Bush Dogs Voting Against Their Districts?

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 14:44


I had an interesting discussion with Kirsten Gillibrand at the fundraiser where I confronted Pelosi.  I said to Gillibrand that Congress is corrupt, and pointed out that the PAC donations to Democrats are obscene.  She then denied that campaign contributions necessarily influence political choices, that there's no quid pro quo.  Later on, we were chatting about retroactive immunity, and Gillibrand mentioned that the votes might not be there to stop it.  My reply was that she should speak out publicly against the Bush Dogs if retroactive immunity were passed, since she acknowledged that there's a tremendous amount of internal frustration.  Her response is that they live in districts that are conservative, and that's where our conversation ended as she rushed to another event.  Gillibrand is a wonderful, warm, and kind person, and I found it hard not to be charmed by her.  And yet, the logic is just inescapably wrong.

As David Sirota shows, it is in rural conservative districts where the subprime mortgage issue is hurting people the most.  Markos noted this as well, pointing to this LA Times story.

The shift is not confined to one county in the mid-Atlantic region. Similar rumblings of discontent can be heard among GOP voters in fast-growing areas across the country that are being hit by the housing crunch, including parts of Florida and Nevada.

The obvious political upside, and the obvious moral case, is what makes the petty and legalistic argument to wait until we know more about the effects of the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill before dealing with the mortgage crisis from the Bush Dogs so galling.  Many people are being crushed by the economic forces unleashed by our problematic legal structures that created these mortgage problems, even as the wealthy and powerful are bailed out.

If these members want to justify their behavior by the conservative nature of their district, then they should show us the popular movement in their districts for big banks.  Otherwise, this list is their real rationale.  The number is in bold that means that the Finance/Insurance/Real Estate industry was/is the biggest contributor to the member for that cycle:

Lincoln Davis:
2006: $79,600
2008: $89,486

John Tanner:
2006: $292,579
2008: $127,396

Tim Mahoney:
2006: $183,850
2008: $213,565

Jim Matheson:
2006: $455,600
2008: $117,344

Allen Boyd:
2006: $165,042
2008: $57,550

Jim Marshall:
2006: $166,401
2008: $90,342

David Scott:
2006: $300,152
2008: $157,741

Bean, Melissa:
2006: $404,527
2008: $400,851

Mike Ross:
2006: $170,139
2008: $56,700

Baron Hill:
2006: $110,934
2008: $65,650

Mike Thompson:
2006: $168,413
2008: $116,919

Bart Gordon:
2006: $119,750
2008: $48,250

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin:
2006: $162,848
2008: $59,400

Charlie Melancon:
2006: $186,265
2008: $56,700

Dan Boren:
2006: $113,370
2008: $98,200

Nope, there's no influence here. 

Matt Stoller :: Bush Dogs Voting Against Their Districts?

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Bush Dogs Voting Against Their Districts? | 9 comments
South Dakota (0.00 / 0)
The only districts I can think of that may oppose tinkering to the Bankruptcy Act are Delaware and South Dakota, considering their massive bank and credit card industries.

Take South Dakota for an example:

Credit Card Companies account for the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 12th, and 15th largest employers in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. (Sioux Falls is 1/7th of the population of SD, and Democrats must win there in order to win statewide).

Add in the fact that North Dakota and South Dakota have had the lowest amount of subprime mortgages, both in total number and rate of mortgages, in the country, and thus the least impact.

Now you are on the trail..... (4.00 / 1)
....of the real problem with the 'Democrat' Party.

It's corruption.

Keep after 'em Matt. This is an issue we can leverage to elect real progressives.

'The Rabbit' and his pals are all on the take....

And the voters don't like that sort of thing.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Wow! Let's see here (0.00 / 0)
Progressives argue for diplomacy instead of confrontation and Matt then proceeds to confront Pelosi. I smell a disconnect I'm afraid.

He then talks to Gillibrand about retroactive immunity and then tries to make his case against that issue in conservative districts by introducing the housing crunch and the bankruptcy bill - two totally separate issues, the first having to do with national security and the other two being purely domestic matters! Given that today many progressives are one issue voters I don't see how you can basically say voters in conservative districts aren't the same. I'm not advocating retroactive immunity but it sure in the hell doesn't have anything to do with the housing crunch and the bankruptcy bill in the eyes of Joe Sixpack voter.

So then we get a look the contributions from special interests that we can't match so without the money to offset that influence rather than using the diplomacy available in politics he takes a rare opportunity to reason face to face with the Speaker and spits in her face instead. That is not exactly out of How To Win Friends And Influence People!

And the blogs wonder why they can't get more done and why their influence is not what they want it to be. Oy Vey!

WE NEED TO POLL THESE DISTRICTS!!! (0.00 / 0)
We need to do it ourselves, and show these people that the DLC doesn't represent their districts. And the lobbyists most assuredly don't represent their districts.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
no (0.00 / 0)
No one cares about polling, Paul.
[ Parent ]
Not If It's The Only Thing You Do (4.00 / 1)
It's all about synergy.  Polling + media activism + grassroots organizing.  It's got to be a comprehensive strategy.  But demonstrating the basic electoral logic has to be a cornerstone of the strategy.  Exploiting differences between national and local media is a vital part of this as well.

This is not just about direct impact on lawmakers.  When you've got polling data that shows your ideas have mainstream legitimacy, it can be very valuable in bringing other people into a discussion, even into cooperative organzing action.

There's a big difference between a good idea that someone thinks will only fly in Massachussettes, and seeing 60% support in battleground districts.  It may not impress the officeholders immediately, but it's part of how you get major institutional actors to commit resources to further the process of shifting the political process.  At the same time, it can be a tremendous motivator for grassroots activists to know how much support they have.

One more aspect of this is that local governments can be an important part of the persuasive process.  When a congresscritter starts getting significant input from local electeds, they take that seriously in non-safe districts.  So you need to use as many of these different avenues in concert as you can.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Myths. (0.00 / 0)
It is one of the most common myths in DC that a more conservative district is more conservative when it comes to economics. Most moderate/conservative districts held by Dems are populist and progressive on economic issues, and only moderate on cultural and social issues. On economic issues, the conservative district line is almost always an excuse to vote for their big business lobbyist friends. 
Victory Via Self-Defeating Logic (4.00 / 1)
This is key to one of the most bizarre dynamics.  Pushing corporatist economics in such districts actually loses voters, since it gives more culturally conservative voters no good reason to vote Democratic, while at the same time turning off the base.  It is, therefore, a self-defeating logic from a purely electoral point of view.

But that's only if you're a partisan Dem.  If you're a business lobbyist, or a Lieberdem, or even a certain strain of Obamaphile, then self-defeating partisan logic is good.

You therefore have brain-dead conventional wisdom and saavy, narrow self-interest both working against intelligent partisanship and the common good.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Thinking Out Loud....as it were (4.00 / 1)
What if some netroots coalition similar to the one that just raised over $102,000 for Donna Edwards announced that -- over months before the various primaries -- it was going to raise $300,000 for each of three challengers running against some of the fifteen Bush Dogs.  None of the fifteen would know now which of them was going to get hit with a funded primary challenge but each must worry it could be her or him.  Meanwhile, we encourage decent primary opponents by a competition -- raise some money, build a compaign, earn some progressive netroots support, and you may be one of the three chosen.  We could even start three ActBlue pages now and start funding them.  I'd pledge $100 a month.
Bush Dogs Voting Against Their Districts? | 9 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox