Kay Hagan declares as corporatist blue dog

Kay Hagan has destroyed any thought anywhere that she is anything other than a BLUE, BLUE DAWG. What a flaming crock.

Well she is a millionaire, ex-banker, after all, so I guess it is catching or in the blood. (Did Kay vote to take on the Banksters after the 2008 financial flameout? I don't remember but I guess, no.) Besides, what has she done for liberals or progressives anyway, and she has three years to go, at which time she will be as embedded (and useless) as Burrhead.

Read everything you can about the Third Way, including this press release from Hagan's office.

Comments

Dead to me

When I think about the time and money I gave to support Kay Hagan it makes me want to slit my wrists.

Third Way is a euphemism for "corporate takeover." I wouldn't be surprised to find her reaching out to Art Pope. Pope and Hagan have a clear and common interest: help the rich get richer.

What a fucking disappointment.

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

Fly back to the handle, folks....

At the linked site, I read:

... the Democratic moderates have been united against the $61 billion in cuts in the continuing resolution that passed the House as excessive and poorly targeted. They have urged a longer-term approach that would cut trillions of dollars from the deficit over the coming decade but delay most of the cuts until the unemployment rate drops.

While I sure dislike the company Hagen is keeping, it sounds as if we're still a long way from the tea baggers, Art Pope, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't Hagen vote for the healthcare bill? Yes, I disagree with her opposition to the public option, and, yes, I disagree with her vote against the Dream Act. Yes, I'd rather have a better Senator, but Hagen is not the disaster that, say, Burr is.

Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
https://george.entenman.name

The company she keeps

Look closely at Third Way, George. Every fear you'll ever have about corporatization, special interests, and the ruling elite will be right there for you.

Hagan hasn't been terrible, as you've suggested. She has voted with the Democratic majority, which is itself pretty far right of center. But that said, any kind of affiliation with the Third Way is a dangerous course of action. It cherry picks the most corporate of all values from the R's and D's, and wraps them with a Big Bank colored bow.

Any public official signing on to any faction group, Blue Dogs, C Street, whatever, is an unwelcome turn of events.

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

Still better than Dole

Granted, claiming "she's better than Dole" may not be saying much, but it is true, however frustrating she might be...

Gotta admit, I'm feeling more and more like a boiling frog

If there's any way to replace Hagen with someone better, believe me, I'll work for it.

Meanwhile I'm going to head over to her website and ask her to vote against HR 1.

Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
https://george.entenman.name

This "better than the other" is exactly what is wrong

Not good enough, dammit. Not good enough.

Hagan's press release literally uses the word "triangulation."

Hagan is better than Count Dracula, but what space does that leave for Hagan and the Third Way?

As long as they don't literally drink our blood, we should vote for them?

Nonsense!

I backed Hagan too. She had her shot, and she blew it -- just like Obama.

It's time to clean house...completely.

 

The Board of Trustees

for Third Way is glaring evidence that it's really just the same old way.

Out of 28 members of the Board, 20 of them are from investment firms.

Clean Energy

Kay Hagan did come out in support of last year's clean energy legislation. Say what you want about her other actions but I applaud her for that.

I get extremely tired of people passing judgement on elected

officials on the basis of one vote or one article or one action/inaction. If you want to judge Senator Hagan, fine, but first take a look at her complete voting record . Then you can whine, moan, complain, bitch, and have all the hissy fits you want.

NARAL gave her 100%, NAACP 95%. She votes more liberal than 61% of the senate so she's more liberal than a dozen or so other dems. And she represents a state whose GA went red for the first time in 100 years. Like it or not folks, she's way more liberal than her average constituent.

hissy fit away ...

Just to say it

Aligning with the Third Way isn't a single vote or a single action. It's a far-reaching commitment to supporting a corporatist agenda where banks and the investor class call the shots on everything from health reform to military contracting to monetary policy to deficit hysteria and more.

There is no good reason on earth for Hagan to jump on this Wall Street bandwagon. None whatsoever.

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

When she takes substantive

action as a member (votes) then complain. Otherwise it don't mean nuthin'.

You can be sure I will

Just as you can be sure she will. In the meantime, I'll feel obliged to make noise about this. Once the vote is cast, it's too late to complain. Preemptive isn't always a bad thing.

You be the good cop, I'll be the bad. That way we'll have both sides covered.

:)

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

You have a deal.

