate.
Professor
But Joe Lieberman is NOT a Democratic Party Senator! He left the party in 2006.
Napoleon
There is zero reason that the DSCC and DCCC should not precondition financial support to someone on criteria like this (and maybe staying in line of other crucial votes, a la a parliamentary party). Every time I get a call from them I ream them a new one because why should I give money to an organization that then gives it to people who stab me in the back by voting in the most egregious way possible against my interest.
Fed Up In Brooklyn
Good riddance to Ben Nelson. Right wing Democrats do little more than provide the GOP with “bipartisan” cover. I’d rather lose seats to the GOP then have these bluedog conservative firewalls confusing the issue.
JoeShabadoo
@EconWatcher:
Not by choice.
amk
@EconWatcher: Why ? I’m furious he and blanche enabled johnson and that paulturd jr by their voting against their own party. This thread is about party loyalty, if you care to read.
mk3872
How can you include Lieberman? He’s an Independent? How do you show party loyalty as an Independent ??
wilfred
Independent? So there weren’t enough Democrats for one to be made Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs? It had to be Lieberman?
mk3872
Ben Nelson allowed the MSM to call the GOP’s unprecedents filibustering obstructionism as “bi-partisan”. All it took was 1-2 Dems to join the GOP caucus in opposition to give the MSM and the GOP cover.
Thanks to the likes of Nelson, Baucus and Lieberman, that is exactly what happened.
When the GOP takes the Senate in 2012, do not expect a single Republican to ever join a Democratic-led filibuster.
Schlemizel
@wilfred:
Because Joe (D – Jerusalem) is with us on everything except the war.
That is the best rat-fuck money turdblossum ever spent
Schlemizel
@mk3872:
Which goes back to my earlier question – can anyone name a single Republican that falls into this category?
Gin & Tonic
I think, technically, Lieberman is not an independent, he is a member of the “Connecticut for Lieberman” party. That’s the last ballot line he ran on.
mk3872
@Schlemizel: Hagel, Specter, Snowe, Collins.
Zagloba
And telecom privacy. And healthcare. And…
mk3872
@Gin & Tonic: Just think 2012 will bring us to the end of both Lieberman and Nelson in the Democratic Senate caucus. With no more Bayh or Landrieu, the Blue Dogs have failed & vanished.
mk3872
@Zagloba: I can remember Nelson & Lieberman bath as the hold-outs on the public-option compromise of expanding Medicare with a Medicare buy-in option during the healthcare debate. And that was just to break the filibuster on debate!!
boss bitch
I certainly hope this call for party loyalty goes for everyone on the Dem side and not just Blue Dogs or Dems we don’t like.
Omnes Omnibus
@amk: When did Feingold violate these guidelines?
amk
@Omnes Omnibus:
Gitmo closure – No
Finreg – No
Taxcuts for middle class – No
His voting ‘record’ ain’t that librul for all that fluffing from the left.
Some Guy
Nelson’s only value is the D by his name, helping Dems maintain a majority and thus committee chairs. In practice, he is Republican and undercuts Dems on process regularly. I cannot say I am sorry to see him go although it the Dems lose their majority by one seat, that will be a heavy price to bear.
But on the day to day business of running the Senate? Nelson is utterly disloyal and obstructionist.
Omnes Omnibus
@amk: Virtually every senator voted against the Gitmo closure. As for the rest, the guidelines involve procedural votes. I believe the votes you mentioned were substantive. Feingold could be a self-righteous jerk at times, but I don’t think he was/is a bad Democrat.
Edited to fix auto-correct error.
geg6
I nominate my own congresscritter, Jason Altmire. There is no bluer blue dog anywhere.
EconWatcher
@amk:
Feingold was the only Senator with the cojones to vote against the Patriot Act, and one of only 23 to vote against the Iraq War authorization. That buys him an awful lot of indulgence, in my book.
Yeah, his purity campaign on financial reform was irritating, but his vote wasn’t needed, and he didn’t filibuster. No big deal.
gttim
Zell Miller for the win! You can ad #4 and #5. He spoke at the RNC convention and then challenged a tv personality to a duel!
Warmongerer
@mk3872:
You mean the public option that didn’t even have 50 votes in the Senate? Let’s not pretend that it was just Lieberman and Nelson in the way – it was almost a quarter of the Dem caucus that didn’t really support the public option.
