Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rourkefan
 The republican's wouldn't take shit from the Maine Girls or Spector back in 2005 if they would threaten to join a Democratic Filibuster. They would have been bounced out of the party immediately.
Spector was astonished at the lack of party discipline when he switched sides last year. He was shocked that none of the party leaders would threaten the chairmanship of any democrat who joined a republican filibuster on Health Care. |
The Democratic base and caucuses in Congress aren't nearly that monolithic.
Concerning the caucuses, unlike the Republican Party, the number of Democrats who challenge the leadership in the Senate on key issues on a regular basis can't be counted on one hand. The Bayh Caucus and the Blue Dogs have safety in numbers. Should they be tougher with them? Hell yes. However, it's not as easy to crack down on 13 members when you need every single one of them to prevent a filibuster as it is when you just have one person to rein in and her vote is completely expendable.
Concerning the base, again, unlike the GOP, the Democratic Party is actually a big tent. You have every kind of person from actual socialists to people who would have been considered movement conservatives prior to the ascent of Reagan. It's not as easy to demonize an elected official and turn the mobs on them when your base is pluralistic and its members think for themselves.
A lot of people argue that we should be more like the GOP. I think that's bad thinking. We should welcome the broadness of the party and embrace the democratic nature of the Democratic Party. What we should seek to change are campaign finance laws and the inherently dysfunctional nature of the Senate under "dual track" filibustering. You fix those two things, you fix what screws up passing a Democratic agenda 9.9 times out of 10.
