‘We’re not going to help them this time’

With the political winds blowing against the [tag]GOP[/tag] right now, and a number of [tag]vulnerable[/tag] congressional [tag]Republicans[/tag] feeling a little antsy, there will probably be a sudden urge from a number of GOP lawmakers to start compromising with [tag]Democrats[/tag]. These Republicans are almost desperate to be able to go home and say a) they were able to get something done; and b) this is not a do-nothing Congress.

With this in mind, [tag]Harry Reid[/tag] and [tag]Chuck Schumer[/tag] have told their Dem colleagues: Don’t even think about it.

Senate Democratic leaders are pushing their rank-and-file Members to refrain from reaching across the aisle to work on legislation and other policy efforts with vulnerable Republican incumbents until after Election Day, warning that the GOP has often used such displays of [tag]bipartisanship[/tag] to protect incumbents in tough races only to abandon those measures after November, Democratic sources said Tuesday.

Specifically, aides said party leaders were concerned that shows of election-year bipartisanship could help a number of Republicans facing difficult challenges, including Sens. Rick [tag]Santorum[/tag] (Pa.), Jon [tag]Kyl[/tag] (Ariz.), Lincoln [tag]Chafee[/tag] (R.I.), Conrad [tag]Burns[/tag] (Mont.), Jim [tag]Talent[/tag] (Mo.), Mike [tag]DeWine[/tag] (Ohio) and George [tag]Allen[/tag] (Va.).

One leadership aide told Roll Call that Reid and Schumer have repeatedly “reminded” Senators and staff that in order to win a majority in the Senate, “We have to beat [GOP] incumbents” and not help them by co-sponsoring legislation, jointly signing letters to other colleagues or the administration on key policy issues, or agreeing to conduct joint events with vulnerable Republican incumbents.

Reid and Schumer reportedly argued, “Every five-and-a-half years these guys pretend they’re moderate, and we fall for it every time. We’re not going to help them this time.”

Republicans, of course, aren’t going to care for this. They’ll call Dems “[tag]obstructionists[/tag]”‘; they’ll say they’re ready to work cooperatively on key bills; and they’ll insist that Dems are more concerned about the elections than with governing.

Of course, they’re not really in a position to complain.

Aides insist they are simply using a GOP tactic against Republicans, arguing that the GOP has rarely agreed to work cooperatively with incumbent Democrats perceived as politically vulnerable.

Over the past six years Republicans have successfully used Democrats’ willingness to act in a bipartisan manner against them. For instance, Republicans used the No Child Left Behind Act — which President Bush signed in 2002 — to blunt Democrats’ criticism of GOP education policies by pointing out that the bill was originally backed by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Bush also used that law during his 2004 presidential election defeat of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), as well as Democrats’ support of the war in Iraq in 2002 and 2003.

Dems also came up with the idea for a Department of Homeland Security, which Bush initially opposed, then stole, then used as a cudgel against Dems like Max Cleland.

Indeed, Dems have been shut out of the legislative process almost completely for several years. Their bills are ignored, they can’t offer amendments, and they can’t join conference committees. Now, in a panic, Republicans are wondering if they could get their “friends” on the other side of the aisle to help get some legislation through before heading home to campaign. And the Dems’ have an incentive to play along … why?

“… we fall for it every time.” Need we say more?

  • So which is it, Carpetbagger? In the previous post, you urge Dems to work with the GOP and pass stem cell research legislation. In this post, you report that Dems would be crazy to work with the GOP in an election year. You could reasonably argue for either of these points, but each of them submitted alongside each other is a contrast that begs an explanation.

  • Reid and Schumer reportedly argued, “Every five-and-a-half years these guys pretend they’re moderate, and we fall for it every time. We’re not going to help them this time.” They went on to say, “Do you hear us Jomo?

  • First an editorial correction:
    Reid and Schumer reportedly argued, “Every five-and-a-half years these guys pretend they’re moderate, and we fall for it every time. We’re not going to help them this time.” They went on to say, “Do you hear us Jomo?
    Next
    squeegee, from the stem cell post:I know there are plenty of issues to consider in a campaign context, but I still believe stem-cell research has such broad bi-partisan support… I think it is fair to say that CB has acknowledged the competing interests the Dems are faced with and in the case of stem cells comes down on the side of cooperating.

  • So which is it, Carpetbagger?

    Fair enough, squeegee. My point is for Dems to pursue a legislative strategy that helps, not hurts, their chances in November.

    On stem-cell research, they can and should encourage GOP senators to join them and force a Bush veto. It’ll help highlight the issue in a way that positions the party as one that seeks common-sense policies, which benefit the public, despite conservative opposition.

    As for other issues, the article that indirectly quoted Reid and Schumer was not specific, but I agree with the sentiment that they shouldn’t go out of their way to help the GOP pass legislation that benefits the Republicans (say, immigration and spending cuts, for example).

