Idiot Wind, Blowing Like a Circle Around My Skull

From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol [just to finish that phrase]

Probably like many of you, I've savored news of Dem take-downs of Repubs in several recent off-schedule federal elections. I did notice that in the most recent instance (Mississippi?) there was some speculation that the "D" candidate might be more conservative than the "R"! Troubling! Very much so.

Digby, as is commonly the case, calls on us to be more thoughtful about the implications, and rightly so. Why celebrate the election of a dirty-dog Dem when we have been working so hard (and expensively) to replace a few of their in-bred likely DNA-challenged incumbent counterparts with folks who actually support progressive and liberal programs? The never-clean-up-after-themselves bush shit-heelers have left such a monumental load in the Augean stables they will be leaving behind that we will have no luxury of carrying the water (feces?) for a bunch of cowardly, sniveling, semi-racist redneck dems-in-name-only. She definitely has a point:

I'm curious as to what you might think about this:

While much of the Congressional political focus has been on the declining fortunes and numbers of House Republicans, House Democrats have their own problem – they are winning too many elections.

By prevailing in conservative locales where they ordinarily would not have a chance, Democrats are widening the ideological divide in their own ranks and complicating their ability to find internal consensus.

This will be an interesting challenge. In the blogosphere we've been in the business of trying to elect more and better Democrats, by which we mean progressive. This raises the question: is more, without the better, a good idea?

The article asserts that the Democrats need to win much more in order to have a real working majority and there may be a chance this year to do it. But it still presents an interesting conundrum. What if you end up with a bigger majority of people with (D) after their names, but most of the new ones are conservative? It's not an unexpected outcome in a country that has, until recently, been very evenly divided.

The Republicans kept their "moderates" on a very short chain and consciously governed with as few cross over votes as possible in order to keep the other side frustrated and the caucus "pure." They got things done for a while, and protected their president with the loyalty of feral pit bulls, but ended up destroying themselves.

On the other hand, if the Democratic "moderates," the Blue Dogs, become the deciding factor in legislation, the change we will see will be incremental at best. Having the majority means that the most heinous right wing legislation never sees the light of day, so that's worth it, no matter what. But it's going to be very difficult to enact sweeping changes in policy unless these new Representatives are running explicitly on that agenda. Otherwise, they may very well vote with the Republicans, even if their president can raise lots of money for them. Money can't guarantee that Democrats in conservative districts can win.

I'm a big believer in padding the progressive caucus, so a new group of conservative Democrats seems like a mixed bag to me(although it's great to see Republicans reeling.) But it's happening and it is something for which we should prepare ourselves.