@Omnes Omnibus:
Six Democrats somehow managed not to.
I understand Sanders and Feingold voted against it from a purist stand point. If it had been closer, maybe they’d have supported it. As it is, we get the “even Russ Feingold voted against closing Gitmo” talking point.
amk
@EconWatcher: In effect, all his votes achieved zilch.
hildebrand
Feingold received a great many kudos for being the lone vote against the Patriot Act – and I think that that vote shielded him from much deserved flak he should have received for some votes since then. His Gitmo vote was an absolute joke. Frankly, Omnes, that almost every other Senator voted against it should have appealed to Feingold’s martyr streak (which displayed itself only in truly lost causes).
Feingold also completely underestimated Johnson in the Senate race – friends and family in Wisconsin who were (and still are) huge Feingold supporters couldn’t believe Feingold’s rather lackadaisical approach to the campaign – not really realizing how much trouble he was in until it was far too late. Feingold simply should not have lost that race.
Feingold was a good Senator, and I wish he was still there, but at the same time his purist positions created unforced errors in his voting record.
Ian
@wilfred:
As much as we bloggers do not like it, Reid and other dems do value that seniority thing.
As to comments via Fiengold, let us remember that said purity troll voted against the patriot act, for the stimulus, HCR, and Dodd-Frank. I will take that over Johnson over Herb Kohl.
mk3872
@Warmongerer: It was the Medicare buy-in option that was the compromise to the Public Option that was, yes, held-up by Liebs & Nelson: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/71967-lieberman-nelson-public-option-compromise-still-cause-for-concern
Ian
I take back what I said about Feingold voting for Dodd-Frank, here linky
Warmongerer
@EconWatcher:
Feingold most certainly did join the Republicans in filibustering Dodd-Frank. Because he refused to support the bill, concessions had to be made to Scott Brown on board. All Feingold’s purity tantrum did was make the bill worse.
Kathy in St. Louis
@gttim: Thanks. I was trying to remember this particularly unsavory asshat’s name. When you go to the opposing party’s convention to bitch about your own party, you have reached the nadir (no pun intended) in politics, and can’t go any lower.
FlipYrWhig
Feingold was, on balance, an excellent senator with a few missteps who grew an ego in office. He was on occasion a giant pain in the ass.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
If we added a 4th rule, ‘you should not adopt the awful policies of the prior Administration from the other party’, you could include President Obama.
~
EconWatcher
@Warmongerer:
I did not remember that. Filibustering a Dem bill is very bad. That is a black mark against Feingold.
However, every vote against the Iraq War was important, if nothing else as a matter of national honor, and voting against it was courageous in the atmosphere at that time. That has to weighed in the balance. And the suggestion that we’re better off with him gone and replaced by Johnson (not made by you) is silly, in my opinion.
Mnemosyne
@ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©:
President Obama is a member of the Senate?
ETA: Also, too, if we add that as a criterion, then “progressive heroes” Feingold and Bernie Sanders go onto your shitlist.
Fed Up In Brooklyn
The Democratic Party believes in brushing a few crumbs from the emperors table once in a while to keep the rabble under control, while the GOP prefers to keep all the crumbs to themselves, choosing instead to rely on propaganda to fool the unwashed into supporting policies which are against their own interests.
Would be nice to actually have a party which answers to the people for a change. Crumbs are better than nothing, but I’d prefer a seat at the table at some point.
jonas
@Schlemizel: The Maine duo, Collins and Snowe *very* occasionally buck their party on one thing or another, but mostly just make a stink long enough to hog some media attention before falling back into line.
Back in the day, John Chaffee (R-RI) was a genuinely moderate Republican who would stand up against his side’s more egregious excesses (e.g. voting against the Bork nomination). There was also Arlen Specter, who evolved from moderate Republican to major douche to Democrat over time and, well, we all know how that ended.
carpeduum
Hellooooo! Dennis Kucinich, Mary Landrieu.
Schlemizel
@mk3872:
I’ll give you Specter I can’t recall any others going against the party on cloture. The Maine twins are VERY careful & stray only rarely & never in any important way that I can think of.
Gus
I’m not big on party loyalty if the party is wrong. Lockstep is for Republicans.
gaz
@EconWatcher: He was a democrat until his backstabbing bullshit caught up with him, and he got a much deserved primary challenge.
