"If moderate Dems vote No on jobs bill, they’re only hurting themselves"

[Pirate Smile]

If moderate Dems vote No on jobs bill, they’re only hurting themselves

By Greg Sargent

-snip-
In an interview with me this morning, Greenberg made a strong case that moderate Senate Democrats in red states would be foolish and shortsighted if they vote against the American Jobs Act today, as some of them appear to be prepared to do. The White House and Dems have been railing against Republicans for opposing the jobs bill, but if a few Senate Dems defect, and a simple majority of the Senate doesn’t support it, that will dilute the Dem message that Republicans are the key obstacle to progress on the economy.
But Greenberg’s case for voting for the bill went significantly beyond this concern about overall party messaging. He argued that moderate Democrats who vote against it are actually imperiling their own reelection chances.

“They reduce their risks for reelection by showing support for a jobs bill that’s going to be increasingly popular as voters learn more about it,” Greenberg said. “They have to be for something on the economy, and this the kind of proposal they should support. I were advising them, I’d say you want to be backing a jobs bill with middle class tax cuts paid for by tax hikes on millionaires. Moderate voters in these states very much want to raise taxes on the wealthy to meet their obligations.”

Crucially, Greenberg pointed out that if moderate Dems are hoping to show distance from the President and his low approval numbers by voting against the jobs bill, they run another risk: Dem disunity on the economy could backfire on them.
“Voting No would increase their risk of losing,” Greenberg said bluntly. “Democrats would look divided on their central agenda. In the end you all go down with the ship here. Why would you send Democrats back to the Senate if they are divided on the most important issue facing people? Here you can show unity and purpose, which Democrats have not had an opportunity to do during budget negotiations.”

Greenberg dismissed concerns about Obama’s overall numbers. “It’s a long time until the election, and the president’s standing can go up,” he said. “If the Democrats are divided and have a weak vote on the jobs bill, then moderates will only hurt themselves.”
One other separate point: As you may recall, Senate Dems complained vociferously for months that Obama had not used the bully pulpit effectively to rally support for his proposals. Well, now polls suggest that he has done just that. Yet that still hasn’t been enough to persuade some Senate Dems to maintain unity behind them. But as Greenberg notes, they follow that course at their own peril.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/if-moderate-dems-vote-no-on-jobs-bill-theyre-only-hurting-themselves/2011/10/11/gIQA1xVYcL_blog.html

Conservative/Moderate Dems were the root of all the problems we had even when we still controlled the House.

[OHdem10]

1. Those Senators had better stop complaining about Obama and

the Bully Pulpit. They are the Democratic Party.
They should be out making the case and explaining
the Democratic Way.

This idea that only Obama is supposed to talk is
the biggest loser for the Party.

Republicans are a dime a dozen and go on TV. This
is why they win. America gets one message--the
Republican Mesaage.

The Party had better start looking for Democrats
to run for office who will not avoid the TV Cameras.

[leveymg]

2. They're not "moderate" Dems - they're DINOs. If they vote against this Bill, we don't need them.

Let them form a third-party Radical Centrist Bloc with what remains of the reasonable Republicans.

If they vote against the Jobs Bill, they aren't real Democrats in any way.

[krawhitham]

4. And the President needs to call them out if they vote against it

[girl_interrupted]

6. +1

[saras]

8. Is it the President's job? Why can't the party just throw them out?

[former9thward]

10. You are a Democrat if you call yourself a Democrat.

There is no committee somewhere who judges your qualifications. Same thing if you are a Republican. If you are a Democrat did you have to explain your political positions to someone who then issued you a card? I didn't think so.

[LiberalFighter]

12. State laws determine whether one runs as a Democratic or Republican candidate.

State Party rules don't have any say in the matter. All they can do is remove anyone from a position within the Party.

[Hutzpa]

3. Well the message should be as clear as daylight

there use to be more than 12 blue dogs, you are now down to 3, so something is working and
has worked in the past that has helped reduce your numbers.

This should be made clear to them.

[karynnj]

5. I agree - there are more people for the bill, then against - even in their states

I think the Democrats blew it in 2010 partly because they were too scared to take the vote on extending JUST the tax cuts for the bottom 98%. (I actually would have wanted fewer extended.) That should have been a tough vote for the Republicans - not the Democrats. They would have voted - in essence to raise everyone's taxes to protect those at the very top - an extremely unpopular thing to do.

This, IMO, will be the same. A bill that does much - but too little - good things and it pays for it by raising taxes at the top and closing some loopholes. I can't imagine why Ben Nelson, for instance, can not sell this in Nebraska. How many people will pay higher taxes because of it in Nebraska?

[Clear Blue Sky]

7. What good is it for us to have a majority in the Senate if they can't even support their President?

[JustAnotherGen]

9. Any single one

Who votes against it must receive a primary challenge.

[truthN08]

11. I agree with you

I will throw money at the primary challenger of anyone who votes with the repukes on this.

[LiberalFighter]

13. Any Democrat that votes against the bill should be blacklisted

and any adviser or any other Democrat within campaigns or parties should be blacklisted.