Hear What Media is Saying About New Democrats in the 110th Congress

In push to regain Congress, Democrats take a more centrist tack ELECTIONS 2006

Shaila Dewan and Anne E. Kornblut
The New York Times

31 October 2006
In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party.

Heath Shuler is just such a candidate. Shuler, a retired National Football League quarterback, comes from an evangelical Christian background and holds fast to many conservative social views like opposition to abortion rights.

But if candidates like Shuler do help the Democrats gain majority control of Congress, it will come at a political price, raising the possibility of a new centrist tilt to the Democratic Party.

"My guess is that if Democrats are in the majority, it's going to be because of these New Democrat, Blue Dog candidates out there winning in these competitive swing districts," Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, co-chairman of a caucus of centrist Democrats in the House, said in an interview.

Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans in targeted districts, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected a more moderate approach. That is especially true in suburban areas and some rural districts, according to Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"As a group, they are moderate in temperament and reformers in spirit," Emanuel said.

If Democratic recruits like Shuler do arrive on Capitol Hill as members of the majority, they would not have much power individually to change the face of Congress. The party elders would remain in committee chairmanships and House leadership, and several party officials said they did not expect a moderate revolution to erupt or to threaten the position of Representative Nancy Pelosi of California as the Democratic Party leader in the House.

"But will they have an impact? Absolutely," Emanuel said. "They're going to have an impact on the Congress and the caucus."

Collectively, the group could tilt the balance of power within the party, which has been struggling to define itself in recent elections.

The candidates cover the spectrum on political issues some are fiscally conservative and moderate or liberal on social issues, or the reverse. Their weight could help tip the balance, depending on how narrow the majority is in the House, as well as influence negotiations with Republicans on everything from Social Security to stem cell research.

Shuler, who addresses environmental conservation from the viewpoint of an avid hunter and speaks of health care for the poor as a moral responsibility, is a prime example.

There are currently two main groups of moderate Democrats in the House: the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of socially conservative and moderate members formed in 1994; and the centrist New Democrat Coalition, formed in 1997.

While there are differences between the two the Blue Dogs tend to be more rural and Southern, with occasional alliances with Republicans, while the New Democrats are more suburban and wealthy and place a premium on party loyalty there are members who belong to both. Representative Ellen Tauscher of California, the chairman of the 47-member New Democrat Coalition, said that 27 of the top 40 most contested House seats are being pursued by Democrats who have pledged to become members of the group, which claims its chief issues are national security matters and fiscal responsibility.

"I think there's tremendous agreement and awareness that getting the majority and running over the left cliff is what our Republican opponents would dearly love," Tauscher said, "And that is a compunction that we've got to fight."

The centrist movement was embodied by former President Bill Clinton, who rose to prominence through the Democratic Leadership Council, which embraced a so-called "third way" of politics and eschewed what it saw as outdated liberalism. Yet since Clinton left office, Democrats seem to drift back in the direction of their liberal identity, nominating two presidential contenders who were seen as less committed to the moderate cause.

Shuler, 34, grew up in a Democratic family, the son of a mailman in Bryson City, North Carolina. He has set out to bring conservative Democrats who have voted Republican, like Brenda Davis, back into the fold.

From behind the counter at Spud and Deb's Hunting and Pet Supplies in Enka, North Carolina, Davis, 41, said she voted Republican in the last election because of her religious beliefs, but this time around is supporting Shuler.

"Considering my son is a marine and he's done two tours in Iraq," Davis said, "I'm with the Democrats."

In 2001, Republicans tried unsuccessfully to persuade Shuler, then living in Knoxville, Tennessee, to run for Congress even though he had rarely shown interest enough in politics to vote.

But Democrats found Shuler an equally appealing candidate, for some of the same reasons. Despite his lack of political experience, polls indicate that he has pushed the Republican incumbent in the 11th Congressional District, Representative Charles Taylor, into a dead heat.

Dems, lobbyists may expand partnership

By Jim Snyder
The Hill
12
English
Copyright 2006, Capitol Hill Publishing Corp. All Rights Reserved.

There have been hotter tickets on K Street than the informal breakfasts sponsored by a group of centrist House Democrats.

Off and on for the past two years, the New Democrat Coalition (NDC), a "pro-growth" group that bills itself as a link between Democrats and the business community, have held regular meetings with a few friends and financial backers on K Street.

Over coffee and a modest breakfast, the handful of lobbyists who regularly attended swapped ideas with members and helped them develop a list of priorities, as they all dreamed of the day when Democrats regained control of the House so that they could actually implement the agenda.

But even if Democrats fall short of the majority this midterm, New Democrats and like-minded lobbyists say they may need to hold their meetings in a bigger room.

In a more evenly divided House, groups like the New Democrats and the Blue Dogs, a group of centrist-to-conservative Democrats, will likely hold greater sway over the legislative agenda, and therefore will be more sought after among K Streeters.

"On every issue, no matter the outcome in November, the slim majority will result in enormous influence for the NDC and other moderate blocs," said Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who directs the NDC political action committee.

Moreover, Smith added, the Democrats who take over Republican seats will most likely represent swing areas that favor centrist candidates, adding to the New Dem numbers and influence on Capitol Hill.

"The closer we get [to the majority], the more relevant the New Dems are," said Coalition Chairwoman Ellen Tauscher of California.

Lobbyists who have attended the regular meetings say that they were among the few on K Street who bothered with House Democrats, who were up against a majority that put a premium on party discipline.

"Any number of lobbyists on K Street thought the best play was the Senate because they could have a greater impact," says attendee said.

With a solid majority and firm grip on the Rules Committee, which decides which amendments can be introduced on the floor, House Republican leaders could pretty much determine the legislative agenda on their own, the lobbyist said. It was up to Democrats in the Senate, where the margin was closer, to block policies the party opposed.

But in recent months both New Dems and Blue Dogs have both done a "great job of presenting themselves as key to control the next Congress," said another Democratic lobbyist.

That success can be seen in the money both groups have raised in the run-up to the election.

The New Democrat Coalition PAC has raised nearly $500,000, distributing funds to more than 30 candidates. That number includes 21 challengers who would add to the ranks of the 43-member group if elected.

The Blue Dogs have done an even better job raising money. The group for the first time has raised over $1 million for candidates it supports.

Other caucuses, too, will be competing for the hearts and minds of party leadership. There are 64 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, whose ranks include several members in line to take over key committees should Democrats win back the majority.

New Dems, with members from urban or suburban areas, and Blue Dogs, with a more rural base, are likely to be in conflict at times, too, particularly over social issues.

On those occasions Blue Dogs could be tough to beat. Lobbyists who support both groups say Blue Dogs have been more unified, focusing on budget issues, and attracted more support downtown. The group also sponsors weekly meetings with lobbyists.

But while New Dems have lost members in recent years, lobbyists said the result has been a more cohesive group that could rival the Blue Dogs in business community backing. Members are now required to regularly attend coalition meetings to demonstrate their commitment.

One thing that hasn't changed is the New Dems closeness to the high-tech community. Many of its members hail from districts with a large number of high-tech jobs.

Members are strong supporters of the "innovation agenda" developed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that seeks more money to support math and science education, permanent extension of the popular research and development tax credit, and a goal for universal broadband Internet access within the next five years.

In August, Smith, Tauscher and fellow New Dems Joseph Crowley and Carolyn McCarthy, both of New York, met executives from Sun, Oracle, Google, Yahoo!, Cisco, and several financial services groups in a series of meetings in Silicon Valley.

That followed a retreat last spring at the Hyatt Regency Resort at Chesapeake Bay. Lobbyists who attended had to have contributed $5,000 to the PAC. Twelve New Dem members and more than 100 congressional staff members and K Street lobbyists attended the retreat.

And the breakfast meetings, once held once a month, have been "amped up," in the words of one congressional aide, to once a week. Regularly attendees include: Dan Tate, of Capitol Solutions, Cory Alexander of Fannie Mae, Matt Tanielian of Cisco, Josh Ackil of the Information Technology Industry Council, Bruce Andrews of Quinn Gillespie, Scott Parven at Clark Consulting, and Melissa Schulman of the Bockorny Group.

Lobbyists said their clients could be expected to take an even greater interest in New Dems after the election.

"For a long time there were entire sections of the business community that haven't looked at these groups," Tate said. "But there is a natural fit there."

That doesn't mean, though, that business groups can expect to be as welcome in Democratic offices as they are in Republican ones.

"We represent swing districts," Tauscher said. "But we are damn good Democrats."

Dems face a tug-of-war in own tent
- Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Sunday, October 29, 2006

(10-29) 04:00 PST Washington -- It is an article of faith among many liberals that Democrats must advance a bold agenda if they win a majority in the House of Representatives next month.

From expanded health care and scaling back President Bush's tax cuts to withholding money from the Pentagon's war budget and investigating high crimes and misdemeanors, there is enormous pent-up energy to accomplish what could not be done during 12 years in the minority.