Mnemosyne
@Fed Up In Brooklyn:
No one is going to appear on your doorstep and offer you a seat at the table. You have to start working for your party on the local level. Start by being a precinct captain, which allows you to help pick the local candidates, and you can work your way up through the ranks.
Of course, I realize that doing the actual work it takes to transform the party is hard and you’d rather dream about a third party magically taking shape in front of you, but in that case I don’t want to hear you bitch about not “having a seat at the table” if you’re not willing to put in the hours needed to get that seat.
Warmongerer
@Schlemizel:
Off the top of my head, Snowe and Collins voted for the Stimulus, DADT Repeal, START, Matthew Shepherd, Unemployment Insurance extensions and Dodd-Frank.
KCinDC
@Warmongerer: The question is whether they ever voted against cloture on a GOP bill. No one is saying senators should vote lockstep with the party on every bill, just votes for cloture.
Uncle Ebeneezer
What about Maverick McCa…err, forget it.
Fed Up In Brooklyn
@Mnemosyne:
I love it when people feel they can make negative assumptions about someone who they don’t know in the slightest. Do you know me? Do you know how active I am in politics on a grass roots level? What’s that? You have no idea? But you still felt you had the right to make negative assumptions, built on a foundation of strawman arguments, and arrogantly judge me on them? Brilliant.
Mnemosyne
@Fed Up In Brooklyn:
So your complaint is that you’re working to get your seat at the table but you haven’t earned it yet?
Fed Up In Brooklyn
@Mnemosyne:
Not to mention, your “advice” is too dumb for words on numerous levels. Let’s see, my rep happens to be one of the true liberals in the House, which makes her virtually useless against the status quo, so I guess I would have to move. Then, I’d have to quit my job and volunteer to be Precinct Captain! Of course, then I could move up! And viola! The systemic cancers infecting our entire government would be cured! And I’d suddenly have a seat at the table! How simple! All it takes is a little elbow grease! Why didn’t I think of that?!
Seriously, are you three years old? Do you have the first clue as to the numerous firewalls throughout the political spectrum which prevents us from having real representation? Embarrassing.
xian
the more democrats we get on the left, the more our left of center liberals will take on the moderate role.
Mnemosyne
@Fed Up In Brooklyn:
Yes, using the same technique that allowed the Tea Party to take over the Republican Party and get their preferred candidates elected in a landslide in 2010 is “too dumb for words.” Why is that too dumb for words, because it actually worked?
Yes, please explain why any attempt on the local level to strengthen the Democratic Party and get the candidates we prefer into office is completely doomed so we shouldn’t even bother. This should be good.
FlipYrWhig
@Fed Up In Brooklyn: This sounds like you’re saying “it’s too hard.” You don’t seem like the kind of person who accepts that explanation when other people trot it out.
Fed Up In Brooklyn
@Mnemosyne:
Wow, it actually gets dumber. You realize the Tea Party were a bunch of useful idiots for the POWERFUL INTERESTS who already own the government? Here’s the first big problem. Liberals have no leverage. The Tea Party politicians do. How? Well, the Tea Party maniacs don’t care if they shoot hostages to get what they want, which just so happens to benefit the wealthy and powerful. Who gets hurt when we don’t give in to their hostage-taking? The most vulnerable. That’s who. So we have to fold. Conversely, what threat do we have to hold over opposition to a liberal version of the Tea Party? Nothing. Why? Because if we hold up legislation, OUR OWN PEOPLE GET HURT. We have no leverage. Never have, and never will.
Let’s take the public option as an example. Suppose we had a 25% Liberal Tea Party group which refused to sign the ACA unless it had a public option. What would happen? The ACA would simply fail. Who would get hurt? Those who would have benefitted from even the crappy version of the ACA. What leverage would this mythical Liberal Tea Party have over the establishment, who serve the wealthy and powerful in that instance? The answer is NONE. That’s the problem. Your simplistic concept falls apart in practical terms before it even gets out of the gate.
Look, you can strengthen the liberal wing of the Democratic Party all you want. It helps. But it simply can’t solve the systemic problems we now face. It’s at best a band-aid.
