The other question raised by the Blue Dog Democrats is why there are no Red Cat Republicans. Consider the case of Arlen Specter. A powerful senator -- and a senator is worth, like, 10 congressman, two midsize conservative talk show hosts, and an airport named after Ronald Reagan -- with considerable seniority facing a tough reelection in a state that's trending rapidly blue. Specter is the Republican equivalent of a Blue Dog: Breaks with his party on key issues, courts a reputation for centrism, and justifies his heterodoxy on grounds of a blue state that's getting bluer. And what happens?Well, Pat Toomey happens. Toomey, a hard-right Republican congressman, took $2 million from the Club for Growth and challenged Specter in the Republican primary. Almost won, too. Lost by 1.7 percent. But even if Toomey lost, the Club for Growth, and the far-right wing of the party they represent, made their point. They demonstrated that there were consequences for moderation. Specter, a Pennsylvania institution who had far more money and the endorsements of everyone from George W. Bush to Rick Santorum, survived. But just barely. And the lesson was clear: If the Club for Growth could do this to Specter, they could certainly do it some underfunded House nobody. To rephrase: What was that you said about tax cuts not always paying for themselves? Nothing? Good. That's what they thought you said.By contrast, there are few consequences to being a Blue Dog Democrat. Labor doesn't come into your district and fund a challenger who attacks your votes to cut entitlement spending. Business interests are more likely to donate to your campaign. You have a badge of independence from party which is useful both when dealing with the media and when dealing with voters. Your vote matters more because it's less reliable. And the Democratic Party infrastructure itself is fundamentally sympathetic to your plight: Democrats from marginal districts, they agree, have to be a bit more conservative. And we have to protect them. Numbers matter. There's a difference in priorities here: Liberals tend to prioritize the number of seats they have in Congress, conservatives are more protective of the purity of those in power. One emphasizes the importance of placing its allies in government and the other polices its own ideological atmosphere. And you see the difference, I think, most clearly in the remarkable unity of opposition, but also the extremism and tone-deaf neo-Hooverism, evident in the House Republican Conference. THERE ARE NO ARLEN SPECTERS ON THE LEFT.
The other question raised by the Blue Dog Democrats is why there are no Red Cat Republicans. Consider the case of Arlen Specter. A powerful senator -- and a senator is worth, like, 10 congressman, two midsize conservative talk show hosts, and an airport named after Ronald Reagan -- with considerable seniority facing a tough reelection in a state that's trending rapidly blue. Specter is the Republican equivalent of a Blue Dog: Breaks with his party on key issues, courts a reputation for centrism, and justifies his heterodoxy on grounds of a blue state that's getting bluer. And what happens?Well, Pat Toomey happens. Toomey, a hard-right Republican congressman, took $2 million from the Club for Growth and challenged Specter in the Republican primary. Almost won, too. Lost by 1.7 percent. But even if Toomey lost, the Club for Growth, and the far-right wing of the party they represent, made their point. They demonstrated that there were consequences for moderation. Specter, a Pennsylvania institution who had far more money and the endorsements of everyone from George W. Bush to Rick Santorum, survived. But just barely. And the lesson was clear: If the Club for Growth could do this to Specter, they could certainly do it some underfunded House nobody. To rephrase: What was that you said about tax cuts not always paying for themselves? Nothing? Good. That's what they thought you said.By contrast, there are few consequences to being a Blue Dog Democrat. Labor doesn't come into your district and fund a challenger who attacks your votes to cut entitlement spending. Business interests are more likely to donate to your campaign. You have a badge of independence from party which is useful both when dealing with the media and when dealing with voters. Your vote matters more because it's less reliable. And the Democratic Party infrastructure itself is fundamentally sympathetic to your plight: Democrats from marginal districts, they agree, have to be a bit more conservative. And we have to protect them. Numbers matter. There's a difference in priorities here: Liberals tend to prioritize the number of seats they have in Congress, conservatives are more protective of the purity of those in power. One emphasizes the importance of placing its allies in government and the other polices its own ideological atmosphere. And you see the difference, I think, most clearly in the remarkable unity of opposition, but also the extremism and tone-deaf neo-Hooverism, evident in the House Republican Conference. 
