Back

‘Blue Dog’ Herseth Sandlin at center of House fiscal watchdog group
July 17, 2008 | By Denise Ross, Black Hills Pioneer

Criticism is a sure sign that someone or something is gaining power and influence — both the numbers of critics and the level of vitriol leveled at their targets.

Welcome the U.S. House of Representatives’ Blue Dog Coalition to the stage, critics and all. South Dakota’s lone member of the House, Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, has been a member of the Blue Dogs since her first campaign victory in 2003.

When she joined the group, they were, as U.S. News & World Report put it in a story a month ago — “a minority within a minority toiling in obscurity” — a fiscally conservative group of Democrats in a caucus run by liberals in a town run by conservative and neo-conservative Republicans. My, how quickly times can change.

“With Democrats potentially controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in 2009, House leaders must not ignore the Blue Dogs’ concerns if they want to keep the majority,” reports a recent National Journal cover story titled “Dog Days.”

Herseth Sandlin was one of four of the 49 Blue Dogs chosen for the National Journal interview and cover photo. South Dakota’s congresswoman seems to have found growing power within a group that is itself growing in power. The Blue Dogs have grown from 23 members when they first formed in 1994 after the GOP’s historic takeover of Congress, and they have expanded from mostly Southern representatives to include members from the Midwest and West. They even have six members from the Northeast.

More importantly, recent heretofore unimaginable Democratic victories in red districts have been won by candidates endorsed by and funded by the Blue Dogs. And, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco ponders her party’s majority in the House, she knows much of the credit must go to the Blue Dogs, according to the National Journal.

“She and other House Democratic leaders are well aware that if just 19 Blue Dogs oppose them on party-line votes, the majority can’t pass legislation,” reported the magazine.

The Blue Dogs have unified around what’s called “pay-go” in Capitol Hill shorthand, or a “pay as you go” budget rule that requires Congress to pay for new spending with either a tax increase or other spending cuts. That rule has been waived a handful of times but only cautiously due to the Blue Dogs’ collective swing-vote status.

That is also the main reason for the criticism I noted at the beginning of this column. Republicans who favor tax cuts without spending offsets don’t like pay-go; neither do more liberal Democrats who favor new spending without finding money to pay for it. A Google search turns up plenty of Blue Dog criticism from both the right and the left.

FreedomWorks.org, a group headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey that promotes tax cuts, launched a national advertising campaign in 110 markets to pressure the Blue Dogs to stop the mortgage bailout bill.

FreedomWorks’ ad says: “Blue Dogs in Congress say they’re committed to the financial stability of the U.S., but they have yet to speak out against the massive housing bailout currently in Congress. If the Blue Dog Coalition is serious about fiscal stability, its members must publicly oppose the taxpayer-funded bailout.”

The ad then asks people to call the Blue Dog headquarters and demand that its members fight the bill — which would tap big mortgage banks to create a new loan guarantee fund for individual homeowners.

Similarly, a group of liberal bloggers is leading a new campaign called Accountability Now that targets Blue Dog Democrats who supported the domestic surveillance law that recently passed Congress and was signed into law. This effort, most of which is set to roll out in August, has hired fund-raisers and media consultants.

One organizer of Accountability Now says the group decided to target the few Democrats who supported the bill rather than the majority of Republicans who did “because that’s the party in control in Congress,” reported Wired’s blog, Threat Level.

You might notice that the wiretapping bill has almost nothing to do with the Blue Dogs’ mission of fiscal responsibility and that hitting the mortgage banks with a “levy” (not a tax?) is right in line with the Blue Dogs’ stated goals. No matter. The group can swing issues, and I expect the pressure on them on an array of issues to only grow.

They make a point to avoid social issues like abortion and gay marriage altogether.

Blue Dogs have come under fire from their fellow members of Congress — especially members of the Senate. That chamber has no Blue Dogs.

Stalwart Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, barked back at the Blue Dogs in the National Journal story. In a committee meeting, he held up a picture of Huckleberry Hound in mockery, claiming the group almost always turns to higher taxes, almost never to spending cuts.

“Here we have Huckleberry Hound barking ‘fiscal responsibility,’” Grassley said. “American taxpayers should beware. Huckleberry Hound’s bite happens to be higher taxes.”

It was South Dakota’s own Herseth Sandlin who answered back.

“Nine times out of 10, if not 10 times out of 10, the Blue Dogs are putting forward proposed spending cuts,” she said.

No doubt that’s not the last we’ll hear from Herseth Sandlin on behalf of the Blue Dogs.

Denise Ross has covered South Dakota politics since 1999. She now publishes Hoghouse Blog and can be heard weekly as a political junkie guest on South Dakota Public Radio. Write to her at denise@hoghouseblog.com.

Back