|
The Bush Dog campaign has more or less achieved its first step: compiling profiles of all those designated as 'Bush Dogs' by the criteria Matt laid out.
Some of the profiles are positive, some are negative (largely based on who authored them) and there is certainly room for more profiles to provide a more nuanced outlook, but the overall picture is in place. Now the question arises of what to do with them.
In DC the assumption seems to be that this will mean primary challenges and the reaction has not been positive.
In the netroots there has been rather more caution, stemming not only from the traditional emphasis on partisanship but also from fear of strengthening a Republican Party which is almost entirely made up of Bush rubber-stamps.
Nevertheless, in general we can divide those on the list into 3 groups:
1) Bush Dogs in safe Democratic seats. It would be nice if they suddenly changed their positions, but frankly it's probably smarter to primary them and replace them with someone who doesn't have to be pressured into making the right votes. The best example here is Lipinski (IL-03) and it also seems fair to consider challenges to Costa (CA-20) and Cooper (TN-05) although the latter will quite definitely be the most difficult of the three.
2) Bush Dogs in seats with a PVI close to 0. Primary challenges here are riskier, but possible in the last resort. In general, however, the safer option is to make sure that any open seats in this category are occupied by progressives and in the meantime to try to bring the current occupants into line with their constituents.
3) Bush Dogs in blood red districts. Nobody in their right minds thinks that we can primary this lot and win a general election. Hell, we'd be lucky to win the primary. Whilst there might in theory be some value to a primary challenge here to put the fear of the netroots into the right wing of the party, it would essentially be a cynical and most likely foolish sacrifice of a seat, so I don't see there being sufficient support for that kind of enterprise. A more subtle approach is needed here.
Read on, and I'll suggest how we can put real pressure on the Bush Dogs, tailored to individual seats, without unduly biasing our chances in a general election.
|
| What we need to do is to pick our targets (I'm not even an American citizen, much less an expert on funding American political campaigns, so I won't hazard a guess at how many targets we should choose.) They should represent a fair spread of all three groups.
Next, working on the principle of the draft campaigns on ActBlue, we create a fund for each Bush Dog target. Should the candidate change his or her positions so that they are acceptable to progressive eyes (and not just by words, but by substantive deeds in the form of votes and introducing bills) then the ex-Bush Dog will receive the contents of this fund and our thanks.
Should he or she remain intractable, we have, as I see it, several options. Firstly, we could funnel that money to a primary challenger. Secondly, the money could be used for issue ads (NOT attack ads) highlighting the target's positions on Iraq, FISA authorisation and the like. Thirdly, the money could be funneled to a worthy cause (either to the DNC or back into the pockets of the donors).
Obviously, different options will be appropriate at different times (although the third is only really a fallback option if all else fails). Since this idea only came to me this morning and it is still somewhat half-formed, I don't have any definite suggestions for how the decisions could be made. Depending on plausibility, it seems best to put the decision either in the hands of all donors to one of the funds or in the hands of a select council of those involved in the running of the Bush Dog campaign. But if anybody has better or more detailed proposals, I'm eager to hear them.
If we follow the first option, we must be sure that a) the challenger is viable and b) the challenger is progressive. This would most likely require some form of question and answer session with the candidate, followed by a vote on whether or not to release the funds to him or her.
If we follow the second option, then real care is needed. Firstly, one must check that any Republican candidates in the district are pursuing a policy of perpetual war, so as to prevent the Democrat from being outflanked on the left. Secondly, one should not attack the Bush Dog. One should chide him, using information to show that he is out of step with his district and should make amends. I've taken the liberty of preparing a very rough script of what I consider such a script, used against a freshman Bush Dog (since so many of them are) might look like:
"Two years ago you voted for Congressman X to replace Bush rubber-stamp Y and bring an end to the occupation of Iraq. Since then Iraq has got worse, with [data dump]. Congressman X has failed to stop it and has in fact voted for [capitulation bills], despite the fact that Z% of the district opposes our presence in Iraq. Congressman X may be better than his predecessor on [target's strongpoints] but he's allowed himself to be led astray by the Beltway consensus. Contact Congressman X today and ask him to start listening to you and help to bring about an end to the war in Iraq."
Obviously, the dialogue needs punching up, but I hope the general tone is clear. We don't want to be hurting them in a general election, but we do want to be encouraging them to represent their districts, since all of them are anti-war. And though the anger of progressive activists who are almost all situated outside their districts may not bother the Bush Dogs, since they can get their money from corporate PACs, being perceived to be out of step with their districts could crucify them, so it is much more likely to drive a wedge between them and the president over Iraq.
I don't mean to suggest that this strategy is a silver bullet. It's far from that. Nor is it the only strategy. If anybody wishes to suggest modifications and alternative strategies in the comments, I'll be happy to see them. I just mean to suggest that the tools are already there to add some teeth to the Bush Dog campaign without always having to take the risky step of pursuing a primary. |
STATE BLOGS
