The Corrupt Conservative Caucus Just Fell Apart
Members of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party— the Blue Dogs— aren’t overtly racist or homophobic any more. But they are still corporate shills who routinely work against the legitimate interests of the working class. Although Ally Mutnick and Sarah Ferris referred to the corrupt conservative organization as “centrist” and “moderate” rather than “extreme” and “right-wing” and termed it “influential” rather than disruptive,” the two Politico writers had an interesting report on Blue Dog disfunction this morning.
They wrote that 7 of the 15 members are departing in a fight over a proposed name change and image makeover. That includes two of the most nakedly ambitious members, Mikie Sherrill, who is going to run for governor of New Jersey, and Abigail Spanberger, who was hoping to run for the Virginia Senate seat Tim Kaine was thinking of giving upbeat is now looking at running for governor instead. That leaves the right-wing coalition with 7 or possibly 8 members— all males. Spanberger and Sherrill wanted to change the name to the inane-sounding Common Sense Coalition to help them shed the image as a right-wing Southern boy’s club. The ones who love the image as a right-wing Southern boy’s club say “they saw no reason to toss out a longstanding legacy.”
After losing the name-change vote earlier this month, sore losers Ed Case (HI), David Scott (GA), Brad Schneider (IL), Lou Correa (CA), Spanberger (VA) and Sherrill (NJ) quit and North Carolina anti-Choice DINO Don Davis said he wouldn’t join after all. Another conservative North Carolina freshman, Wiley Nickel— not as wedded to knee-jerk conservatism as Davis— said he’s still making up his mind. That leaves just 7 of the House’s most right-wing, mostly bribe-taking Democrats left behind:
Josh Gottheimer (NJ)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Vicente Gonzalez (TX)
Jim Costa (CA)
Sanford Bishop (GA)
Jared Golden (ME)
Mike Thompson (CA)
Five Blue Dogs from last year were either defeated for reelection or decided to bow out before being defeated: Carolyn Bourdeaux (GA), Tom O’Halleran (AZ), Jim Cooper (TN), Kurt Schrader (OR) and Stephanie Murphy (FL).
“The Blue Dogs have never prioritized having a large coalition— our members look to have a focused, effective group that can influence the Congress regardless of numbers,” Andy LaVigne, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. “With a narrow majority governing the House, even a smaller group of members focused on getting things done for the American people on these issues can and will play a vital role.”
The group will still have influence in this Congress’ historically small GOP majority, where four Democrats willing to side with Republicans could sway a floor vote. But the Blue Dogs’ shakeup raises glaring questions about their future at a critical time. The centrist coalition sought to increase its sway in recent years, building an increasingly diverse cast of Democrats— several of whom later led the failed push to orient the group away from its socially conservative, geographically limited past.
… [A] pattern of shrinking partly fueled the group’s debate over rebranding. With some members seeking to prioritize recruitment as the 118th Congress began, the coalition tapped Democratic polling firm Impact Research to convene one-on-one conversations with fellow party moderates about the group’s direction and image.
The interviews revealed that some felt concerned about the group’s reputation, according to multiple people familiar with the research, which was presented to the Blue Dogs during a meeting earlier this month. Impact found that some lawmakers still held outdated conceptions of the Blue Dogs, whose ranks have included the party’s last lingering opponents of same-sex marriage and abortion rights— on top of its origins from the so-called Dixiecrats, white southern Democrats who supported segregation.
Many Blue Dogs have routinely dismissed that criticism, citing an uptick in generational, geographical and racial diversity in recent terms.
“It seems like it’s been a pretty diverse group of people over the last four years. I’m not thinking of 30 years ago. I don’t really entertain that type of critique,” said one Blue Dog Democrat who opposed the name change, speaking on condition of anonymity, as did most others interviewed.
This centrist added that a majority of the remaining members weren’t trying to “change the Blue Dog caucus” by increasing its muscle with more members: “We’re not trying to recruit and become, like, the center of gravity.”
…Gottheimer took issue with the lack of quantitative data during the closed-door Impact Research presentation, since its work largely involved one-on-one conversations with members.
Mutnick and Ferris speculated that “The Blue Dogs could grow beyond their seven current members if they launch a successful recruitment push in 2023.” Traditionally, the DCCC consistently helps them recruit right-of-center candidates, even Republicans willing to run as fake Democrats, who then wreak havoc on any semblance of a Democratic agenda. That was certainly the case with Don Davis— financed by AIPAC and Sam Bankman-Fried and the rest of the anti-progressive coalition Hakeem Jeffries and Gottheimer put together— this cycle. The words “corporate” and “corrupt,” hallmarks of the Blue Dog coalition, were never mentioned once by Mutnick and Ferris in the report.