Yet as Democratic leaders, including would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, gear up for an increasingly plausible scenario, they face competing demands likely to temper their liberal ambitions.

The new Democratic majority, should it occur, will consist of a fresh crop of moderate and conservative members whose elections will have been won in part by distancing themselves from the party's progressive wing.

Faced with possible Republican control of the Senate, the president's veto pen and most likely a narrow edge in the House, many Democrats insist they must moderate their agenda and reach out to Republicans to expand their majority and improve their chances of winning the White House in 2008.

"The only thing worse than not taking back the House would be taking it back for one term,'' warned Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, an officer in the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 37 conservative and moderate House Democrats. "I think even the most 'liberal' person in our caucus understands that. There's folks who may not believe that things are going as fast as they want them to go, but they understand we have to be pragmatists."

'An open opportunity'

That view is certainly not reflected on conservative talk radio, where there are warnings about a virtual revolution if liberals such as New York's Charles Rangel (Ways and Means) and Michigan's John Conyers (Judiciary) take over committee leadership posts and Pelosi exports "San Francisco values" to every district in the country.

Thompson's view may not be fully embraced by the Democratic base, which believes its loud and persistent protest of Republican leadership is responsible for the party's rising stock.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, whose North Bay district adjoins Thompson's, said a Democratic majority would allow the party to thrust into the national spotlight big issues such as getting troops out of Iraq and offering universal health.

"It's an open opportunity for Democrats to stand up," said Woolsey, who is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of 62 liberal members.

Woolsey said she would support a measure to cut portions of the Pentagon's budget and censure Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld if it would speed up U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

"We can't run an election against what (Bush) is doing in Iraq and not do something about it once we get the majority back," Woolsey said.

Pelosi's challenge is to navigate a course that will satisfy the liberals who form the party's base and conservatives whose success is critical to the party retaining its power. It is a juggling act that has already tested Pelosi's skills as House minority leader since her election to that post by the caucus after the November 2002 campaign, but one that will grow much more difficult and consequential if Democrats are in the majority.

The 66-year-old Pelosi's personal ideology and most of her San Francisco constituents are more closely aligned with the liberals, yet the pragmatism that has thus far marked her role as a party leader has steered her to promote a more centrist course.

"If we win ... we will have to govern from the middle," Pelosi said. "Our guiding principles will be to foster integrity, civility and fiscal responsibility."

For now, Pelosi is promoting a legislative strategy with broad appeal should Democrats capture the 15 seats they need to regain a majority they lost in 1994.

If chosen by the Democrats as their leader, Pelosi has pledged that on her first day as speaker she will enact rules to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation," and on the second day she has called on the House to adopt all 41 recommendations made by the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission. Within the first 100 legislative hours, Pelosi has pledged to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, cut interest rates on student loans in half, allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients, expand federal backing of stem cell research, and end subsidies to big oil.

The legislation probably would draw support from the entire Democratic caucus and put an interesting test to Republicans and Bush, who has vetoed just one bill during his presidency.

More of the Democratic agenda is contained in a glossy 25-page book put out by Pelosi (www.housedemocrats.gov) and includes specific proposals such as doubling the size of the military's special forces, requiring automakers to build more cars that can use ethanol, expanding the research and development tax credit, and matching up to $1,000 in contributions made by middle-income workers into retirement plans, to vague policy objectives such as a pledge to "eliminate Osama bin Laden."

Broader goals not in plan

The plan does not include broader liberal goals such as universal health care or withdrawal from Iraq, or explain how to boost spending without raising taxes or adding to the budget. Nor does it address what sort of inquiries might be ordered by legislators such as Reps. Henry Waxman of Los Angeles or John Dingell of Michigan, who would be given subpoena power and vastly expanded resources as committee chairmen.

With Bush as president, some Democrats caution against high expectations.

"It is important to keep in mind that if Democrats win the House, and even the Senate, we're still the opposition party. We're not in a position to run the country," said Bruce Reed, a former top adviser to President Bill Clinton and now president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

"The most we can hope for is to force a negotiation over how the country is run, and that is a significant improvement over our current lot in life, but it's not the same as setting the agenda," Reed said.

Democrats and Bush have a poor record of cooperation, though some of the biggest accomplishments of recent presidencies -- tax overhaul under President Ronald Reagan, welfare overhaul under Clinton -- occurred when the Congress and White House were controlled by different parties.

After losing consecutive presidential elections and control of the House for 12 years, as well as being the minority party in the Senate for 10 1/2 of the past dozen years, liberal and conservative Democrats are displaying a patience with one another that was not as evident in past years.

