Democrats' Liberal Lurch Could Sink Them in 2010 Elections

June 25, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (46)

The Democrats’ continued drift to the left has harmed the party’s political fortunes.

A poll just released by Resurgent Republic, an organization founded by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie finds that--by a margin of 64 percent to 27 percent--those persons who are likely to vote in the November 2010 election think the United States is on “the wrong track.”

These latest estimates constitute “a net negative 11 point swing” in just two months, largely because--as any number of polls have found over the last year--independents continue to move away from President Barack Obama and the Democrats in large numbers.

[See a slide show of the 10 keys to an Obama comeback.]

Over time it has become clear that the Obama presidency represents a generational flirtation with liberalism of the kind not practiced by the Clinton White House--in part because of the checks provided by a Republican-controlled Congress during six of his eight years in office--or by Jimmy Carter who, even though he had a Congress run by Democrats to help him, was more liberal than they wanted to be.

The Democrats’ continued drift to the left has harmed the party’s political fortunes--in much the same way perhaps as the national Republican Party’s move to the right on social issues has caused it problems in the Northeast. But while the GOP at least remains competitive from Maine to New Jersey, the species once known as “the Southern Democrat” is all but extinct. South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas--which were once all reliably one party states that sent Democrats to Washington--flipped the other way, and quickly, after Ronald Reagan won the presidency.

Part of this is due to the changing nature of the electorate as middle-class Republicans moved out of the party’s former strongholds in the Northeast and Midwest into the Sun Belt. But this geographic realignment is wedded to an ideological one in which the values of rural, suburban and now exurban America are pitted against the values and political structures of urban machines.

Obama, with his roots in Chicago, typifies this kind of liberal politics despite the fact that he campaigned for president as a post-partisan centrist. But so does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who comes out of San Francisco and has roots in Baltimore, where her father and brother both served as mayor.

Both cities are archetypes of the kind of governing liberal philosophy that voters, particularly independents, are now rejecting in increasing numbers. And, as political scientists Merle and Earl Black demonstrated in The Rise of Southern Republicans, a landmark study of U.S. politics in the late 20th Century, the national liberalism of the Democratic Party has negative consequences in congressional elections.

Among their findings is that, over time, exurban, suburban, and rural Democrats who consistently vote with the national party--as defined by those votes cast in favor of the agenda of a Democratic Speaker of the House--are more likely to lose their seats than those Democrats who are more obviously independent of the national party; that is, more in sync with the values of their constituents.

Seizing on this, the National Republican Congressional Committee has put a page on its web site devoted to what they are calling “Pelosi's Puppets”--10 Democrats who the NRCC says “have remained fiercely loyal to their puppet master House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her radical agenda.”

[See who Pelosi's biggest campaign contributors are.]

The committee argues that the 10 members they are highlighting through this project, who have been “instrumental in helping Pelosi and the Democrat leadership push their anti-business, anti-jobs agenda through Congress while piling unprecedented spending and debt onto the backs of American taxpayers” are being rewarded for their votes with substantial campaign contributions from Pelosi’s national network of wealthy donors.

Rep. Betsy Markey, who represents the formerly Republican-held 4th Congressional District in Colorado, for example, voted with Pelosi on such key issues as the stimulus package, cap and trade, and government-run healthcare, and has received more than $25,000 in what the NRCC calls “Pelosi dollars.” Rep. Martin Heinrich, who represents the traditionally Republican 1st Congressional District in New Mexico, has a 97.3 percent Pelosi Unity Voting Percentage and has gotten almost $20,000 in “Pelosi dollars.” And Steve Driehaus, the Democrat who represents much of Cincinnati, Ohio, is scored as voting with Pelosi just under 95 percent of the time while pulling in almost $15,000 from Pelosi’s network.

By establishing that these representatives, and others, are voting with Pelosi in near-lockstep, the Republicans are putting the Blacks’ thesis to the test. Showing Markey, Heinrich, Driehaus, and others are in Pelosi’s pocket should, if the Blacks are correct, drive a wedge between them and their constituents that will prove of value once the election begins in earnest.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
Martin Heinrich,
Betsy Markey,
Steve Driehaus,
2010 Congressional elections,
Congress,
Bill Clinton,
Nancy Pelosi,
Ronald Reagan,
Jimmy Carter,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (46)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The Pelosi's Puppets project of the Republican Party is factually flawed. See:

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/tag/pelosis-puppets/

for documentation of factual errors. Rather than simply report the Republican Party's claims, it would be more useful for Mr. Roff to empirically evaluate them.

