When Lamont defeated Lieberman in the primary last year, I was elated. I thought it marked a sea change in American politics. And I'm still not at all convinced that it doesn't.
When Lieberman ran as an Independent anyway, I thought the voters would reject the transparent willfulness of that move and elect Lamont. When Lieberman won, easily, I told myself that it was an anomaly. It was the pork power of the incumbent that the electorate couldn't resist. And very likely, that was a lot of it.
But I'm now beginning to think that Lieberman, not suprisingly, I guess, had his finger on the American political pulse a lot better than I did. And now maybe I'm getting the picture.
Don't get me wrong. This isn't a diary about giving up, about hopelessness, or to say that I'm no longer going to try to help elect democrats, and progressives particularly. But maybe it's a diary about sobering reality. When there was such a big turnaround in Congress via the 2006 election, I couldn't help but hope for a sharp turnaround in policies. But what I see today, after what I would call the capitulation to Bush on Iraq funding and the recent deal with Bush paving the way for more-of-the-same on globalization, is that a consensus is emerging in Congress, a block is emerging that has the power to control Congress, consisting of a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats. I first saw this referred to at Alternet.
It's ocurred to me that the Congress is using something like the formula Lieberman used to win in Connecticut: most of the GOP and some of the Dems. I suppose they call this the Third Way. My representative, Baron Hill, apparently does or did.
Baron Hill also proudly calls himself a Blue Dog, right on the front page of his website. I've looked at his record some and, to me, it looks less middled than muddled. I suppose I can understand that. He barely won the last election:
Baron Hill won the 2006 election with a preliminary 50% of the vote; Sodrel with 46% percent and Libertarian Eric Schansberg with roughly 4 percent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
and that's after losing to Sodrell previously. Take away Schansberg and maybe Hill doesn't win. Add a Green candidate and for sure he doesn't. So the last thing I'd want to see is a progressive challenge Hill, either in a Dem primary or as a Green party candidate. The result would surely be a Dem loss in a very conservative area.
A Dem win is barely a win at all, from my point of view, when it's someone like Hill. Yes, Hill is much better than Sodrell, the Republican he unseated in 2006. I'm very glad he's there and not Sodrell. But it's only the difference between a Representive who would NEVER vote the way I think he should and a representative who will OCCASIONALLY vote the way I think he should. Intellectually, I know that's an extremely important difference. Emotionally, it's like chewing glass and smiling.
Part of me whines, "why is it that the extremists wield so much power in the GOP, but amongst the Dems, it's the muddlers who seem to run the show?"
I have no doubt that Hill will vote for the funding bill the Senate just passed, though I've let him know my opinion. Meanwhile, he is trying to bring down the cost of oil by sueing OPEC. Here's a good discussion of that from yesterday's diaries.
Jesus, if he wants to bring down the price of oil, let's get the hell out of Iraq for starters!
But I can see why Hill would like the new funding bill. It provides funding for taking care of the soldiers, which in itself is a very worthy initiative, and was probably the single issue he ran the hardest on - he didn't really run on an anti-war stance, or on economic populism. I must have gotten something like 5 mailings from him on the (very important) issue of making sure soldiers are well taken care of.
I guess what I'll do in 2006 is support Hill, but also try to spread some of my support to progressives nationally. In this last election, I gave all my support to HIll. I don't want to see my district to go to Sodrell in 2006, but I sure want to see more progressives in Congress, so that maybe the math changes a little for the blue dogs and quasi-Liebermans, like Hill
--------------------------------------------------------.
I found this, which I think maybe gives a little bit of a picture of the lack of solidarity blue dogs have with their party. After Kerry's Pasadena gaffe, which Kerry explained thus:
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) issued a statement Wednesday personally apologizing to "any servicemember, family member, or American who was offended" by remarks he made that some deemed insulting to U.S. forces in Iraq.
That inflammatory remark, recorded at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, Calif., on Monday: "Education: If you make the most of it -- you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well; if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
...
The text of the original speech, supplied by Kerry's staff: "It's great to be here with college students. I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
...
President Bush, visiting the Rush Limbaugh show Wednesday, said, "Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words. Our troops deserve the full support."
According to this, the 'unmangled' text was a comment regularly made by Kerry.
Hill not only didn't defend Kerry, but savagely attacked him, thus:
SEYMOUR—Baron Hill today adamantly denounced Senator John Kerry’s recent remarks concerning our troops and has returned the $1,000 contribution Senator Kerry has made to Hill’s campaign. Hill has sent a letter to Senator Kerry expressing his disappointment with the Senator’s comments and is calling for our current leaders in Washington to stop the partisan bickering and start caring for our troops.
“Anyone who puts their life on the line for this great country deserves our full support,” said Hill. “Senator Kerry’s remarks about our brave men and women serving in Iraq were unacceptable and disturbing,
Hill not only avidly reinforced Bush's framing, effectively, but went on to equate Kerry with Sodrell, effectively implying that Hill was as much opposed to Kerry as to Sodrell! Kerry who had been the DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINEE two years before!
THAT, to me, is a snapshot of where our Democratic Party is today. And maybe it's what Hill needed to do to eke out his narrow victory over Sodrell. So maybe it's the attitude he feels he must continue to project, perhaps more subtly, to have a chance to beat Sodrell again in 2008; running against the Dems almost as much as with them.
That makes me WANT to oppose Hill in 2008. But I'm sure that would be folly. Hill is still our best chance to win this district.
What I WILL do is spread my support a little more. I sure hope that the future holds better 'political realities' than the "Lieberman Congress".