Republican anti-EPA jihad, explained

[n2doc]

BY DAVID ROBERTS

7 OCT 2011 12:49 PM

National Journal's Ronald Brownstein, one of the sharpest political observers out there, has an excellent column examining the unusual party discipline House Republicans have displayed in recent votes against EPA regulations. There has been an unceasing march of such efforts, and they are not only garnering near-unanimous support from Republicans in districts Obama carried in 2008, they are getting lots of votes from Democrats in Obama districts.

This is not typical. Historically, Republicans in blue suburban areas have tread lightly around air and water issues, which consistently poll well in their districts. Brownstein reviews the record:

In 1995, newly ascendant House Republicans under then-Speaker Newt Gingrich also targeted a series of environmental regulations. But Gingrich faced growing resistance rooted in the suburbs: The number of House Republicans voting no rose from two on a measure that February to require tougher cost-benefit analysis on regulations, to 34 on legislation in May to dilute the Clean Water Act, to 63 on a measure that failed in November to constrain EPA’s enforcement.

As Brownstein says, that's not happening today. This is his diagnosis:

Partly, the answer is that the overall pressure for party loyalty is even greater now than it was then. Green-oriented Republicans no longer have the leadership that venerable moderates such as now-retired Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York provided. And the fossil-fuel industry is amplifying its influence inside the caucus by placing almost all of its chips on Republicans: So far in the 2012 cycle, coal and oil and gas interests have directed about 90 percent of their formidable campaign contributions toward the GOP.

more
http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-10-07-republican-anti-epa-jihad-explained

Basically, they aren't going to stop until voters toss them out.

[kristopher]

1. the fossil-fuel industry is ...placing almost all of its chips on Republicans

"...coal and oil and gas interests have directed about 90 percent of their formidable campaign contributions toward the GOP."

On the bright side, that diminishes the potential for blue dog obstruction if/when we do take control.

[txlibdem]

2. If HCR wasn't enough evidence against the blue dogs... vote them out

The Democratic Party needs to concentrate everywhere BUT the bible belt and / or GOP wingnut central. We can take all of the other states *if* the Democratic candidates there keep hammering the record of the GOP and the continued message of the GOP: no taxes for the rich but the poor guy on life support can die and grandma and grandpa can foot the bill for Wall Street bonuses (and the next time they crash the economy is starts all over again)!

We do not need a single Corporate Dem or blue dog under our "tent." The only thing they'll do is obstruct.

WE THE PEOPLE need to stand up this coming election like never before. Just like Wisconsin, and the Occupy Wall Street / Occupy Together movements.

[happyslug]

3. That is a recipe for defeat

The rural North has a strong tendency to the GOP, thus it is hard to win control of Congress without some Southern support to offset the Rural North's tendency to vote GOP. The only time a party did not run a National Campaign was in 1860 and 1888 elections. In the 1860 election the GOP ran a non-south base election campaign, the GOP won, but it lead to Civil War.

The 1888 is a better view, Cleveland ran a South base Campaign, he won more votes then the GOP, but lost the election (The only time when Candidate won over 50% of the vote and lost the election, the other times the election was lost by the person who received the most votes, that person did NOT get 50% of the Vote).

My point is we need at least some votes from the South, even if that means Conservative Democrats. The South is much more progressive on economic issues then Social issues, we have to give those people the option of voting their economic issues, that will permit the Democrats in the South to win some elections, which will increase the power of the Democrats in the South, and nationally.

[txlibdem]

5. I seem to recall that bringing blue dogs on board wasn't quite as helpful as we'd hoped

All they did was vote with the GOP and block legislation straight from the Democratic Platform. I think you may have it backwards on that point.

As far as Conserva-Dems being useful for anything besides digging holes to bury the middle class... I can't think of it. Conservative = enemy of the middle class and the poor. Conservative = targets Social Security and Medicare -- "entitlements." But tax cuts for the rich aren't "entitlements," they're business as usual.

We need to intelligently plan our targets and pound the facts using every media we have! No conservative wolves in sheep's clothing. No right wingers. We don't need them this time. Their actions and words have buried them already. We just have to keep laser focused on reminding the American people of the facts, not the GOP talking points.

[xchrom]

4. recommend