Jim Cook of ME 9:18AM July 04, 2010

WOW,

So let’s just assume that bush violated the constitution. Let’s just see what Obama has done to correct that.

1) Renewed the Patriot Act for 16 years, instead of 6 months (Left Silent)

2) Still uses Military Tribunals

(Left almost silent)

3) Hasn't Closed Gitmo

(8 months overdue, I’m sure he is working on it)

3) Tripled the troops in Afghanistan

(And burned though 2 generals btw)

4) Used UAV's to bomb Yemen

(With no declaration of war, hadn't heard that huh look it up)

4) Used UAV's to Bomb Pakistan

(More bombs in 1 year, than bush used in 8)

5) Deports Terrorist to countries that do use torture for interrogations, while banning it in the US

(I'm sure their forms of interrogations are safer than ours)

5) Bailed out GM, at the expense of Ford

(Ford would be doing great if GM failed; now all our car companies are doing fair to poor)

6) Continued to bail out banks

(I personally Love bailing out banks, and making rent and housing more expensive than it should be; that helps the little guy right?)

7) Nationalized student loans

(God forbid teacher unions should try to make school more affordable, just put our kids in greater debt on the government tab)

8) Appointed a 9/11 truther to the WH Van Jones

(This guy is a real winner please look him up)

9) Turned away 30 nations from helping in containing and cleaning up the BP oil spill, until 50+ days into the tragedy

And i could actually go on. To be fair to Obama and the Moron Bush though. The housing bubble started under Clinton with a republican congress. The 75 million liability cap BP had was under Clinton and a republican congress. The Bank bailouts started with Bush and a democratic congress.

If this tells you anything, it should say our federal government cannot do everything and they are incompetent when they try. Instead of them doing 100 things badly, why don't they stick to 5 or 10 things and do them great. The states can handle the rest. Limited GOVERNMENT please. I don't love bush, and don't hate Obama, but how much power do you want all these morons to have. The next president gets to control your health care.

BTW: The road to hell is paved with good intentions, i truely hope ALL of our representatives grow a spine and do what is required. Bart Stupak recently said he is not running for re-election anymore because it is no longer fun.... When the hell did running a country become fun, especially when long term debt in the county is 130 trillion and has been looming for 20+ years?

Stand up America

Mike of IL 2:01AM July 01, 2010

There have always been southern Democrats and Northern Democrats since prior to the US Civil War. They were technically part of the very same party but actually functioned like two separate parties. Only after the election of 1964, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in Congress, did the South turn Republican and both southerna and northern Democrats begin to function as one party in practice and ideologically. George Wallace was a Southern Democrat (Dixiecrat) and ran in 1968 presidential election as an independant. In this sense, the Democrats can not be justly blamed for having a history of support for the KKK; southern Democrats were a different breed altoghether and would confirm this fact themselves.

You really have to consider the GOP as racist when they accuse Obama of violating the US Constitution when in fact he hasn't done so even once. Bush violated it many times without a word from the GOP. GITMO was unconstitutional, the military tribunals were unconstitutional (according to a 2006 US Supreme Court decision), the NSA's warrentless wiretaps were unconstitutional as well as Bush's use of executive signing statements to bypass congressional laws. Here is an analysis from the Boston Globe;

"President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Clearly, Bush violated the US Constitution systematically for eight years with no complaints from the GOP or its supporters. Obama is being unjustly attacked and smeared. He's being accused of things he never said, did or believed. This willful misrepresentation of facts and the violent hysteria being whipped up is tantamount to racist incitement. There's plenty of proof of such incitement from the constant racist imagery and inuendo from the Tea party rallies and the GOP itself.

http://gawker.com/5064741/the-racist-anti+obama-gop-newsletter-listicle

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/02/20/racist-att

steve of IL 6:52PM June 29, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement