Should We Remove Tim Walz from the Bush Dog List? (UPDATE: Hell No)

by: Matt Stoller

Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 14:57


Tim Walz is the only candidate from the netroots page that ended up a Bush Dog, voting for both the blank check bill in April and the FISA extension in August.  Now the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is running ads in his district attacking him for not voting for retroactive immunity for telecom companies.  Here's his response.

"This ad is reckless with our national security. Implying that America's surveillance against terrorists is crippled is a lie. What's worse, this group has encouraged terrorists to think our country's surveillance system is weak, when nothing could be further from the truth. Why on earth would any group go on television and claim that America's intelligence agencies can't do their job?"

As a result of recent court rulings, special-interest lobbying groups like this one now have the ability to raise and spend unlimited amountsof money to say whatever they want through paid advertising to advance their political agenda. "

This lobbying group's so-called 'issue ad' is a new low," added Walz. "Citizens in southern Minnesota aren't fooled by this fear-mongering but they do deserve to know who is behind this shadowy organization and where they are from."

Prior to this Congressional recess, Walz urged the President and Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to stay in Washington and reach an agreement to permanently modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), properly balancing the government's intelligence gathering needs with safeguarding the very liberties that millions of Americans have fought and died for.

"As a 24 year veteran of the National Guard, I understand better than this group that this is a dangerous world," concluded Walz. "My message to those terrorists who seek to do our country harm is: We still have the tools in place to intercept and disrupt what you may be planning --and we can act lightning fast -- because there is no disagreement in our country about protecting the America people."

There's plenty of wiggle room in there to let Walz wiggle out and vote for retroactive immunity.  But if he doesn't, I'm inclined to remove him from Bush Dog status.  Calling a right-wing group like the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a pack of liars is pretty strong stuff.  And if he doesn't go along with immunity, then that is enough to make up for the August vote.

(Incidentally, Democratic superdelegate Donna Brazile and Democratic Congressmen Eliot Engel and Jim Marshall are on the advisory board of the FDD.  They should strongly consider resigning.)

UPDATE:  In the comments there are a variety of people arguing that Walz should never have been on there in the first place.  The standards for being a Bush Dog are very clear.  One, the member voted for war funding without restrictions for Bush.  Two, the member voted for the FISA extension to authorize Bush increased spying power.  Walz voted for both of these, therefore he is a strong enabler of George Bush.  It is Congressmen like Tim Walz that keep the war in Iraq going, period.  So those of you who are whining, and yes, it is whining, that he does not deserve to be on there are simply susceptible to a cult of personality and unwilling to hold him accountable for the moral cripple he has chosen to be in the House.

Tim Sackton pointed out that he voted against the PAA extension, which was a priority for people who wanted to defeat retroactive immunity.  So this guy's a Bush dog through and through until he shows himself differently.

Matt Stoller :: Should We Remove Tim Walz from the Bush Dog List? (UPDATE: Hell No)

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

My congressman would be a Bush dog if (0.00 / 0)
voting for funding without a timetable qualifies you.  One vote shouldn't damn a congressman.  

two votes (0.00 / 0)
There's a clear pattern, and it wasn't just a vote.  These were two critical votes where Walz screwed over the rest of the Democratic caucus.

[ Parent ]
Walz shouldn't have been on the list in the first place (0.00 / 0)


why? (0.00 / 0)
Is that because you like him?  That's a clear standard there.

[ Parent ]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-97229411750760036 (0.00 / 0)
It smells like the McLaughlin Group in here.

[ Parent ]
This is worth a read. (4.00 / 1)
http://www.mncampaignreport.co...

Joe Bodell is a pretty well respected MN blogger.


Bodell (0.00 / 0)
Bodell is unable to utter a critical word against Walz.  It's unfortunate but he can't be trusted to hold Democrats accountable, though he makes great arguments about Republicans.

[ Parent ]
You know who you remind me of (0.00 / 0)
This is how you facilitated this conversation about Tim Walz: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-97229411750760036 Your criteria is too narrow. 2 votes? Yeah, they're big votes, but look at the bigger picture. According to Progressive Punch, there are at about 75 less progressive representatives than Walz. Its not great, but its not Bush Dog.

[ Parent ]
um, no (0.00 / 0)
The definition of a Bush Dog is and has been clear.  It was defined by the actions of the 41 members who chose to vote with Bush and against the Democratic leadership on the two pivotal issues this Congress, the blank check bill on Iraq and the eavesdropping bill in August.

These are people who enable the Republicans in Congress at key moments.  I believe this retroactive immunity bill is another key moment, we'll see.

Other votes just did not matter that much because they did not set the parameters for the Congress.


[ Parent ]
I'm from MN, I backed Waltz, gave to his campaign, but Stoller is right (0.00 / 0)
Just because the guy is likable....just because he defeated a Republican.......it isn't enough. We don't just need more Democrats, we need better Democrats. Waltz needs to vote better on these two issues. Period. The End. And if he doesn't, we SHOULD call him a Bush Dog. If Waltz doesn't like it--well, dammit, change his votes.  

[ Parent ]
Thanks Matt, I appreciate it (0.00 / 0)
I hope you'll be keeping as close an eye on CD3 coverage here as you have on CD1....

http://www.mncampaignreport.co...
http://www.mncampaignreport.co...

As I've intimated several times now, my goal was not to apologize for Walz's bad votes, but rather to illustrate the lack of an effective comparison between him and the really, really bad Dems out there -- Wynn, Boswell, etc.


[ Parent ]
Yes, I think he should be removed (0.00 / 0)
as long as he shows that he isn't simply a Bush Dog (someone willing to do just about anything to enable people like Bush), but rather someone who didn't have the best judgement. He should definitely be criticized for these previous acts, but if he can show that he is willing to take a Progressive stand on issues like this, I think that should disqualify him as a Bush Dog.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

the proof will be in the pudding (0.00 / 0)
We'll see how this shakes out.

[ Parent ]
Yes, probably. (0.00 / 0)
    I think you should remove him from the list.  

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

Ok, Ok. (0.00 / 0)
    I hadn't known about his PAA vote.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

[ Parent ]
Can anyone tell me ... (0.00 / 0)
why Eliot Engel and Donna Brazile are on the advisory board of the FDD?  It is a throughly ringwing(i'd go so far as to call it wingnutty) organization?  I can see Jim Marshall because he is a DINO, but the other two?

voted against PAA extension (4.00 / 1)
He voted against the extension of the PAA most recently (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll054.xml), so I'd be dubious.

I guess I would wait to see how the final FISA votes shake out to reward him for standing up to right-wing attack groups.


I don't have a problem with that (4.00 / 1)
But I do think that for the list to remain effective it has to be more than just "Congresspeople Matt doesn't like."  So maybe what we need to do is find another vote that narrows it down the list a bit.

If we picked two more votes since the list was made (PAA and something else?) it would maybe allow us to remove some people who have started to suck less, and add some people if they start to suck more. Or maybe to make a tiered system with a "worst offenders" list who are bad on all four.

Regularly upadating the list (every six months or so?) has the advantage of creating an incentive for Congresspeople to try to get off of it by exhibiting good behavior.

If you do want a more subjective system (ie. Tim is talking the right way, so he should be taken off) then mabye we should have some kind of vote or something.

I just tend to think the whole process will be more effective if we are transparent and consistent in who stays on it.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


good points (0.00 / 0)
The standards for Bush Dogs are clear.  I suppose it's useful to make this a Bush Dog vote.

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
He should have never been on a list like this to begin with, so for god's sake take him off.  Its fair to question his early (and in my mind misguided) vote, but to give him a blanket damnation was never justified.  I would find it interesting for you guys to dig into the district he represents and understand where he, and others like him, are coming from - and what their constituencies think.  Things are ever as simple as we may sometimes wish they were.

Thanks for taking a second look at him.  

-jason The UpTake


why (0.00 / 0)
He should have never been on a list like this to begin with, so for god's sake take him off.

Um, no.  Show me the strong movement in his district for increased spying powers for Bush and then we can talk.

Otherwise this is just ridiculous cult of personality nonsense.


[ Parent ]
Boy, Matt (0.00 / 0)
You sure have a way to engage your readers.  

"Hey everyone, do we what chocolate ice cream or vanilla?"

"Oh, nevermind, chocolate was never an option - suckahs!"

peace out dude

-jason The UpTake


[ Parent ]
About the ad part, this is what Obama's attorney is (0.00 / 0)
argueing about:

"As a result of recent court rulings, special-interest lobbying groups like this one now have the ability to raise and spend unlimited amountsof money to say whatever they want through paid advertising to advance their political agenda. "- from the post by Walz,

here is Obama's attorney on his fight with Clinton's "527 Follies"

" Where individuals associate for federal election related activity, the FEC must confront the question of whether the political committee definition has been met.  It was determined on the basis of rules it enacted in 2004 and on the basis of an aggressive use of the "express advocacy" test, that Swift Boats, League of Conservation Voters 527 and other 527 organizations did meet that definition."

link:
http://www.moresoftmoneyhardla...

keeps me wondering if we will ever have "fair" campaigning.  


Re: Update (0.00 / 0)
Wow, I didn't realize he had done that. Yes, with that in mind, he should definitely be kept on the Bush Dog list for now. Props to Tim Sackton for the finding the info on that vote.

Regardless, I still think that if he begins to improve, then he should be rewarded in some way. I like what Sam L said a lot, about a tier system, and updating it periodically. I vote for such a system, and if you need help doing the brunt work to keep it updated, I'd be very willing to do so.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008


So why ask in the first place? (4.00 / 1)
You ask the community. The community votes 5 to 2 (including one that you converted. well done.), with one undecided. your "update" is a resounding "HELL NO" after you pick a fight with everyone who doesn't agree with you?

WTF?

5 to 2. That's a super majority, Matt. Where is the override switch on this blog?


not a vote (0.00 / 0)
It's not a vote by the people who choose to comment on this post.  This post will probably be read by a few thousand people.

In addition, people didn't 'vote', they made their points.  And the one salient point is that Walz continued to vote with Bush when given the opportunity.  


[ Parent ]
It's discussion. Fine. (0.00 / 0)
So then why start a discussion at all if you're going to tell everyone who has a more nuanced opinion that they're wrong....and furthermore, conclude "hell no" when MOST of the people who weighed in, in fact, disagree with you.

But yet you update the post to give casual readers the impression that those who had an opinion took your side, when most didn't. That's dishonest and misleading.


[ Parent ]
Discussions (0.00 / 0)
Matt: I've never even heard of Tim Walz before this thread. But it does seem very odd to me to solicit comments, and then almost immediately accuse people who respond to your request of "whining" because they are "simply susceptible to a cult of personality".

If your reversal from "that is enough to make up for the August vote" to "HELL NO" was due to being shown the roll call for the PAA extension, then okay, but I'm not sure this particularly is a very good litmus test since also under "Noes" there I see Kucinich, Waters, Woolsey, Lee...


[ Parent ]
Re: Comments (0.00 / 0)
Guys/Gals, I think you're all missing the point. He wasn't asking for a vote, he was asking for a discussion. In a rational argument, majority rule isn't how thinks are decided, but rather on what is the better supported argument. Matt saw a lot of posts simply saying he shouldn't be a Bush Dog, without factual basis, and he accused said people of having a cult of personality (that attack was not directed at people who used factual arguments to base their case against Walz being a Bush Dog). He then saw a post against, with a very credible argument (Walz had voted against a measure that was one of the key Progressive fights of this Congress), and decided, based on that evidence, and a lack of any evidence to overrule this by the other side, that he should stay a Bush Dog, at least for now. Honestly, Bush himself got re-elected by a majority of voters (even if there WAS some fraud in 2004, enough people voted to make it close enough to pull this off),  and the only two Presidents to have won with 49 states are Republicans, one of whom was not very good, and the latter being horrible. Just because the majority of people like someone doesn't make them good, or a help to the Progressive movement, and so we should base our critique on objective evidence, as Matt has done here.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
Thank you for translating (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
The problem is there is factual evidence (0.00 / 0)
Its just not the kind of evidence Matt wants to read. Okay, so the counterarguments don't count because he voted fatally on "parameter setting" issues.

Okay, fine. So there's really no need for a discussion, is there? If there's no case because of those 3 damning votes, there's no reason to bring it up. That's all I'm saying.  


[ Parent ]
The look from Minnesota: (0.00 / 0)
Here are Minnesota's House Representatives as they are rated by ProgressivePunch, along with the PVI makeup of their districts

Name/PP Score: 07-08, "Chips are down," lifetime/PVI

1. Keith Ellison (D-05)/98.34 93.51 98.34/D+21
2. Betty McCollum (D-04)/97.43 89.61 92.84/D+13
3. Jim Oberstar (D-08)/92.25 71.33 87.85/D+4
4. Tim Walz (D-01)/91.84 62.99 91.84/R +1
5. Collin Peterson (D-07)/84.35 54.25 60.81/R+6
6. Jim Ramstad (R-03)/24.32 9.15 20.64/R+1
7. John Kline (R-02)/2.31 0.65 2.65/R+3
8. Michelle Bachmann (R-06)/1.49 0.00 1.49/R+5

So we have two very progressive Representatives from our major urban districts (the 5th includes Minneapolis and a couple of surrounding suburbs, and the 4th includes St. Paul and much of its inner suburban area). We also have two good, albeit moderate, Democrats from rural districts--Walz is much closer to Oberstar than to Collin Peterson, who is  our one actual Bush Dog Democrat. Importantly, Peterson is actually a member of the official "Blue Dog" caucus, unlike Walz. Peterson actually represents the most conservative district in the entire state, so I would imagine there are higher priorities in terms of primary challenges even considering his dubious voting record (which, again, is conspicuously worse than Walz's). Right now, it's not hard to imagine having 8 Democrats and 0 Republicans representing Minnesota. The 3rd should be ripe for the picking, and a sustained effort to show just how terrible Bachmann and Kline are could prove fruitful.

