"Tuesday Dogs” All Bark and No Bite?
Amid all the hoopla last week hailing the Blue Dogs’ new place in the sun were a couple articles suggesting the conservative Democrats would work with the moderate Republican Tuesday Group on a number of issues. Mark Kirk's (R-IL) office is already dubbing the new team the “Tuesday Dogs.” But aside from the fact that both groups face political challenges at home and in their respective caucuses, what do F-150 Democrats and Volvo Republicans really have in common?
In general, the Tuesday Groupers represent suburban districts that encompass towns like ritzy Fairfield, CT, and Lake Forest, IL, while the Blue Dogs are rural Democrats from places like the Napoleonville, LA, and Port St. Joe, FL.
As the geography would suggest, this presents a cultural rift. A number of Blue Dogs, including boss hog John Tanner (D-TN), voted to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case while a couple Tuesday Groupers, including likely 110th Congress co-chair Charlie Dent (R-PA), spoke out against the measure.
It is also hard to see where the two coalitions would strike a common chord on matters like trade or energy. An analysis of CD’s reveals that the median household income in Tuesday Group districts hovers around $50K/year -- which is about $10K more than it is in Blue Dog districts. Moreover, the poverty level is higher in Blue Dog districts (~14%) and their constituents are more likely to work blue-collar jobs. [PATRICK OTTENHOFF]
On energy issues, where the Blue Dogs have had trouble finding consensus, a rep from AR or LA may be more likely to consider the argument for oil exploration in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico through an economic lens, while Chris Shays (R-CT) focuses on defending ANWR’s caribou for Greenwich’s trustafarians. On trade issues, it seems likely that the Tuesday Group would turn to free-traders at the DLC or the New Dems before the Blue Dogs.
Still, leading reps from both camps insist that the two will get together on what matters most: the budget. Blue Dog spokesman Eric Wortman stressed that the lynchpin of the coalition is and has always been fiscal responsibility, which is where they’ll look to the Tuesday Group. One senior aide to a Tuesday group member, who declined to speak on the record, eagerly agreed, and hoped that the two groups would also work together on an agenda that includes heath care reform and college tuition.
But budgets are a reflection of representatives’ priorities, which are reflections of the districts they represent. From that perspective, one former press secretary to a Blue Dog predicted, “I really doubt that they would work together,” and another Blue Dog aide described talks of a formal alliance as “overblown.”
One more staffer for a leading Blue Dog put it this way: “My boss… has always worked with moderate Republicans and will continue to do so if it will accomplish fiscal responsibility goals, but whether that becomes a formal umbrella group is uncertain and, in my opinion, unlikely.”
Wortman conceded that the idea of a hybrid caucus was in fact overblown, but added, Blue Dogs “are always for any kind of bipartisanship.”