Nervous Blue Dogs: Hey, maybe we should postpone some of these liberal agenda items
posted at 4:45 pm on November 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
Another clip from Hengler, this time catching Axelrod phoning it in. Watch to the end or you’ll miss the requisite flattery from Andrea Mitchell. Consider this a continuation of the last post: If, as Ax lamely insists, NY-23 is a big deal while Virginia and Jersey are mere local races portending nothing for The One’s agenda, why do Blue Dogs seem more fidgety than usual? Ed linked Politico’s piece about center-left anxiety a few hours ago, but this one from The Hill is fun too:
Vulnerable House and Senate Democrats want their leaders to skip the party’s controversial legislative agenda for next year to help save their seats in Congress.
In the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, they don’t want to be forced to vote on climate change, immigration reform and gays in the military, which they say should be set aside so Congress can focus on jobs and the economy…
Lincoln said that lawmakers should focus on passing healthcare reform and wait until next year to effect financial regulatory reform and reduce unemployment.
“That’s an awful lot to bite off and chew for right now,” said Lincoln, who described herself as “not in a hurry” to tackle climate change, an issue she has some jurisdiction over as chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Sen. Evan Bayh (D), who is running for reelection in conservative-leaning Indiana, said “jobs should be our top priority and we shouldn’t do anything that detracts from that,” echoing a sentiment of many colleagues in similar positions.
Many more quotes at the link. Believe it or not, this isn’t Axelrod’s feeblest spin of the day: Elsewhere, he insisted that Owens’s win should actually reassure Blue Dogs about ObamaCare, which I guess means we now know who the unnamed White House official who spoke to Stephanopoulous is. The punchline to all this? Owens isn’t even especially progressive. He’s a “conservative Democrat” who was disowned by Kos as a “Lieberdem” and who’ll end up doing plenty of squirming about these very same agenda items lamented by the Blue Dogs if he wants to keep the seat next year. He beat Hoffman because he was a moderate in a moderate Republican district with the full backing of the “moderate” Republican nominee who’d been in the race until last week. And he still only beat him by a few percentage points.
Below the Axelrod clip you’ll find Madam Speaker adding a little spin of her own. Persuasive as ever.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sure wish everybody (even FOX) would stop repeating the un-fact about “no Dem in NY-23 for over 140 years.”
Rep.Michael McNulty-D served as the democrat Congressional representative to New York-23 from 1989 till 1992/3. McNulty is alive and well, still sitting in the current 111st congress, but in another district. McNulty’s staying mum, letting this bald-faced lie stand, because the Dems are making such hay over it.
What a bunch of BS. Just google it, folks.
marybel on November 4, 2009 at 5:43 PM
I found another clip of Axelrod and Mitchell in an interview…
Watch it here.
Seven Percent Solution on November 4, 2009 at 5:46 PM
[ya2daup on November 4, 2009 at 5:39 PM]
True and here’s the more important point. NY-23 won’t go away, so there will still be an R district there. It’s also possible two other districts further south will become more red. It depends on how many seats NY loses, and knowing that we will lose seats, where will those seats go — to Red states or Blue states?
Dusty on November 4, 2009 at 5:48 PM
The two bit tin-pot will not be denied his dictatorship.
tarpon on November 4, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Actually Deomcrats held that seat from 1979-1993.
And from 1923 – 1973 (except for a couple of months in 1960, when it was vacant.
And from 1917 – 1921 . . .
But wait, there’s more! ! !
(Sorry, there’s no free Snuggie)
Bobbertsan on November 4, 2009 at 5:49 PM
I thoguht I saw her open her mouth at least three timess, I must be mistaken…
neuquenguy on November 4, 2009 at 5:50 PM
I thought this was Andrea.
fogw on November 4, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Considering his squeaker over Hoffman, Owens will be running scared.
John the Libertarian on November 4, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Yep. According to wikipedia (yeah … I know) in the 20th century, the 23rd had for representatives:
9 republicans
14 democrats
I’m not sure where the whole “republican since the beginning of time” propaganda came from.
progressoverpeace on November 4, 2009 at 5:52 PM
I think Mrs Greenspan was close to a leg tingle that last 20 seconds.
