"As Republicans Approach The Ropes On Jobs Bill, Democrats Reach For The Towel"

Tommy Christopher (MEDIAite):

The President has kept the pressure on Congress in a series of speeches, and it appears to be working, at least a little bit. House Republicans like Boehner, Eric Cantor, and even Paul Ryan have sent signals that some kind of deal might be possible, a sign that, even if they’re just stalling so they can regroup, the President’s push has them back on their heels somewhat.

The President can always count on members of his own party to go all weak in the knees whenever there’s a crucial fight, and this time is no different. Several Democrats are already signaling opposition to President Obama’s plan, which completely undercuts the best leverage the President has. MORE...

"Conservative Democrats Strike Again"

Jonathan Cohn (The New Republic);
If you’ve read this blog lately, you’ve read a lot of criticism of Republicans for talking economic nonsense, placing their political fortunes ahead of the country’s good, or some combination of the two. But sometimes Democrats, particularly conservative Democrats, do the same things. And now is one of those times.

Tom Carper, Mary Landrieu, and Jim Webb – I’m looking at you. MORE...

H/t to Greg Sargent.

"Papantonio: Blue Dog Democrat Losers" (with video)

golefttv, with video (08:46):

Mike Papantonio and Ed Schultz rip the Democrat turncoats who are pushing for more oil drilling and more big oil subsidies, in spite of the fact that the general public is against giving these behemoths any more money.

Howie P.S.: Not to be a jerk, but what would things be like in the U.S. Senate right now without those Blue Dog votes?

"Did the Midterms Vindicate Blue Dog Dems—or Not?"

Ari Berman:

Did the 2010 election repudiate the political and ideological strategy pursued by conservative Blue Dog Democrats or validate it? That topic is currently a point of heated debate within the Democratic Party, as recriminations fly in the wake of Tuesday's electoral "shellacking."

In his New York Times column today, Matt Bai [1] defends the Blue Dogs, echoing the argument made by the centrist Democratic group Third Way [2] before the election. Both Bai and Third Way take issue with a New York Times op-ed I wrote before the election, "Boot the Blue Dogs [3]," which argued that Democrats would be better off with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive majority.

I wasn't arguing that every Blue Dog be purged from the party, nor that Democrats would benefit from losing sixty seats in the House, but rather that a handful of the loudest and staunchest apostate Democrats, who voted against nearly every one of Barack Obama's signature priorities, were doing more harm than good. They brought the party nothing in terms of legislative votes and only undermined the broader Democratic message and brand. Interestingly enough, these Democrats, like Bobby Bright of Alabama and Walt Minnick of Idaho, seemed to believe that if they just voted against the president frequently enough, they'd be able to differentiate themselves from the national Democratic Party and retain their seats. But that didn't happen—the Blue Dog coalition was slashed in half [4] on Election Day. So while the election was certainly not a validation of liberalism, it wasn't an endorsement of Blue Dog–ism either. Obama could have done everything the Blue Dogs wanted and still Republicans would have called him a socialist and voters would have punished the party in power for a bad economy. And the Democratic base would have likely stayed home in even larger numbers as a result. MORE...

(Sam) "Seder slams Blue Dogs and their water carriers..." (audio)

Majority Report Radio, audio:

...(like Matt Bai) and their establishment buddies (like Lawrence O’Donnell).

Round Two: "Glenn Greenwald debates Lawrence O'Donnell on Blue Dogs" (video)

hidnusr10, video (12:30).

Ari Berman: "Boot the Blue Dogs"

Ari Berman (NY Times op-ed):

In 2005, Howard Dean, who was then the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, carried out a campaign to elect as many Democrats as possible. In long-ignored red states, both Mr. Dean and Rahm Emanuel, then the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, backed conservative Democrats who broke with the party’s leadership on core issues like gun control and abortion rights. Mr. Shuler was one of Mr. Emanuel’s top recruits. The party leaders did not give much thought to how a Democratic majority that included such conservative members could ever effectively govern.

With President Obama in office, some notable beneficiaries of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy have been antagonizing the party from within — causing legislative stalemate in Congress, especially in the Senate, and casting doubt on the long-term viability of a Democratic majority. As a result, the activists who were so inspired by Mr. Dean in 2006 and Mr. Obama in 2008 are now feeling buyer’s remorse.