I admit to being a glass half full type of person. I am a special ed teacher so I try to not give up on people. I'll allow that Ole Kay occasionally looks like she needs a political IEP. (individual education plan)

with all respect...

...you miss a lot when you only focus on votes taken.

understanding the record of actions deliberately not taken, positions not advocated, and donations accepted is also critical when making a decision about whether, in the larger context of things, you like or dislike any political actor--and all of those elements of political engagement are also "substantive actions", just as voting is a substantive action.

i'll give you an entirely made-up example that is not intended to be a shot at anyone in particular, including sen hagan: if you stand in front of the mics at the national press club and announce that you would never support "single-payer", for whatever reason...well, that's not a vote, but it is a substantive action.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

I can come up with a better example than that

i'll give you an entirely made-up example that is not intended to be a shot at anyone in particular, including sen hagan: if you stand in front of the mics at the national press club and announce that you would never support "single-payer", for whatever reason...well, that's not a vote, but it is a substantive action.

To me this scenario means little - just words. The hypothetical vote against single payer is the thing that would affect my life. Now if that same elected official is vociferously advocating a certain position, doing ads, sending mailers, making a hard sell to voters near and far in an attempt to direct national policy, then I would grant that those actions constitute substantive non-voting actions. An elected official pontificating in front of a crowd of reporters who have their own political axes to grind (or their editors') doesn't change much of anything.

Votes are the things that direct national policies and enact legislation that effects citizens' lives. Here's a counter example: Oil industry donates $200k to a candidate who, once elected, votes to restrict offshore drilling, raise the gas tax, and to end oil industry subsidies. Look at the funding and it looks like the official has been bought and paid for, but it's the voting record that mitigates the funding source. Voting is the tip of the legislative spear. There may be more to the spear, but it's not hurting anyone.

And I find it odd that you state that my focus is too narrow when I was attempting to broaden the viewpoint of the OP et al. They are considering one action while I am considering many actions over time.

but here's the thing:

that hypothetical member of congress will presumably head out from that press club event and do whatever they can to prevent the bill from ever coming up for a vote--which is exactly what happened to single-payer when it was declared dead on arrival at the beginning of the health care debate because people like ben nelson did go out and make press appearances saying it was dead on arrival--and all that happened with not one single committee vote or floor vote having ever been taken.

defense of marriage act proponents would tell you the same story: there isn't going to be a vote on the issue in this congress, and that's because a bunch of members are taking substantive action to ensure that does not happen.

one more example would be nominations in the senate: dozens, if not hundreds, of presidential nominations are "on hold" because one senator or another put them in that status, which is how you make sure no vote takes place on those nominations. again, a substantive action which results in no vote at all.

things don't happen all the time because members take substantive actions to ensure they don't, and when you evaluate your congresscritter, that stuff absolutely should figure into your calculus.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

i was thinking about it...

...and i have one more fantastic example: jim demint.

he has a policy of automatically placing a "hold" on any legislation that would otherwise pass by unanimous consent--and that was his policy for the entire 111th congress, and presumably the 112th.

now that's pretty substantive, and there's no voting involved (again, the idea is to prevent votes from taking place), and for some voters it's a good policy, for others a bad idea.

either way, if you're a sc voter evaluating demint...this policy should be part of your evaluation.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

I stated as much in my previous post

Now if that same elected official is vociferously advocating a certain position, doing ads, sending mailers, making a hard sell to voters near and far in an attempt to direct national policy, then I would grant that those actions constitute substantive non-voting actions.

... and one might add "repeatedly obstructing democracy" ala Jim Demint.

So as I said, i can see where nonvoting actions can be worth noticing. Kay Hagan's action as referenced in the OP does not, imo, rise to that level. Nor is she worthy of the damning dished her way nor should she be deemed a complete disaster. I was using her voting record to point that out. Of course other folks are welcome to their opinions.

We will see:

I have followed DLC, Thirdway and other like stuff for some years. I agree with James that the issue is not that Kay Hagan has voted with Democrats much of the time, but is locking up with Wall Street mafia. And, I hear noises about reaching across the aisle (gag). If you want an example of an office holder gone wrong, lookn at Clinton. So, lets see how much Wall Street pursues her in the next four years. A lot I would bet, and see how much she succumbs. I may be too cynical, but progressives have been on the losing end all too often in the past 20 or so years. Time to fight back and remind Kay that she was elected as a Democrat and not a North Carolina version of Joe Liebermann.

wafranklin