This week featured the kind of contrast between how the two parties operate that speaks volumes. The topic was party discipline.
On the Republican side of the aisle, where loyalty to Bush and DeLay is paramount, several key lawmakers were threatened for not toeing the party line enough. The party’s leadership didn’t hesitate to follow through on those threats and committee chairmen, including Ethics Chair Joel Hefley and Veterans Affairs Chair Chris Smith, were tossed aside for occasionally putting conscience above party.
On our side of the aisle, there’s Rep. Collin Peterson.
As Dem caucus members go, Peterson is not exactly steadfast in his support of the party. He was one of only a handful of Dems to vote for Bush’s ridiculous Medicare scheme and Bush’s first round of tax cuts in 2001. He’s slow to pay party dues and does almost nothing to help raise campaign funds for other Dems. This week, it appeared that party leaders were going to demand better of him.
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) was harshly upbraided Monday night by House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) and other members of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee for failing to be a “team player,” signaling that the Democratic leadership intention to impose a strict regimen of party discipline in the 109th Congress.
Party leaders dressed down Peterson as he sought to persuade the 50 members of the steering committee to make him the ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee. Hoyer and Miller directed much their ire on Peterson’s Medicare vote, when Peterson was one of 16 Democrats to side with Republicans in the tightest roll call in recent memory. It is a strong indication that Democratic leaders will insist upon party unity as Republicans plan to reform Social Security, the other massive entitlement program that has been a mainstay of the Democratic coalition.
[…]
He stands next in seniority on the agricultural panel to replace former Rep. Charles Stenholm (D-Texas), who was defeated in November. But questions about Peterson’s party loyalty, both his voting record and his lackadaisical fundraising, have forestalled what would have been an otherwise routine promotion to be the Democrats’ top lawmaker on issues affecting rural — and often red — America.
Then they went ahead and approved him anyway.
Republicans, particularly DeLay, are prepared — indeed, they’re anxious — to act like thugs. If you’re a GOP lawmaker who wants to get ahead, you might as well remove the phrase “independent streak” from your vocabulary.
Dems, meanwhile, have become a bit more aggressive when it comes to pushing caucus members to pull their own weight. In last week’s caucus meeting, the reported scolding for Peterson presumably sent a message that a higher value will be placed on party loyalty in the future.
But then, there’s the follow through. Peterson paid some lip service to playing nice, gave the DCCC $70,000, and got the committee post he wanted.
Maybe the process — making Peterson sweat before making a decision — will make a difference. Nevertheless, the difference between the two parties cannot be more apparent. If a GOP lawmaker voted for Clinton’s economic plan, a Democratic Medicare bill, was slow in paying party dues, and hardly lifted a finger to help Republican campaign fundraising, would he or she have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a sought-after committee post?