Waxman sees bright side to Nov: 'Difficult' Dems won't be back

[kpete]

Waxman sees bright side to Nov: 'Difficult' Dems won't be back
By Russell Berman and Molly K. Hooper - 08/05/10 06:00 AM ET

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) believes the November elections will likely weed out some of “most difficult Democrats” that leadership lawmakers have dealt with this Congress.

In an interview with The Hill, the Energy and Commerce Committee chairman expressed confidence that Democrats will retain the House, and suggested he won’t miss some of the Democrats who won’t be back next year.

“I think a lot of the House seats we’re going to lose are those who have been the toughest for the Democrats to pull into line — the Democrats that have been the most difficult,” Waxman said.

more:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/112767-waxman-sees-bright-side-to-nov-losses

[still_one]

1. and who will those "difficult" Democrats be replaced with? Most likely extreme right wing repukes

If they were replaced by progressive Democrats that would be one thing, but replacing a "difficult" Democrat with a repuke does not help us, especially if it causes us to lose the majority

Nice rationalization Henry

[Phoonzang]

3. Yep. Not the brightest thing he's ever said. nt

[zipplewrath]

4. Actually, it is something of a wash

As long as they have a "working majority" the conservative democrats can do more harm than a republican. Conservative democrats are something of a Trojan horse and if nothing else give other democrats someone to hide behind and blame for positions they basically actually want. There's more than one unidentified Senator in that camp as well. Even if we had 63 dems in the Senate, we'd find difficulty getting things passed.

[Pirate Smile]

9. It is replacing someone who votes with the Dems 60% of the time with someone who votes with Dems 0%

of the time.

[still_one]

10. That is a different point, but I would argue if it is a republican, he won't be voting

with the Democrats 99% of the time

[Pirate Smile]

12. True. I also think there is a difference between a Ben Nelson and a Joe Lieberman.

They both drive me nuts but Nelson is from a red state (although we won the Omaha electoral vote since they divide them by congressional district, like Maine) while Lieberman is from a liberal state. We could and should have a reliable D vote from Connecticut. Most people will be more willing to take the blue dog crap from a Dem from a red state.

[T Wolf]

2. Yes. Good riddance to bad rubbish, etc... These "problem children" losing their seats

will not hurt any progressive legislation because they do not vote to support things like that anyway.

(Temporarily) losing a seat to a puke may be the cost of getting rid of the fake Dems. As long as they win and stay in office, they have no reason to change and will not do so.

[msongs]

5. dems who act like repubs are likely to lose - whatta surprise to dems nt

[Autumn]

6. I think I agree with him,

makes a lot of sense to me.

[Beacool]

7. Hey Waxman, I guess that you prefer to deal with "difficult" Republicans.

Asinine remark........

:eyes:

[still_one]

11. and potentially lose the majority and set the agenda. I agree with you /nt

[CakeGrrl]

13. No it isn't. "Difficult" Democrats ARE the problem.

We KNOW how and where Republicans stand. And when they want to oppose something, they know how to stand together and do it. That should be obvious to anyone paying attention to votes on major legislation.

Waxman witnessed the President persuading a waffling Dem to vote for the agenda against the fear that they would not be re-elected, which is, ironically, the thing his biggest critics here on DU keep admonishing the President to do or else be primaried.

So there it is. Waxman is witness to the very waffling in the House that some DUers accuse the President of doing. I'd assume they'd be on board with his position on general principles.

[Nite Owl]

8. They vote with the GOP

anyway so no lose. The whole BlueDog experiment didn't work out too well.