Turmoil in the Dem Ranks
Back in September, Peter dispelled the myth that the GOP was experiencing a Civil War between tea partiers and establishment Republicans, as the mainstream media said it was. The real Civil War, Peter alerted us, was happening within the Democratic Party as "more than 30 Democrats defied the President and Speaker, refusing—flatly refusing—to vote on the Obama-Pelosi tax hike. That’s civil war." A week later, Peggy Noonan, writing the WSJ, echoed Peter's point.
Now, in the aftermath of the midterm election, the Democrats' Civil War is really playing itself out. Politico reports on the turmoil in the Democratic ranks as everyone struggles for leadership posts:
There's a strong undercurrent of dissent building within Democratic ranks. It may not be enough to topple Pelosi or the other elected leaders — Hoyer, Clyburn, Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut and Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra of California — but Democratic insiders say diffuse calls for change could gather when lawmakers congregate in groups next week for the first time since the election.
Sources point to a handful of meetings this week that could lay the groundwork for a rebellion -— major or minor — against the existing power structure. For example, the chiefs of staff for members of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition are scheduled to meet Monday, CBC members gather Monday night and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) has called for a discussion among midwesterners on Tuesday.
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Turmoil in the Dem Ranks
My bet is that whatever alignments occur will be heavily influenced by the 2012 Presidential elections. Whatever protestations to the contrary we have heard from Mrs Clinton, the Mr. has never stopped laying the groundwork for her candidacy. This should be interesting to watch, since Obama and his Chicago style of politicing appears to have the Clintons fairly evenly matched in a knife fiight.
Edited on Nov 14, 2010 at 8:47amRe: Turmoil in the Dem Ranks
The blue dogs are nearing extinction, and the President seems inclined to stay entrenched someplace on the left fringe. I suspect he would rather be a one term president than abandon the collectivist platitudes and formulas that roll so easily from his tongue. As he goes, so goes his party, or am I reading this wrong?
Jun '10
Re: Turmoil in the Dem Ranks
I think you're right, Dave. More crucially, Mrs. Clinton does not represent a significant deviation from the Obama/Pelosi frame of mind to draw support from more moderate Dems (if there are any) to sure up a run in 2012. She is cut from the same fabric as those currently in power.
The more moderate or blue dog side of the party has been complacent in following the orders of the Obama machine and their voters punished them for it. That's why the Southern Democrats are going the way of the Dodo. There simply is no moderate leader in the Dem party, that I can see, who moderates can join up with to form an opposition to the far left progressives.
Which is why there is madness...
May '10
Re: Turmoil in the Dem Ranks
Most of us at one time or another have recognized that the Democrats are a coalition (amalgamation?) of conflicting and occasionally diametrically opposed identity groups - true blue liberals, aging hippies, unions, African-Americans, New Englanders, West Coasties, and more. At some point, the fault lines among these folks are going to slip and I wonder if the ground is starting to shake now. If so, does anyone want to take a stab at what or who will pull all this back together if it flies apart? (And no, I'm not especially interested in pie-in-the-sky theories about how the Democrats are no more; they've survived in some form since Jefferson, through Jackson, and overcame disaster after the Civil War so let's not send them the way of the Dodo just yet.)