Parker Griffith “not afraid to defy Pelosi on legislation”
From The Hill:
House Democratic leaders have spent the last two years operating under a singular guiding principle: that it is better to lose Democratic votes on legislation than give up the majority on Election Day.
A group of freshman Democrats seem to have taken note and are exercising that right to oppose Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at will.
Despite all the attention that centrist Blue Dogs and New Democrats have gotten for their willingness to defy their leaders, Reps. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), Parker Griffith (D-Ala.) and Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) have quietly distinguished themselves for being against just about anything Pelosi is for.
Pay attention to this part:
Yet Pelosi seems to tolerate the behavior. She returned to power this year with an even bigger majority than before, in part because of her willingness to let vulnerable members vote against her when it was necessary for them and it wasn’t going to jeopardize the legislation.
Pelosi recognizes that in order to push her broad agenda she cannot afford to have a delegation of purist liberals. She tolerates uncooperative members because their very presence helps give the party power, thus moving the party’s agenda forward, even if they are loose cannons. Contrast that with the current plans to purge the Republican party of all apostates, which will doubtlessly lead to slimmer numbers in Congress.
So we should keep non-conservative Republicans just so we don’t have “slimmer numbers”? What good is there in keeping “Republicans” who vote with the Democrats? I don’t buy that argument.
I am not buying it either. I very rarely disagree with you, Brian, but this time you may have missed the mark. Griffith, Bright, and Minnick are purist liberals. They have just been given a pass so they will be able to get re-elected in 2010. Pelosi is no dummy. She does not need their votes to get her agenda passed - she needs them to get re-elected so the Dems can retain their majority. She knows the 2010 elections are going to be brutal for her party and all she cares about is continuing her reign as Speaker of the House. There will be lots of vulnerable incumbent Democrats especially those freshmen who rode in on Obama’s coattails (i.e. Griffith and Bright).
In the 109th congress, house democrats (when they were the minority) voted along party lines 87.4% of the time against 88.9% for republicans.
In the 110th congress, house democrats voted along party lines 92.3% of the time against 86.0% for republicans.
In the “post-partisan” 111th congress, house democrats have voted along party lines 94.6% of the time against 91.0% for republicans.
I’m not seeing the overall leniency Pelosi allows. Yes, on some key issues where she knows she has enough votes regardless, she allows some freedom for those who have the need to vote a certain way. However, since taking power she has held her party to a very tight line.
I for one think that in the long run an ideologically clear party will have more followers. Republicans got where they are today IMHO by forgetting their party values and allowing people like Alren Specter and John McCain to ruin the party and destroy any distinction real or perceived between the parties.
Also, are they really standing up to her if she’s letting them vote that way?
It is the RINOS that have got us in this mess. If McCain wasn’t at top of the ticket, then Republicans would have been allowed to hang the housing/financial mess like millstones around the democrats necks. But, McCain had been bought by them too.
Let’s see how they vote when it matters. These are cheap votes at this point that don’t mean anything. They aren’t out there lobbying their fellow congressmen to vote correctly. Just sitting there collecting a fat paycheck and doing nothing but being a Pelosi pawn.
Bobby “everyone should get a handgun” Bright a liberal? Maybe in Alabama or Idaho, however he would give either of the coastal elite the vapors.
Parties rarely succeed on ideology alone, otherwise the socialists and/or libertarians would rule while democrats and republicans are winning only minor seats.
walt – it looks to me like the socialists are ruling…
No, they be opportunistic running dog lackeys of the donor class. Their motive for seizing control is the entrenchment, enrichment of themselves their favored ones and not the proletariat cause. Their ideology is driven by polls and self loathing deep pocketed donors.
Sometimes the inner trot comes out to play, sorry
Griffith claims to be pro-life & pro-drilling in ANWR (among other things). Those two stances alone mean he isn’t a purist liberal. Another Blue Dog mentioned in The Hill piece, Heath Shuler, is anything but a purist lib.
Personally, I would be pleased as a peach if the everyone in the GOP agreed with me 100%, no exceptions. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening. So what is the ideological purity threshold? If the party too strictly defines beliefs on every little subject then it will be impossible to maintain even a skeleton crew. Also, the party could force out people like me if they start mandating goofy positions.
The party should, in my opinion, demand that politicians who carry the banner adhere to a limited set of general, but fundamental, positions. Number one is fiscal responsibility. That could mean controlling spending, limiting/eliminating earmarks, reducing waste, etc. Number two should be ethics. The GOP should be the party of law and order (which makes our society possible). Every member should set a high standard and unethical behavior should not be covered up or ignored. If politicians conform to those two broad restrictions then voters will respond favorably.
I’m not suggesting that the party should let any old fool in so long as they’ll put an “R” by their name. I’m merely suggesting that the current ideological cleansing mentality sounds good on paper, but in practice is allowing the Democrats to run things (and expand their numbers) and if the bet ever does work out the harm may be irreparable by that point. I think the standards should focus on fundamentals and leave room for members to vote their minds.