Do you know how posturing and consciously provoking dispute can backfire? Do you remember the backlash against the GOP in 2006 when too many of them in Congress were wasting everyone's time with a flag amendment and a marriage amendment? They knew they would go nowhere positive with the effort, that the effort would not grow legs. Their partisan thinking was they could sieze a political advantage playing on the unrealistic biases of a gullible core constituency. As Wikipedia quite neutrally says, "Opponents pointed to the proximity of the vote to the November 7, 2006 Congressional Election, and claimed that the vote (and a recent vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment) was election year grandstanding."
Also, do you remember how it backfired?
All those Democrats elected, both houses going Democratic?
Well the Blue Dogs are up to it this time, with the GOP standing to gain advantage.
It is an identical kind of mischief. There is no sane chance of what they are doing growing real legs. And, if enough sensible people see through if for being nothing but the bogus grandstand woofing it is, the Blue Dogs could feel a backlash.
Wall Street Journal has the story:
This fiscally conservative coalition of Democrats is growing in number and importance. That is going to pose a challenge for House Democratic leaders already under pressure to show achievements as they try to corral their increasingly diverse coalition.
The main sticking point: Blue Dogs are vehement defenders of what is called the pay-as-you-go, or pay-go, budget rule, which requires that new spending programs or tax cuts to be offset with tax increases or spending reductions. Abiding by the rule has turned out to be harder than many Democrats anticipated when they reinstated [a war-funding bill, combined with some of their domestic priorities] early last year.
Revolt Over War Bill
The Blue Dogs recently revolted against House leaders' plan for a supplemental war-funding bill that included $52 billion over 10 years to expand veterans' education benefits -- which wasn't offset elsewhere. Democrats were able to pass the bill only after adding a Blue Dog-backed tax increase on wealthier households to fund the education expansion.
The Senate stripped the tax increase from the bill and House leaders must decide how to get that funding legislation through their chamber without running afoul of too many of the 49 Blue Dogs.
"If you want to call us the fiscal police, that's OK," said Rep. Allen Boyd, a Florida Democrat [most Blue Dogs being from the south] and a Blue Dog leader.
The group formed after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. Its 23 conservative Democratic members supported much of the Republican platform outlined in that party's "Contract with America." But the conservative Democrats balked at billions in tax cuts Republicans wanted, which they thought should be used to cut the deficit. The Blue Dog Coalition's name is a play on the early 1900s term "yellow-dog Democrat," based on a group of Southerners said to be so loyal to the party that they would vote for a yellow dog before a Republican.
This presents a challenge for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. During the war-funding skirmish, Ms. Pelosi visited Blue Dog territory to broker a resolution: Mr. Boyd's office, where a painting of a blue dog by Cajun artist George Rodrigue peers down from the corner.
"When we agree with her, we will help her. When we disagree with her, she knows that we will stand up to her and disagree with her," Mr. Boyd said. "To Speaker Pelosi's credit, she came down here and met with us and said, 'I understand. What do we need to do to fix it?' "
Outcry From Republicans
But the solution, a 0.47% tax on earnings of more than $1 million for married couples or $500,000 for individuals, prompted an outcry from Republicans, who say the pay-go rule is just an excuse to raise taxes and increase spending. Even some Blue Dogs, who could face repercussions in their heavily Republican districts for supporting a tax increase, didn't vote for the proposal.
It is unclear how the House will get through the next round of the debate. The legislation is viewed as essential because it would continue funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next summer. And most Democrats want to include the veterans' education benefits and an extension of unemployment benefits as part of the bill that is sent to President Bush, though that may prompt a presidential veto.
So, it could spill over and hurt the good people, conscientious Dems in Congress wanting to pass legislation that gets a few GOP votes, answers needs, and will not be vetoed as clearly dead-on-arrival "tax-the-rich" politicking when it reaches the presidential desk, with Bush still President and holding the pen and in no way inclined to turn on his birthright, as a Bush, to be largely untaxed while others less wealthy than the Bushes pay more than their share.
Leadership is avoiding bogus dead-end chest-pounding in hopes of passing needed measures. And Blue Dog grandstanding is directly in the way. If it does not hurt the Blue Dogs, who deserve the licking, it might tangle up the non-troublemakers - people prefering a dog who hunts or tries, rather than one entrenched in the deep south or a more northerly wannabe blue one who howls a lot without moving at all from where the feeding trough is.