Margaret Johnson, a former party chairwoman in Polk County, N.C., helped elect Representative Shuler but now believes the party would be better off without him. “I’d rather have a real Republican than a fake Democrat,” she said. “A real Republican motivates us to work. A fake Democrat de-motivates us.”

Ms. Johnson is right: Democrats would be in better shape, and would accomplish more, with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive caucus. It’s a sentiment that even Mr. Dean now echoes. “Having a big, open-tent Democratic Party is great, but not at the cost of getting nothing done,” he said. Since the passage of health care reform, few major bills have passed the Senate. Although the Democrats have a 59-vote majority, party leaders can barely find the votes for something as benign as extending unemployment benefits. MORE...

Health care reform: "Deal or No-Deal?" (video)

MSNBC-The Morning Meeting, video (10:40).

Howie P.S.: Dylan Ratigan, Karen Finney and Arianna Huffington put Blue Dog Rep. Dan Boren on the hot seat.

Are the blue dogs 'blue' or 'green' or just 'yellow'? (with video)

MSNBC-ED Show, video (04:24).

Howie P.S.: Sam Stein (above) says it's "all about the money." Michael Tomasky (UK Guardian), finding no public pressure back home, wonders why they are even Democrats.

Bloggers push back against corporatists (with video)

Jane Hamsher (Firedoglake) with video from MSNBC-Rachel Maddow Show (06:33):

Ben Smith has an article on Common Purpose, one of the many groups Rahm Emanuel has set up to coordinate messaging among liberal interest groups.

There are a variety of vehicles through which this is done -- the 8:45 am call, Unity 09, Campaign to Rebuild and Renew America -- and they've been extremely successful. When the banks told the White House they wouldn't cooperate with the PPIP plan unless they got their bonuses, and the administration made the decision to "ratchet down their rhetoric," the call went out to the liberal interest groups to stay silent too...and silent they remain.

Unions are getting their contracts slashed, bank execs are pulling in billions, and how many of the usual suspects are running campaigns about the $1 billion in AIG bonuses to be paid out in June and September? Go ahead, count 'em. I'll be here, I can wait. . . .

Back already? Now add 'em up. Here's a pencil. Carry the one, add the three. . . that would be. . . zero.

As Ben writes, one of the goals of Common Purpose is to punish dissenters in front of their peers:

Part of the group's role is to enforce a kind of message discipline, and one topic of discussion there, sources said, was a campaign launched last month by some of the more liberal members of the coalition -- the Campaign for America's Future, USAction, and liberal blogger Jane Hamsher -- under the rubric "Dog the Blue Dogs."

The White House, however, was in the midst of discussions with members of the congressional Blue Dog caucus, and objected to the slogan, which was promptly changed, and the page describing the drive is gone from CAF's website.

Robert Borosage, the president of the Institute for America's Future, which launched the campaign, said he wasn't present at the meeting where the campaign was discussed but that he'd been made aware of the objections.

A couple of things. One, I wasn't actually part of the campaign -- US Action decided to join a campaign they were doing against four Blue Dogs with a CAF campaign against five "Bayh" caucus Senators. I was asked by Robert Borosage to join in on a conference call and be supportive. Which I was happy to do, I like both Borosage and Roger Hickey.

Second, the original press release on Monday, March 23, did say they were targeting Blue Dogs. That was the day I got involved, and I mentioned that since the Bayh caucus weren't really Blue Dogs it was probably better to rebrand. So they did. When the campaign launched and the press conference was held on the Tuesday the 24th, it was actually targeting "Obstructionists," not Blue Dogs. By the time the White House whacked them on Tuesday afternoon, the name had already changed. So that ain't why it happened.

Third -- and most important -- I had no role in scaling the campaign back, because it wasn't mine, and I wouldn't have done it anyway. I wasn't at the Common Purpose meeting because the earth would cleave open and swallow Washington DC whole before I'd be invited to get White House talking points from some lobbyist, which is as it should be. Our big strength is being an independent voice.

Despite the message that was sent at the Common Purpose meeting that afternoon to play nice with the corporatists, this is what I was doing at 10 pm:

Then the next day, there was this. (And very much to his credit, Roger Hickey did likewise.)

There's a big problem right now with the traditional liberal interest groups sitting on the sidelines around major issues because they don't want to buck the White House for fear of getting cut out of the dialogue, or having their funding slashed. Someone picks up a phone, calls a big donor, and the next thing you know...the money is gone. It's already happened. Because that's the way Rahm plays.

Just in case you were worried, that's not a problem for us.