PaCadle on November 4, 2009 at 5:53 PM
The reason people are saying the 23rd hasn’t had a Dem representative in so long is because the district has shifted. So while the district’s number has had Dem reps in recent years, a large portion of its current boundaries have not.
BadgerHawk on November 4, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Only in liberal la la land is passing the legislation that gets you booted out of office considered an accomplishment, lol.
xblade on November 4, 2009 at 5:57 PM
None of the jerks in Congress care about us: in my congressional district (5th CD Va), we have freshman Dem congressman Perriello who won his seat by about 747 votes in ’08.
yesterday, Repub McD beat the Dem 61% -39% in our district.(part of my Cong district overlaps into the Dem gubernatorial candidate Deeds’ state senatorial district) meanwhile, idjit Perriello is emailing out the many benefits of the new healthcare bill. He has already voted for cap ‘n trade & the GIVE act.
this man does.not.care.
kelley in virginia on November 4, 2009 at 5:58 PM
i think bleeds blue was on the Virginia blogs today saying that so many Dem congressman stand up for their principles & don’t care about re-election.
fine business. if they don’t care about re-election, then don’t run.
kelley in virginia on November 4, 2009 at 5:59 PM
It’s a time for doublespeak. Up is down, left is right, good is bad,losing is winning, weakness is strength, debt is fiscal strength, job losses are job gains. The divided republicans are derailed, yet they are to blame for the unified democrats inability to pass anything to date. Just assume that whatever conventional wisdom you are given means the exact opposite, and you will go a long way towards finding the truth.
stldave on November 4, 2009 at 6:00 PM
[progressoverpeace on November 4, 2009 at 5:52 PM]
Well, it’s certainly not true that a district numbered 23 has always had R representation. But it might be very likely true that that region of NY (maybe not all those same counties) has had R representation for a very long time.
Dusty on November 4, 2009 at 6:00 PM
This is the problem with liberals. They just don’t care about people. Gays, the sick, the poor, children, even mother earth. Nope. They can all wait. All liberals care about is their own power and comfort. Typical.
Loxodonta on November 4, 2009 at 6:02 PM
kelley in virginia on November 4, 2009 at 5:59 PM
HEY!
Great job yesterday! Missed you last night on the threads.
ted c on November 4, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Why do you think it’s ok to use homosexuals as political poker chips?
BadgerHawk on November 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Spin like tops, Dems, but the message is loud and clear.
Why does Nanny Pulloutsi insist on that teeth-on-top (practiced) smile while she spouts her talking points.
onlineanalyst on November 4, 2009 at 6:18 PM
At least part of it is from the probably erroneous report from the local paper. (Altho the district lines may have changed, NY-23 is still NY-23 and NY-23 is the term used…and at least in McNulty’s case, he is a Democrat and for sure represented NY-23)
And McNulty still isn’t saying bupkis.
marybel on November 4, 2009 at 6:20 PM
I don’t. But I do think it’s OK for an elected official to leaven his or her principles with a bit of political reality. In the long run, if the progressive agenda is better served by postponing my next door neighbor’s enlistment (though he is a little old)and my cap and trade, for another year, holding onto a few marginal Democratic seats and moving into the next Congress with a more stronger hand, you have to do it. If ten blue dogs say they can vote either for health care or gay marriage before 2010, but not both, I’ll take health care now and do Defense of Marriage repeal (if that’s even remotely possible) in 2011.
Abandoning them entirely would be different.
Bleeds Blue on November 4, 2009 at 6:24 PM
ted c: i stood on my feet for 12 hours yesterday. was exhausted. didn’t know Christie won until this morning.
lesson learned: make those young people (anybody under 50!) work a few shifts at the polls. and bring their children because, after all, we’re trying to save the Republic for them.
kelley in virginia on November 4, 2009 at 6:27 PM
In the NY race with Hoffman the Con and R candidate had more votes…Trolls do not get too excited.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 6:29 PM
I heard someone on Medved’s show today lamenting that the press continues to spew the lie that the 23rd district has been in GOP hands since the Civil War (which I have heard ad nauseum), and that it is a bald-faced lie (which I had not heard once) and that all one needed to do was pull up the Wiki reference page for the district, which lists every single office holder in history for the district.
