And Then There Were Four

On Monday, Rep. Bart Gordon became the fourth Democrat from a vulnerable district to retire in the last three weeks, bringing to seven the number of open seats that Democrats will struggle to hold in 2010. To be sure, there's no evidence yet of an outright mutiny of moderates. Even so, the problem here is greater than the sum of the districts, and it adds up to huge headaches for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In Gordon's case, a tough re-election in '10 and redistricting in '12 were likely the biggest determining factors for his retirement. Gordon's vote for the climate bill was certain to haunt him on the trail, and private polling revealed very shaky re-election prospects. Republicans currently control the Tennessee Legislature and are likely to win the governor's race. There's little doubt that they'll target Gordon's middle Tennessee district next year and make it all but impossible for him to win it in '12. Plus, at 60 and with an 8-year-old daughter at home, Gordon has material needs to consider. In a column last week, former DCCC Chairman Martin Frost warned of the difficulty in keeping House members in their 50s or 60s from retiring since many of them want to "put some hay in the barn" while they still can.

At some point, the Speaker and House leaders need to give their moderates something to vote

Democrats were able to keep retirements -- especially among members in swing districts -- to almost zero from 2004 to 2008. In 2004, there were only two retirements among Democrats sitting in GOP-leaning districts (Ken Lucas and Jim Turner). There were none in 2006 and 2008. Winning the majority was what persuaded many incumbents to stick around. Yet, just a year into this whole majority thing, four senior Democrats already want out. Doesn't that suggest that it's not so fun to be a moderate when your party runs both the White House and Congress?

Democratic insiders I've talked to on the Hill don't sense a coming intraparty battle between frustrated moderates and the more liberal wing of the party. An off-the-record conversation with a senior Blue Dog member elicited no scorn for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The bigger question, however, is whether it will remain this way. At some point, the Speaker and House leaders need to give their moderates something to vote for instead of simply allowing them to "take a pass" on the tough votes. Voting against the health care bill or cap-and-trade might give incumbents temporary reprieve from GOP attacks, but in the end running against your party is a tough way to win re-election. Just ask the many GOP moderates who prided themselves on an "independent" voting record and still lost in 2006 and 2008.

Ironically, while Republicans today fight about their brand, the GOP leadership took great care of their moderates while President Bush was in office. They gave them things to vote for (like the prescription drug bill) and kept killer issues -- like Social Security privatization -- off the agenda completely. Of course, there are plenty of conservatives who believe that kowtowing to the needs of the moderates -- including lavishing vulnerable members with earmarks and plum committee assignments -- led to their downfall.

The fact that Democrats had to take all their "tough votes" in '09 means that there's time for voters' current frustrations on cap-and-trade, health care reform and government bailouts to fade before the midterms. The White House seems dedicated to spending '10 focused on both growing jobs and battling the deficit (a tough balancing act, to be sure). Meanwhile, if this week is any indication of future plans, Democrats, led by President Obama, will try to shift anger away from programs like TARP and stimulus and onto "fat cat" Wall Street bankers. Nothing says "populist" quite like attacking guys who are unrepentant about taking millions of dollars in bonuses.

Yet, the fact that 23 Democrats from competitive districts joined all House Republicans this weekend to vote against the financial regulation bill shows the difficulty of turning tough talk into action. It also shows that Democrats are more worried about being tagged as proponents of government regulation than Republicans are worried about being tagged as Wall Street enablers.

A focus on deficit reduction would be another obvious bone to throw moderate Democrats. But does anyone really think that the formation of a "deficit commission" will quell voter frustration over the spending spree of the last two years? Moderates have been forced to vote on substantive legislation to spend money. If they want to get credit for saving money, they need to have their own substantive examples too.

Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.