House votes are much more predictable, the S-CHIP bill being the lone exception where the final tally is not a mirror image of the partisan breakdown.
But as I was looking at the roll calls from today, something began to really stand out -- the grouping of votes from the Democratic "Freshman" Senators.
While all nine freshmen Dem senators teamed up to propose the Wartime Contracting ("Truman") Commission, Senators Casey (PA), Cardin (MD), and Whitehouse (RI) tend more toward the establishmentarian in many of their leanings -- which is not surprising given the states they come from, where Democratic machine politics is much more ingrained.
Senators Webb, McCaskill (MO), Tester (MT), Klobuchar (MN), Brown (OH), and Sanders (I-VT) however appear to be going their own ways together a large proportion of the time. These are all pretty sharp people, so I wouldn't be surprised if a conscious decision was made to try and form their own bloc in the Senate and begin building something for the future, i.e. the session in 2009, when they may be getting a large number of reinforcements.
Two of the interesting votes in which they were grouped together from the past two weeks in a minority that wasn't your usual R/D split:
Senate Vote 354, for raising the US national debt limit yet again -- all voted No, measure passed 53-42-5;
Senate Vote 349, the odious Kyl-Lieberman beat-the-Iran-war-drums Amendment --- all voted No, six of the 20 Democrats to do so;
Now, this thesis isn't airtight, as obviously there are differences in the voting record. Expanding again to the nine freshman Dem Sens, there is an especially tight grouping between Webb, Tester, McCaskill, and Klobuchar. Tester (as well as Brown, Cardin, Sanders, and Whitehouse) voted against the terrible Protect America Act that passed before the Congress went out of session in August, 60-28-12, while Webb, McCaskill, and Klobuchar voted for it.
Klobuchar (as well as Brown, Cardin, Sanders, and Whitehouse, again) voted for the Feingold total redeployment amendment that failed 28-70-2, while Webb, McCaskill, and Tester didn't. And of the nine, only Brown, Whitehouse, and Sanders voted against the silly Cornyn/Petraeus amendment (however, once it was clear the amendment could not or would not be quashed via procedural means, I completely understand why people voted for it, although I disagree with the vote).
But overall, the new elects from last year appear to be on their own path. I like what I see, aside from the FISA vote, and I hope they find a way to do better next time and prevent the bill that passed in August from becoming permanent and especially from allowing executive branch employees and telecoms from being legally indemnified against any illegal behavior.
Anyway, thought some people might find this interesting, as it's something to keep an eye on, especially if these Senators can keep pursuing common sense ideas like the modern Truman commission and maybe begin forming their own center of influence. The fact is, until we get rid of at least 10 more bad guys on the other side, their accomplishments are going to be very constrained. That's what 2008 is going to be about.
Looking strictly at economic populism, I definitely agree with the Dem Dakota Senators (I like Dorgan and Conrad alot; they're very good on fiscal issues) being added to the list. Byrd, too. And I might throw in Bingaman and Wyden, two other Dem Sens I like very much. I would argue Klobuchar has the voting record in her short tenure to be so included, but can't really back that up with data at this point. [I think Al Franken would add another good Minnesota prairie DFL voice to that mix starting in '09.]
Re: all the votes I discussed, Dorgan, Conrad, and Johnson all voted with the more establishment/majority Dem lines, i.e. for the Iran amendment (Grr...), for raising the debt ceiling (or is it deepening the 'debt abyss'?), for the FISA fix, for the MoveOn amendment. Of those discussed on this thread, Byrd, Stabenow, and Bingaman all voted for the firm deadline Feingold Iraq withdrawal amendment.
I think these differences are probably better described as anti-establishment, as you alluded to. Obviously, the debt ceiling 'had' to be raised, as nobody wants to actually raise taxes or cut spending, as that would possibly lead to accountability down the road -- so in some respects, the votes of the six freshmen on the debt amendment could be called a vanity vote. But that vote and the Iran one were what really piqued my interest and made me notice that grouping.
I feel very anti-establihsment these days, and not very impressed with Reid/Durbin/Schumer in the Senate. Baucus, Pryor, Rockefeller, and Lautenberg are four useless Dems up for re-election next year from states where populists/progressives could easily be elected. I would LOVE to see them retired along with 20+ Republican gasbags, and give Senator Webb more allies with which to 'explore the studio space.'
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Debbie Stebenow (D-MI)
Bryon Dorgan (D-ND)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Jim Webb (D-VA)
I sure hope you're right because I hate to say it, but with basically DLC type Democrats running for President it's going to be up to congress to really get a change of trade, economic, strategy direction.
As it is, I feel like the Democratic party is becoming the illegal immigration advocacy group and frankly not only is this not in line with the rest of the country, it's not a good thing economically or for working America. It's also not even the position of the AFL-CIO (which is "Pro amnesty") and that should tell you something. I'm whining now but if I see one more YAIID (yet another illegal immigrant diary) while ignoring, completely ignoring the reality of depressed wages, the net economic losses and how income inequality is really hitting US diversity (legal, U.S. citizens of diversity status within the US such as today's statistics that a black male is 3x more likely to be in jail than college) I'm going to scream. It's the anti-thesis of economic justice and fairness for Americans.
It is just one element that is not fair but the focus on this is astounding and this open border agenda will most assuredly really hurt working America.
I don't think that Democrats are an illegal immigration advocacy group, though, and I think the majority of Americans want to control immigration, but think the ideas bandied about so far (fence/wall) to do so are absurd.
While I enjoy the schadenfreude of seeing the Republicans torn asunder when the xenophobic base and the corporatists that feast on the limitless supply of cheap labor to pad their bottom lines face off, the policy is definitely out of whack. But I think it has more to do with the trade policies and the fact that unionized labor has been effectively destroyed in this country.
Republicans have 'supply side' answers to every question (drugs, immigrants), when the answers are usually demand side, IMO. As long as there is no comprehensive North American labor market a la the EU and there are no jobs in Mexico for people to support their families, Mexicans will try to get here to improve their own lives. I can't begrudge anyone that. We need a long term policy addressing jobs in both countries if we want to stem the 'demand' for cheap labor. Control of rates of immigration probably ought to be lowered, too, until we can get this under control and allow the labor market to stabilize, but enforcement of this stuff is not easy.
Constant, constant attempts to mix "immigrants" with illegal immigration and they some sort of belief that illegal immigrants have every right to do this and they plain do not.
You are dead right that the issue is economic inequality, while the US economic inequality is high (right below Mexico on a global standing) Mexico is much, much worse and getting rid of those bad trade agreements and demanding Mexico do something about it's corruption, income inequality, lack of opportunity and so forth is the only real way to stop people from trying to get here...but on the other hand, the above is really just unbelievable.
Our new Freshman Dems are not doing it or most of the ones I just listed, it's more the DLC Dems plus the Presidential candidates.
I deal with H-1B, L-1 guest worker Visas that labor arbitrate US professional workers and this issue is often attached to the illegal one and I mean, it really, really is insane on the Democratic side (of course the GOP side is more than willing to sell US workers down the river for even a 100,000 dollar campaign check).