Bob Borosage, co-director of Campaign for America's Future, a liberal advocacy group, said he expects there will be a "grace period" if Democrats win control of the House, during which liberals and moderates will easily unite around the sort of agenda that Pelosi has advanced.

But he said many liberals will grow restless if Democrats do not force a change of course in Iraq, and there will be a big push from progressives to spend more on social programs for housing, education and health care, which Democrats believe have been neglected by Republicans.

Trade could cause division

Borosage said the first big split could be over trade, where Democrats will be torn over whether to extend the president's fast track authority, which allows him to negotiate trade deals without advance congressional approval and is up for renewal in June. Some issues such as gun control are not expected even to make it to the table. Others, such as restrictions on automobile emissions, may pit environmentalists against Democrats close with the auto unions, which are fearful of losing jobs.

In the weeks leading up to the election, however, even liberal Democrats have been talking like moderates.

Rangel said: "God knows, the Democratic leadership will be reaching across the aisle.

"We have to for two reasons. One, we can't get Democrats to walk lockstep no matter how hard we try. Two, we will never have the margins -- even if we did do it -- to get anything done," he said.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, who would chair the Ways and Means Committee's health subcommittee, said he would like to pursue a plan for universal health care but added: "What I want to do and what I think we are able to do are not the same."

Though his own East Bay constituents want Bush's "hide nailed to the door," he thinks it unlikely the House will pursue articles of impeachment, as some in the base have demanded.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, who is chairwoman of the New Democratic Coalition, a group of several dozen moderate Democrats, credits Pelosi with tempering the party's most ideological extremes and unifying members behind a common agenda.

"We are united and joined together by values and by virtue of the fact that we want to not only earn the majority, we want to remain in the majority,'' Tauscher said of the party's pragmatism. "It's important to remember that we're going to have a number of Democrats in seats that had been held by Republicans, and the GOP is going to come roaring back in 2008 and try to knock them off.

"We are forced by economic circumstances, the war, and many different reasons, to attack some of these big ticket items with incrementalism," Tauscher said.

Democratic heavyweights

A House Democratic majority -- should it happen in the Nov. 7 midterm elections -- would install a new lineup of veteran lawmakers to influential posts. The final say on committee chairs would be decided when the House convenes in January, but a few of the more prominent chairs probably will go to:

Ways and Means: Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who has represented Harlem for 36 years, would head the committee where all tax bills originate. Rangel has been a consistent opponent of President Bush's tax cuts and can be expected to push Democratic proposals for tax cuts narrowly aimed at the poor and middle class. Rangel has worked with Republicans on trade issues but is expected to push for stronger protections for American workers.

Judiciary: John Conyers, D-Mich., has represented the Detroit area for 42 years. He is the second-longest serving member of the House and one if its most liberal. Conyers was a member of the Judiciary Committee when it voted articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon in 1974. Last December, Conyers introduced a resolution calling on the House to form a committee to investigate the Bush administration's war policies "and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.'' He has been a consistent critic of the Patriot Act, and the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance and military tribunal policies.

Government Reform: Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, has represented portions of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood for 32 years, and is expected to become the Democrats' chief congressional investigator. As chair of the panel's Health and Environment subcommittee prior to the Republican takeover in 1994, Waxman held high-profile hearings on AIDS, Medicaid benefits and drinking water. It was during a 1994 Waxman investigation into tobacco companies during which executives famously testified that nicotine was not addictive and they did not market to children. Waxman has expressed interest in investigating Iraq reconstruction, including Halliburton's no-bid contracts, the response to Hurricane Katrina and homeland security spending should he become chair.

Energy and Commerce: John Dingell, D-Mich., is the longest-serving member of the House, arriving in 1955, when Nancy Pelosi was still a teenager. Dingell has led tenacious inquiries into energy and communications monopolies as well as the Department of Energy labs run by the University of California, and is expected to launch oversight hearings into the Federal Communications Commission if he becomes chair. Representing the Detroit area, Dingell has opposed raising fuel efficiency standards and helped Republicans thwart gun control legislation, which puts him at odds with a number of Democratic colleagues.

Financial Services: Barney Frank, D-Mass., has represented the Boston suburbs for 26 years and is widely regarded as possessing one of the sharpest minds, and tongues, in Congress. That he is often featured in Republican campaign attacks probably has more to do with his homosexuality and his liberal voting record than any particular financial service issues. As chair of the committee that oversees banking, Frank is expected to work to expand the availability of loans to the middle class and the pool of available housing.

###

Home | Press