Specifically regarding Iraq funding and FISA, while I disagree with the votes Walz made, I think they represent an honest difference of opinion and not a failure to stand up to the Bush Administration or a fear of being called a "liberal" or soft on defense. He ran his campaign against the Bush Administration, using textbook progressive style and language (the textbook in Minnesota being the Wellstone training sessions).

You are right to take issue and make noise about these two votes, but I don't think its particularly effective to include Walz on this list. He's not selling out or cowering to Republican talking points, and he's actually put out statements explaining his logic that aren't completely objectionable (I think you can find them on MNCR, I don't have the time to look right now). If you're making a list of enemies or people that need to face primary opposition, there's no way Walz should even be close to getting on the list. If you're organizing a list of people who should receive pressure from constituents to explain their votes on these 2 issues, than I think Walz has already done that, and is seemingly moving our way on FISA. I hope he doesn't vote for the next round of Iraq funding, but if he does it won't be for all the wrong reasons we've seen before.


Out of the national Dem Caucus, (0.00 / 0)
Walz's 2007-2008 score puts him 176/232, and his "Chips are down" score--which no doubt factors in these 2 votes--puts him at 186/232. These scores make sense given the makeup of his district and the fact that he's a freshman.

[ Parent ]
um (0.00 / 0)
Specifically regarding Iraq funding and FISA, while I disagree with the votes Walz made, I think they represent an honest difference of opinion and not a failure to stand up to the Bush Administration or a fear of being called a "liberal" or soft on defense.

It's not important why Walz is enabling Bush.  He may honestly believe that the Iraq war should continue or that Bush should not be restricted in his use of funds for the war, and he may honestly believe Bush needs to be able to spy on every American.  In that case his enabling of Bush is honest, but it is still not progressive and he is still operating as a moral cripple.  I really don't care if you honestly think that occupying Iraq is the right thing to do, you are still a monster for enabling it.

He ran his campaign against the Bush Administration, using textbook progressive style and language (the textbook in Minnesota being the Wellstone training sessions).

Then there's no reason at all to enable Bush, yet he is doing so.

You are right to take issue and make noise about these two votes, but I don't think its particularly effective to include Walz on this list. He's not selling out or cowering to Republican talking points, and he's actually put out statements explaining his logic that aren't completely objectionable (I think you can find them on MNCR, I don't have the time to look right now).

It really does not matter whether someone genuinely 'believes' that capitulating to Bush on Iraq or allowing the wiretapping of every American is the right thing to do.  Actions matter.  Walz has shown himself to be craven, perhaps charmingly so, but craven nonetheless.


[ Parent ]
You're right, who cares what someone believes? (0.00 / 0)
I mean, what is thought, anyway? I want a partisan hack in congress-- NAY, an absolutist! I want someone who will oppose Bush for its own sake. Out of spite. No thought required.

Elect Matt Stoller, MN-01, Spiting Absolutist Democrat for Congress.


[ Parent ]
if (0.00 / 0)
Aaron,

If you weren't a student, I would ban you for the personal attack.  While I like you and you are quite passionate, the problem is that once these attacks start they quickly take over a site, and that's not what I'd like to see happen here at OL.  So you have another shot, courtesy of your .edu address.

But please back off the personal attacks or else I will have no choice but to ban you.  


[ Parent ]
Again... (0.00 / 0)
You've chosen these two (maybe now three, it's unclear whether you've added a third vote to your criteria) votes to compile a list of what? House Democrats that we should start running primary challenges against? If that is your intention, all I am trying to say is that running a primary against Walz because of those three votes would be incredibly stupid and wasteful. If you're making a list of people undermining our efforts in the House, your priorities are way out of whack. That's why I provided the progressive punch scores.

I think, rather than taking these three votes, you  would have more credibility if you did an extensive comparison of Progressive Punch or DW Nominate scores compared with the Reps.' districts' Cook PVI numbers. I haven't done that, but I'd imagine Walz is about right where you would expect him to be, given his district's swing status.


[ Parent ]
Hang in there and be tough on them, Matt. (0.00 / 0)
Spare the rod, spoil the Congressman, I always say.  This is an important teaching moment.

If you're counting votes, (0.00 / 0)
which you're evidently not, I vote NO, he should stay on the list.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox