Media mentioned Blue Dogs 933 times, Progressive Caucus only 99 times...

[madfloridian]

in the 90 day period leading up to January 14, 2009.

Now that is real power.

Hat tip to Slinkerwink's diary at Daily Kos for this interesting little tidbit about the powerful effect of media coverage on the various Democratic factions. She was discussing how the Progressive caucus is mostly ignored right now in contrast to the conservative faction of the Democrats.

It's clear from reports that the White House is looking to court the votes of the 51-member Blue Dog Caucus in the House of Representatives, weighing their votes in heavy favor against the votes of the rest of the Democratic caucus, including the 71-member Progressive Democratic Caucus.

The House Blue Dog Coalition continues to wield outsize political power, thanks to a canny willingness to leverage its votes on key issues, while the Congressional Progressive Caucus must fight to be heard.

Case in point: the Blue Dogs are meeting directly with President Obama this afternoon on the stimulus bill. The Progressives have yet to hear back about their request for a meeting, which was issued almost a month ago.

Slinkerwink then linked to this TPM post from January.

The Blue Dogs & the Power of Positive Press

After posting last week on the role of Democratic factions in the House's stimulus debate, I tried a small thought experiment: If we took media exposure as a measure of congressional influence, which Democratic group is the most powerful?

Now, Nancy Pelosi and fellow leaders surely get the most press. But when I compared the two ideologically disparate Dem factions -- the conservative-leaning Blue Dogs and the Progressive Caucus -- the numbers were staggering. In the past 90 days, the Blue Dogs were mentioned 933 times in national press coverage according to Lexis-Nexis. The progressives were cited just 99 times.

Whether it's the press coverage, their members' assertiveness or both, the Blue Dogs are respected as an influential force on the Hill. The president-elect courted them in advance. They helped push the Bush-backed compromise wiretapping bill through the House in 2007 and again last year.

And the Blue Dogs wield this power with just 51 members, as Matt Stoller pointed out. Meanwhile, the Progressives claim 71 members and an impressive group of House committee chairmen in their ranks: Barney Frank (D-MA), John Conyers (D-MI), George Miller (D-CA), and leadership member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).

Last June when the House passed the very compromised FISA bill, I remember being so stunned that Steny Hoyer would openly admit that he agreed to do it for the Blue Dogs. In other words immunity was included to keep the Blue Dogs from barking and running to the other side.

Hoyer: FISA bill passed to keep the Blue Dogs from demanding a stronger bill. Absurdity.

Hoyer said that if House Democratic leaders failed to reach a FISA deal with the White House and GOP leaders, as many as “30 Blue Dogs and another 20 to 30 members” could have signed onto a Republican discharge petition calling for a floor vote on the Senate version of the FISA bill, which was even more anathema to House Democrats than what eventually passed. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) confirmed that “there were a lot of Blue Dogs getting anxious” and “a lot” of them would have signed a discharge petition.

“You can take a position and be a purist and sort of sit around yelling at each across the divide and nothing gets done,” Hoyer said. “The American people, they want us to get this done. That’s the whole thing to me.”

Purists. That's what they call those of us who really are steadfast Democrats, who work hard for the party, who donate until it hurts.

As someone pointed out to me in another thread, the only way to get the attention of the party leaders is to threaten to harm the party's agenda.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your view.....progressives seldom threaten to harm the agenda of their party in order to give the power back to the other party.

933 to 99 media mentions. 51 to 71 member disadvantage. The TPM diarist is correct....the media gives the power to those who are assertive and dominant.

[aquart]

1. Maybe they need a catchier name: Gay Dogs?

Pink Pussies?

[paulk]

2. "real power" is having the votes to influence legislation

which the "bluedogs" have, unfortunately.

The only power that progressives might have is the power to help elect a Republican by voting 3rd party. They managed to that once already, and it didn't work out so well.

[Greyhound]

3. The parasite class will not surrender power willingly.

The continued march to disaster may end up being the catalyst we need to take this country back. I just wish there were a less horrific way.
:kick: & R

[madfloridian]

6. No, the privileged will not give up their power easily.

You are right.

[madfloridian]

4. More from Kagro X...comparing the Blue Dog and New Dems.

I can't find his post, but slinker quoted him in her post at Kos today.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/12/85750/1166/123/696532

And our own KagroX, in the discussion between Nate Silver and Chris Bowers, points out that the Blue Dogs benefit politically by not associating themselves with the Democratic party or with President Obama:

..."If it were truly ideological, what would explain the disparity between the New Dems and the Blue Dogs on last week's vote given, as Chris notes, the overlap between the two groups?

One answer, of course, is that neither group is particularly cohesive ideologically, which I think is true.

Another is that one ideological difference between Blue Dogs and New Dems is that Blue Dogs more often appear to have a political interest in being seen as distinct from Democrats rather than being a distinct type of Democrat, as is the claim of New Dems.

New Dems and Progressives have a political interest (at least at this stage of the game) in allowing themselves to be closely associated with the Obama administration, and in being seen not to be obstructing it. Blue Dogs, however, are a different story. They will, in large part, benefit politically by distancing themselves, and being seen as only skeptical, cautious and hesitant participants in his plans.

I remember calling FL Blue Dog, Allen Boyd's office to talk about the FISA bill. I asked why he voted against what our party stood for. His aide told me it took courage to vote against your own party. She seemed so proud of it.

[madfloridian]

5. Did Evan Bayh form his Senate Blue Dogs? That's all we need.

Senate New Dem members give clue to Evan Bayh's new Senate Blue Dogs.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) is trying to mobilize moderate Democratic Senators to form a group based loosely on the House Blue Dog Coalition.

To suggest that this move is intended to "break the gridlock" is extremely disingenuous. The intended effect is the opposite. Namely, to support do-nothing Republican Senators in their perpetual quest to make sure the Senate is never able to pass any worthwhile legislation. To borrow a phrase from Yossarian, "The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."

...."Not only does he seem poised to move even further to the right, but he also provides incredible cover for Senate Republicans whose legislative strategy has been reduced to gumming up the works at every opportunity. It will be hard for Senate Democrats to place the blame squarely on obstructionist Republicans if a group of worthless conservative Democrats led by Senator Bayh is helping them get to 40 on major issue after major issue.

The closer to the GOP point of view....the greater the chance of Democrats having power. They have power because they are willing to destroy the party and give the power back to the Republicans.

[Lost in CT]

7. There is a Progressive caucus??? nt

[madfloridian]

8. Kind of sad we never hear much about it. 9 times as much about the Blue Dogs.

There is no way the progressives will threaten to hurt the party and harm Obama's agenda. The harm done may come later if the conservative Dems gain too much control....it will come in the form of just not getting out the vote unless it matters in the long run.

[democracy1st]

9. K & R madfloridian ty

[madfloridian]

16. Thanks. Never forget the famous words of Jim Cooper.

And Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) also echoed these comments in an interview with the Wall Street Journal:

"Sitting in his office a stone's throw from where the festivities will take place, I ask about his role in the big transformation coming to Washington. He's one of the leaders of a gang of moderate Democrats called the Blue Dogs. They're meeting their first Democratic president in a while, and Mr. Cooper may have a big effect on the agenda. He smiles gently and says, "If we were to ally with the Republicans, we could swing any vote in the House of Representatives." He hastens to add, "We don't want to do that, we aren't planning on doing that."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/12/85750/1166/123/696532

[madfloridian]

10. From the comments in the TPM article.

I like to read comments sometimes. There are some good ones.

"I think one fundamental point of the difference between the power base of the Blue Dogs and the Progressive Caucus is missed here. The Blue Dogs have considerable more leverage than the Progessive Caucus because there are almost 180 representatives in a voting bloc to their right (the GOP), while the Progressive Caucus doesn't have something similar to their left.

Let's face it, the Blue Dogs have a much easier environment to operate because they can threaten to move en masse to the GOP position on any given bill and successfully kill it. This is why we hear more about there positions in the media, they have a means to end. Completely unfortunate in my opinion, but it is reality."

That is true, no one for the Progressives to cater to.

And another:

"Patience all. The shift to left will be noticeable and recognized by all. See what an inauguration can do to make that happen, and continue to notice the progressive shift of the power axis continue to grind for the next 6-12 months as the steady stream of information becomes a gusher of egregious criminal acts flooding out of the DOJ faster than rethugs can say 'damage control' much less do it."

Waiting and hoping for that.

[Liberty Belle]

11. There's a new populist caucus! For middle class values:

Details here:

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/?q=node/551

Thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3736979

[madfloridian]

12. Thanks for the links. Checking them out. I had heard something about that.

We could sure use one of those.

:hi:

[snot]

13. K&R'd -- V. IMPT.

[madfloridian]

14. Thanks. It is VERY important for our party....most would rather we ignore it.

I have been told I have been negative lately...well, okay, I am about some things.

I think there is almost a complete shutting out of anyone in the party who is not a Blue Dog or a New Dem.

Bottom line, period. End of statement.

It infuriates me, and it scares me for what is coming in 2010.

The activists, grassroots, progressives either matter all the time...or they don't matter at all.

[snot]

15. Agreed. IMHO, media reform and election reform should be our top priorities.

[madfloridian]

17. We were thinking about cancelling our XM subscription....

because of the recent talk line-up changes. Then we realized without XM, we would not have access to any liberal radio. Not in our area.

Yes, there has to be something done. If the moneyed left would take the issue seriously and buy media outlets like the moneyed right does...it would help. Not a good history of that though.

[notesdev]

18. It's a matter of them being the swing vote

so naturally they'll get a lot of attention. When was the last time the Progressive Caucus was the swing vote?

[madfloridian]

19. That's basically what I said.

"As someone pointed out to me in another thread, the only way to get the attention of the party leaders is to threaten to harm the party's agenda.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your view.....progressives seldom threaten to harm the agenda of their party in order to give the power back to the other party."

We have nowhere to go.

[bertman]

20. Too late to recommend, but here's the kick. Excellent thread. We need to get Animal Control

to take these Blue Dogs to the pound. All of the mangy curs have distemper and there are a few that are downright rabid. Neutering might be the answer for some, but a bunch of them are beyond help.

[mmonk]

21. Bush's dems threaten us more than they do the republicans.

I will work hard for their defeat. They aided the bush administration in crimes and I never will forget them or accept them no matter how much the House or Senate leadership or white House wants to shine their shoes.