Last I checked, we had an enormous popular uprising under the “change” banner in 2008… and what we got was more of the same. The system simply doesn’t allow populist policies any more. It’s rigged. Completely. There are too many firewalls in place to protect the powerful interests. I can volunteer to work 24/7 and it will not change the systemic problems which prevent representation for the masses.
Fed Up In Brooklyn
@FlipYrWhig:
It’s not too hard; it’s impossible, through purely political terms. We’re headed for a revolution, in my opinion, at some point. That’s historically how real change happens when a system falls off a cliff and doesn’t allow for political solutions.
Mnemosyne
@Fed Up In Brooklyn:
So I was correct the first time — you have no interest in trying to rebuild the Democratic Party and you’re hoping that a revolution will magically happen and save us all.
Good luck with that, by the way. Revolutions rarely work out the way people who work for them hope they will. There were a lot of Iranians who thought their revolution would result in a free and open democracy — whoopsie!
Fed Up In Brooklyn
@Mnemosyne:
More strawman nonsense. Did I ever say I want a revolution to “magically” happen? Did I? No. I said history has proven that once a government has become so degraded and corrupt, that political solutions are no longer viable, it is only a matter of time before a revolution is sparked. And I also never said a revolution guarantees any results, either positive or negative. Though I do find it ironic that you live in the United States, a country born from a successful revolution, yet dismiss the idea out of hand, choosing for some reason to point to Iran instead. You realize Iran had a very successful revolution in 1953, only to have the CIA destroy it? Look it up.
Poika
@Fed Up In Brooklyn
As a liberal/libertarian pragmatic optimist, I feel your pain! The firewalls are HUGE. It’s not like we have Dick Armey co-opting the OWS gang.
Fed Up In Brooklyn
I’m actually working on a new proposal right now. It’s a blueprint for a bloodless 21st century revolution. I think it could be a brand new paradigm for forcing political change. Completely non-violent, yet theoretically as effective as any mass protest movement we’ve ever seen. And it can be done without anyone ever leaving their couch. I’ve discussed with several OWS activists, and they are very excited about the possibilities…..
Stay tuned.
fasteddie9318
Awesome. In a Senate Democratic Caucus that includes/included Ben Nelson, Lieberman, Landrieu, Pryor, Manchin, Lincoln, Tester, Webb, and Zell, to name but a few, Russ Feingold was History’s Greatest Monster. That makes perfect sense.
AnotherBruce
@amk:
Really fuck this. Read the goddamned party loyalty definition. If we’re going to condemn every Democrat who votes against his party out of the hundreds of votes they take then the Democratic party is going to be very small. The idea that it’s ok with you that Feingold lost to a wingnut because he had a few votes that you don’t like is a putrid one. I would say that you’re the one that has the purity problem.
Mnemosyne
@Fed Up In Brooklyn:
I looked it up. 1953 is the year of the CIA overthrow of the elected government. Mosaddegh came to power peacefully in 1941 after the British forced the Shah to resign in favor of his son. So the Iranian “revolution” of 1953 that you’re remembering so fondly is the CIA-funded coup.
If this is the kind of half-remembered history that you’re basing your “plan” on, I hope to God it never comes to fruition, because I can only imagine what “minor” details you’ve overlooked if you think the 1953 coup was a good thing.
(Edited to add second link.)
Mnemosyne
@Fed Up In Brooklyn:
Also, I love how you’re asking me why I would look at a modern revolution rather than one that happened over 200 years ago. I would think the question would answer itself, but I suspect you’ve got a tricorn hat in the corner of your closet that you’re just dying to put on.
amk
@AnotherBruce: This.
tarylcabot
For the GOP, McCain after he lost to Bush violated #2. Noticed that he stopped as it got closer to 2008.
Zell Miller is the only example I can think of of a Senator endorsing that opposite party for president (#1), albeit as a lame duck who was only in the Senate as an appointed successor in the first place.
jacksmith
REALITY!!
( http://my.firedoglake.com/iflizwerequeen/2011/05/16/how-about-a-little-truth-about-what-the-majority-want-for-health-care/ )
( Gov. Peter Shumlin: Real Healthcare reform — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yFUbkVCsZ4 )
( Health Care Budget Deficit Calculator — http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html )
( Briefing: Dean Baker on Boosting the Economy by Saving Healthcare http://t.co/fmVz8nM )
START NOW!