    The difference is the GOP will want to pass bills that help rally their party’s the base, whereas stem-cell research does the opposite.

  • Every five-and-a-half years these guys pretend they’re moderate, and we fall for it every time.

    Santorum is the poster boy for this tactic. He campaigns as a moderate, then goes to DC and turns into…well…..Santorum. I’m not going to hold my breath, but if the Dems finally counter this tactic, it will be huge.

    squeegee, the stemcell issue should be above partisan politic, but obviously isn’t. If the repubs go for it, it will cause all sorts of infighting within their ranks and we finally have robust stemcell research. That’s a policy win that will infuriate the repub base, giving them another reason to stay home this November.
    If they block it, we hammer them mercilessly with it. I call it a win/win.

  • After 15 years of watching republicans shit on Clinton, Gore, and Kerry… you mean for once the dimocrats aren’t ready to “make nice”?

    Sorry. I don’t believe it.
    Nope.
    We are talking about Joe Lieberman’s party here…
    It is a party built on political pacifism.
    There’s not a firebrand in sight….
    It’s a tepid mass of middle class caution.

    No.
    They’ll “make nice”.
    They always do.

  • Heh. After Koreyel’s post I’m thinking maybe Reid and Schumer can adopt the Dixie Chicks’ single-that-drives-Clear-Channel-nuts “Not Ready to Make Nice” to play at their caucus meetings.

  • koreyel,

    We are talking about Joe Lieberman’s party here…

    I disagree. The Dems made many mistakes in the past, but to characterize Boxer and Schumer, et. al. as the party of Joe Lieberman is unfair.

  • Untll Democrats start voting the way their TV hogs bloviate, I don’t think “Joe Lieberman’s party” is too strong. Feingold’s the only sitting Senator I know of who consistently votes the way all of them ought to.

  • I’ll believe it when I see it. I’m not impressed that the party that can’t come down for the rule of law on NSA/warrantless wiretapping or make Mike Hayden answer some goddamn questions (proposed sample: “Are you for, or against, the strict construction of the FOURTH GODDAMN AMENDMENT?”) before kissing his ass and sanctioning Bush’s “I *AM* the law!” political philosophy has suddenly grown a pair of balls.

    Show us the opposition, Harry (and Chuck, and Dianne, and Joe(s)).

  • Lieberman and those of his ilk need to remember that the GOP didn’t want bipartisan ship when they were strong why should they assist the GOP with their election prospece by looking bipartisan now? They need to remember that the GOP will screw them over at the first opportunity and keep doing it until there is nothing left. There is no gain personally or political in bipartisanship now. Heck considering some of the nutter ideas of the GOP there isn’t any good policy either.

  • The tough part for the Democrats is that, being in the minority, they really have to cut some kind of deal with the Republicans if they want to accomplish anything. Otherwise, they best news they can give their constituents is that they kept the Republicans from doing x,y, and z. On the other hand, it seems like the legislation that has gone through with bipartisan support has either gone the Republican’s way (Patriot Act extension) or been horribly watered down (ethics reform).
    I do agree, though, that the Democrats, as a whole, need to show their backbone and take a firm stand on several issues. I just have not seen a unified voice coming out of the Democratic leadership. They need a message so that they won’t just be the “not Republican” option in 2006.

  • “We are talking about Joe Lieberman’s party here…”

    Koreyel, I know Democrat…and Joe Lieberman’s no Democrat.

    *And a well-raised mug to Lloyd Bentsen….

  • koreyel #7: I agree with you completely. And “dimocrat”–I love that.

    Look there’s only a few months until the election, it’s not like we have the power to shut down the government…oh, wait, some other party already tried that.

    We are the minority, ladies and gentlemen. Sure we can make a stink, but we can’t make law or even call for an investigation. Yes, our job is to oppose and try to stop the Rethugs from their deranged agenda. That’s it. Let that big, bold and beautiful majority choke on all their power for the next few months. And let them face the voters with the results.

  • I know my line:

    “We are talking about Joe Lieberman’s party here…”

    Caused many of you to utter: “Man, ‘dems are fightin’ words…”

    And I agree they are.
    That is at least for you and I and others in left blogistan…

    But this is not so for the mainstream aspects of the Democratic party. By that I mean the mishmash of luke-warm partial-partisans who make up the great bulk of the “Democratic Party.”

    That demographic doesn’t burn with any ardor.

    That demographic isn’t as tribal or angry as the typical Republican.

    And that demographic doesn’t hold grudges forever (like the republicans do for Clinton and Gore and Kerry and Hillary).

    In other words: I think there are fundamental personality differences between the average repug and the average dimocrat.

    And that’s good and bad:

    Good because who wants Democrats to act like Republicans?

    Bad because, ultimately, it takes tribal anger, emotion, and passion to win elections…

  • Comments are closed.