Posted on 03/27/2009 12:54:34 PM PDT by Big_Monkey
Control of the president’s liberal-leaning agenda has been snatched by centrist Democrats in the Senate. They may just save his presidency.
The most important debate in Washington today isn’t happening between Democrats and Republicans—it’s happening between centrist Democrats and liberal Democrats. Not just the budget, but control of congress in the 2010 elections could hang in the balance.
Late last week, 16 Democratic senators declared independence by forming a new centrist caucus. Led by Indiana’s Evan Bayh, Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln and Delaware’s Tom Carper, the group includes senators from every region and some of the party’s rising stars, including Virginia’s Mark Warner and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill. Together, their numbers are more than sufficient to deny liberals a rubber-stamp majority in the Senate. The center is flexing its muscle and now holds the balance of power.
The group quickly came under fire from both the netroots and old-line liberals as a traitorous “over-class” challenge to the Obama agenda because of its focus on fiscal responsibility. The centrists answered in a mission-statement in a Washington Post op-ed:
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
The best thing for the GOP is if Barry bucks this alleged Senatorial centrist group and goes "great guns" with the progressive, liberal agenda that is his own self-identity.
Centrist Democrats in the Senate = Any Democrat to the right of Lenin
Dumb headline alert!
First: there is nothing democratic about the democrat party. They are Marxist crooks and thieves.
Second: War is never 'civil', if it's done right.
;-)
These 16 Democratic Senators are worried about getting reelected. If they get saddled with the Obama agenda around their necks, they will lose and they know it.
The Blue Dogs are being pushed too far. They must decide either to rebel against the Liberals or they must become Republicans.
These “moderate” Dems are masters at coming across rhetorically as moderate libertarian-conservatives, but then whenever a truly important vote comes along (like the banker bailout), they vote with the liberals.
They’re political scam artists, plain and simple. They’re the Democratic party equivalent of the GOP RINOs.
I agree. All RINOs and Blue Dogs should leave their respective parties and form the Moderate Party. At least, then they would be honest.
I think there are a lot of people in Congress that voted for the bailout because they felt like it “had to pass”. But many of them are facing radical legislation that they will not support. I think there is a segment of Democrat Congress that are very left and want to take us over the cliff. There are many other Democrats that will say enough is enough.
The country is, and has for twenty years, been a center-right country. The moderates in both parties are typically center or center right. They know that center-right is the most politically viable position in this country.
Democrats get elected by sounding like centrists. These guys know that with Obama, the public is finally seeing the Democratic party as hard left, which is a kiss of death on the national stage. They’re triangulating their way away from him. Bill Clinton did the same thing in 1996 after the Dems lost so badly in 1994. He was much more moderate from 1994-2000.
Too bad the GOP members did not do this for Bush.
I don't know about the rest, but McCaskill is NOT a rising star. And she isn't an intellectual giant. She is among the most dense of all freshmen senators.
And I wouldn't be surprised if she is a mole for Hussein in that group.
Only then, can we undo all the bad policies that the liberals have foisted upon the republic.
Bush was moderate enough. He needed conservative Republicans in the Senate to rescue his milquetoast moderate administration.
The problem with being “middle of the road” is that you get hit by traffic going both ways.
I thought this was an interesting quote from the article:
“Exit polls in 2008 showed that 44 percent of American voters are self-described moderates, while 34 percent call themselves conservatives and 22 percent describe themselves as liberal.”
Then why are we allowing the 22% to do their power grab?
Acknowledged, but your definition of radical must be quite a bit different than mine. The legislation these guys have supported thus far is way beyond "radical" in my book.
I was surprised to see her on that list as well. She certainly hasn't been bashful about her FAR left leanings up to this point. I'm not sure how she campaigned, as I'm not from Missouri. But she's certainly voted with the extreme left-wing of her party.
Plus, she's not due for re-election for several more years. I can't imagine why she feels the need to tack back to the center now. I think the idea of an Obama plant is just a reasonable explanation as anything else.
“I think there are a lot of people in Congress that voted for the bailout because they felt like it “had to pass”. But many of them are facing radical legislation that they will not support. I think there is a segment of Democrat Congress that are very left and want to take us over the cliff. There are many other Democrats that will say enough is enough.”
I wish I could agree with you. But, unfortunately, the Republicans are barely standing up and they are supposed to be to the right of center. I don’t trust those who are only slightly left of center to risk experiencing the Dem party wrath by making a stand.
But I will continue to pray for it.
Hell, even that idiot from Atlanta, Cynthia McKinney, campaigns as a big supporter of the military.
It was called triangulation in the Clinton years. Get the opposition party to split its votes.
Nonsense. they’ll stick together. They always do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.