The difference in the parties’ ‘red meat’

Roll Call noted today that Senate Democrats have some legislative priorities on the calendar, which the paper described as “red meat.”

The rallying cry Wednesday was, “Equal pay for women.” Next week, it likely will be “Insurance companies play fair.” And in the next month it will probably be “Gay rights.”

By design or happenstance, Senate Democrats have been rolling out a passel of “red meat” legislation that appeals to the Democratic base in this pivotal election year.

With Republicans in the majority, they signaled to their base by issues favored by religious conservatives. Democrats, now in control, are pushing bills favored by gay groups, women’s organizations and labor unions while denouncing insurance companies.

Hmn, this is what constitutes “red meat” nowadays? Equal pay for equal work sounds pretty mainstream to me. So, for that matter, do measure ensuring that insurance companies not discriminate on the basis of mental health or genetics. Adding sexual orientation to a hate-crimes bill is considerably more contentious, but taking a stand on a civil rights issue isn’t especially striking.

“I wouldn’t confuse red meat with issues Republicans simply hate,” said one Senate Democratic leadership aide of the legislation scheduled to hit the Senate floor. “We find ourselves in a period where we’re waiting for a supplemental [war spending bill], and there are issues that have been on our agenda for years that we haven’t been able to pass, and now we’re trying to.”

It does offer, though, an opportunity to compare one party’s “red meat” issues with the other.

Two years ago, Roll Call ran a similar article about then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist bringing his own “red meat” issues to the floor.

As part of that strategy, Frist has identified three measures he will bring to the floor in June. He has placed a doomed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on deck for the first week of June, with a flag-burning amendment, with a similarly small chance of enactment, penciled in second. An earmark-laden tax package that has generated wide bipartisan opposition is set for third. […]

Although Congress is not expected to pass either constitutional amendment this year, both gay marriage and flag burning are extremely popular issues within the GOP’s base.

So, for Dems, throwing red meat to the base is taking on wage discrimination and insurance companies denying coverage. For Republicans, it’s constitutional amendments on gays and the flag.

For those who think there are no differences between the parties, I respectfully disagree.

So, for Dems, throwing red meat to the base is taking on wage discrimination and insurance companies denying coverage. For Republicans, itโ€™s constitutional amendments on gays and the flag. — CB

That’s because, when the Dems give a dinner party, they serve a whole roast. When the Repubs give one, they serve the sausage casing.

  • With Republicans in the majority, they signaled to their base by issues favored by religious conservatives.

    Did I miss something…has ol’ Joe Lieberman officially changed sides? Since when did the goopers get the majority? While it seems that way most days, when did this become official?

  • OMG! If this keeps up, you know someone will cry out for the red meat of justice! Or the red meat of fairly counted elections, or the restoration of the legislative branch in our federal government. Is there no end to what these liberals demand!

  • MsJoanne,

    I think you missed the past tense in the verb…”…majority, they signaled…”

  • 12/05, Richard Cohen’s Star-Spangled Pandering:

    Clinton, apparently, could not agree less. Along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, she has introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal. It is probably important to note that this is not a proposed constitutional amendment, and it is written in a cutesy way that does not explicitly outlaw all flag burnings — just those intended to “intimidate any person or group of persons.” That’s a distinction without a difference to your average police officer. Not many cops belong to the ACLU.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html

  • That’s a good distinction to point out, but substance in the media is gone, so I wouldn’t get excited about anything like an actual intelligent national discourse touching on the issues that really matter. Has that ever happened?

    We all know that the vast majority of the public wants things like affordable healthcare, better jobs, retirement security, tax fairness, immediate help with gas prices and the housing bust, all of which are democratic party principles. But what do we get spoonfed? Useless garbage intended to distract.

    It’s certainly NOT ironic that most broadcast and radio media outlets are controlled by just a few companies. Nor is it ironic at all that they are all republican.

    Only when the telecom industry is re-regulated, monopolies destroyed, and the power is wrestled away from the select few that run the show will the fourth estate begin to resemble what it used to be.

  • It’s only red meat in the sense that it’s all for show. Just like the equal pay bill, gay rights and regulating the excesses of the insurance industry will never make it over the 60-vote hurdle. So we’re supposed to applaud? Wake me when we have a REAL majority.

  • As a member of LGBT, I always put my eyes on any issure about LGBT. This one is not an exceptation. I also talke aobut it with my biseuxal friends at http://www.bimingle.com to know more details about it. Hopefully, more information can be published in time.

  • Comments are closed.