As you all know. Had congress passed a single-payer or government-run robust Public Option CHOICE! available to everyone on day one, our economy and jobs would have taken off like a rocket. And still will. Single-payer would be best. But a government-run robust Public Option CHOICE! that can lead to a single-payer system is the least you can accept. It’s not about competing with for-profit healthcare and for-profit health insurance. It’s about replacing it with Universal Healthcare Assurance. Everyone knows this now.
The message from the midterm elections was clear. The American people want real healthcare reform. They want that individual mandate requiring them to buy private health insurance abolished. And they want a government-run robust public option CHOICE! available to everyone on day one. And they want it now.
They want Drug re-importation, and abolishment, or strong restrictions on patents for biologic and prescription drugs. And government controlled and negotiated drug and medical cost. They want back control of their healthcare system from the Medical Industrial Complex. And they want it NOW!
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT, AND MUST NOT, ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TO STAND WITHOUT A STRONG GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE! AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.
For-profit health insurance is extremely unethical, and morally repugnant. It’s as morally repugnant as slavery was. And few if any decent Americans are going to allow them-self to be compelled to support such an unethical and immoral crime against humanity.
This is a matter of National and Global security. There can be NO MORE EXCUSES.
Further, we want that corrupt, undemocratic filibuster abolished. Whats the point of an election if one corrupt member of congress can block the will of the people, and any legislation the majority wants. And do it in secret. Give me a break people.
Also, unemployment healthcare benefits are critically needed. But they should be provided through the Medicare program at cost, less the 65% government premium subsidy provided now to private for profit health insurance.
Congress should stop wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on private for profit health insurance subsidies. Subsidies that cost the taxpayer 10x as much or more than Medicare does. Private for profit health insurance plans cost more. But provide dangerous and poorer quality patient care.
Republicans: GET RID OF THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
Democrats: ADD A ROBUST GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION TO HEALTHCARE REFORM.
This is what the American people are shouting at you. Both parties have just enough power now to do what the American people want. GET! IT! DONE! NOW!
If congress does not abolish the individual mandate. And establish a government-run public option CHOICE! before the end of 2011. EVERY! member of congress up for reelection in 2012 will face strong progressive pro public option, and anti-individual mandate replacement candidates.
Strong progressive pro “PUBLIC OPTION” CHOICE! and anti-individual mandate volunteer candidates should begin now. And start the process of replacing any and all members of congress that obstruct, or fail to add a government-run robust PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE! before the end of 2011.
We need two or three very strong progressive volunteer candidates for every member of congress that will be up for reelection in 2012. You should be fully prepared to politically EVISCERATE EVERY INCUMBENT that fails or obstructs “THE PUBLIC OPTION”. And you should be willing to step aside and support the strongest pro “PUBLIC OPTION” candidate if the need arises.
ASSUME CONGRESS WILL FAIL and SELLOUT again. So start preparing now to CUT THEIR POLITICAL THROATS. You can always step aside if they succeed. But only if they succeed. We didn’t have much time to prepare before these past midterm elections. So the American people had to use a political shotgun approach. But by 2012 you will have a scalpel.
Congress could have passed a robust government-run public option during it’s lame duck session. They knew what the American people wanted. They already had several bills on record. And the house had already passed a public option. Departing members could have left with a truly great accomplishment. And the rest of you could have solidified your job before the 2012 elections.
President Obama, you promised the American people a strong public option available to everyone. And the American people overwhelmingly supported you for it. Maybe it just wasn’t possible before. But it is now.
Knock heads. Threaten people. Or do whatever you have to. We will support you. But get us that robust public option CHOICE! available to everyone on day one before the end of 2011. Or We The People Of The United States will make the past midterm election look like a cake walk in 2012. And it will include you.
We still have a healthcare crisis in America. With hundreds of thousands dieing needlessly every year in America. And a for profit medical industrial complex that threatens the security and health of the entire world. They have already attacked the world with H1N1 killing thousands, and injuring millions. And more attacks are planned for profit, and to feed their greed.
Spread the word people.
Progressives, prepare the American peoples scalpels. It’s time to remove some politically diseased tissues.
God Bless You my fellow human beings. I’m proud to be one of you. You did good.
See you on the battle field.
Sincerely
jacksmith – WorkingClass :-)