Huh. Democrats held it from 1913-1915, 1917-1921, 1923 to 1973, and from 1979 until 1993. I guess having two liberal Republicans hold the seat for 16 years makes it “hardcore”.
Jaibones on November 4, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Andrea forgot to ask when she could lick Axelrod’s boots.
stefano1 on November 4, 2009 at 6:34 PM
The Dems are fooling themselves if they think that two new Republican governors are going to stand for the dumping of more Medicaid patients on their rolls via the Obama-PelosiScare bill through an unfunded mandate when taxpayers shouted with their votes to hold that line/streamline waste/tighten your belts.
The Blue Dogs would be committing political suicide to join Pelosi’s theft of a bill in this economy. They come from conservative districts and ran their campaigns as fiscal conservatives.
onlineanalyst on November 4, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Pelosi’s threat against the Blue Dogs is the withholding of campaign finance aid, shifting the big Dem dollars in their direction. However, if the Blue Dogs represent conservative areas already disgusted with the deficit and the weak dollar, Pelosi’s “sweetener” may have no effect on their support for her bills.
onlineanalyst on November 4, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Did I call it or what there is Andrea Mitchell blaming everyone but the Democrats.
She’s bitter disingenuous or delusional. I don’t care enough about Andrea Mitchell to figure out which.
Dr Evil on November 4, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Huh. Democrats held it from 1913-1915, 1917-1921, 1923 to 1973, and from 1979 until 1993. I guess having two liberal Republicans hold the seat for 16 years makes it “hardcore”.
[Jaibones on November 4, 2009 at 6:30 PM]
The people of the current NY-23 are “hardcore” but they have not always been NY-23. That’s the difference and if the meme is accurate that, for the most part, the people of the current NY-23 have never had anyone but an R Congressman since the Civil War, then that is an important point and worth keeping in mind.
Dusty on November 4, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Tip-toeing through acres and acres of turds
ya2daup on November 4, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Screw the people… what about the cutesy cuddly itty-bitty polar bears!
ya2daup on November 4, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Well, we know now for sure madame Speaker reads the DailyKos.
JeffWeimer on November 4, 2009 at 7:41 PM
How does Nancy Pelosi say stuff like this, and still be able to look at herself in the mirror every morning? You have to have sold your soul to the devil, or something, to be able to deny reality and lie so blatantly.
Dopenstrange on November 4, 2009 at 8:08 PM
The idea that the fact that NY23 has been represented by a Democrat recently (and maybe many times since 1900) can be disregarded because the boundaries have changed over time is nonsensical. The whole point (assuming there is a point) behind the “NY23 has been represented by Republicans since the Civil War” meme is that this same demographic group of people have consistently elected Republican representatives from the time of the Civil War until yesterday. If the boundaries have changed in that time, then the whole concept is ridiculous. If you change the boundaries you frequently change the electoral dynamics. That’s the whole reason parties want to be in charge at the Statehouse come redistricting time.
jdp629 on November 4, 2009 at 8:38 PM
True! Liberal! Fact! — For centuries NY-23 was represented by “hard-core” unicorns… but then Atlantis sank beneath the waves
ya2daup on November 4, 2009 at 8:58 PM
I’m convinced that Pelosi is psychotic. Seriously.
ronsfi on November 4, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Yeah it was a HUGE win for the Dems last night… hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Was she doing stand up comedy?
WyoMike on November 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Interesting stuff from fivethirtyeight.com (my emphasis in bold):
sauropod on November 5, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Andrea Mitchell? Who is Andrea Mitchell? Ahhhh yessss. That hose bag on NBC seen by fewer than 1,000 viewers a night.
kens on November 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2