DCCC Chair Van Hollen Whines About Bush Dog Campaign

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:10


Well the idea for going after the Bush Dogs has gotten a bit of pickup in local press, even though we haven't yet gone forward with it.  Here's DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen.

"Would you put a bit of money and effort to go after these wayward Democrats?" writes blogger Matt Stoller on Open Left. "We can't replace all of them with progressive Democrats, but we can certainly annoy at least a few of them and raise the costs for voting against the Constitution."

That would be liking shooting themselves in the foot, U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told us recently when asked about such groups upset with lawmakers like Carney.

That's ridiculous.  Just look at these numbers.

Meanwhile, Congress wins just 18% positive approval from Democrats, while 80% of Dems give them negative marks for their performance so far. Republicans watching the performance of the Democratic-controlled Congress are more harsh - just 12% give it good marks, while 86% said they are doing only a "fair" or "poor" job in Washington. Political independents appear to agree with Republicans on this count - just 16% give Congress positive marks, while the balance give it a negative rating.

The public is mad at Democrats for caving to Bush.  Check out these numbers from the approve/disapprove on whether Bush should have the power to wiretap the phone calls and emails of Americans without a search warrant from a judge.  60% of all voters, 77% of Democrats, 66% of Indepedents, and 36% of Republicans strongly disapproval, with another 12% overall giving a softer disapproval.  Those are nearly Terri Schiavo numbers type numbers.

We wouldn't have to do this if Van Hollen, Hoyer, and Rahm could actually impose discipline on the Bush Dog Democrats they just got elected.  Instead, it's pretty obvious that Pelosi has very little control over the House, and had to schedule a vote on FISA or she would face an open revolt.  Worse yet, it's also obvious that Van Hollen doesn't care.  He doesn't recognize we're trying to help him do a better job and work against the alienation most voters feel.  I was pretty explicit that we are not going to try to primary these people, that's up to local Democrats.  We are just offering criticism and a bit of political pressure for voting to shred the Constitution, which, incidentally, is probably a very stupid political move for the Democrats as a whole.

It's a good thing that Van Hollen is getting asked about this by the press.  Next time there's a close vote, he'll have a stronger incentive to whip Bush Dogs more effectively.

More and better Democrats.

Matt Stoller :: DCCC Chair Van Hollen Whines About Bush Dog Campaign

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
DCCC Chair Van Hollen Whines About Bush Dog Campaign | 25 comments
Black and Blue (0.00 / 0)
Two members of the Congressional Black Caucus are also members of the Blue Dogs:  Georgia's Sanford Bishop and David Scott.  They are the two most conservative votes in the CBC with Scott scoring a Progressive Punch rating of 77.98 and Bishop coming in dead last with 72.98.  Bishop is from a tossup district (48.36% Kerry) and garnered 67.9% of the congressional vote last year in his re-election campaign.  There is no reason for this voting record.

BTW, Scott's Treasurer is listed as Henry Aaron.  I assume it is that Henry.  Bad Henry!

PVI (4.00 / 2)
There is also definitely something to be said for considering the PVI of the district. While Matt is right in everything he says about Bush Dogs being unnecessary at least in Republican leaning districts you can see their (ill-conceived and unfounded) argument. For heavily Democratic districts to be represented by the Bush Dogs is absurd.
I'll use everyone's favorite example .. (0.00 / 0)
Ellen Tauscher .. she is in a safely Dem district .. and as been proven elsewhere ... she didn't even think AGAG could be impeached ... and she wants to bitch about the possibility of being primaried? .. and I dislike that Pelosi panders to her .. CA buddies or not
[ Parent ]
I live in CA-10 and should know the answer... (0.00 / 0)
to the following question but I don't...

Has Tauscher's voting performance improved since the heady days of the Lamont victory and the threat of a primary challenge appeared often on the 'net?

Since that time, for votes I've checked on, she's voted along with George Miller and Pelosi.

If her voting record has improved since summer 2006, doesn't that argue that what Matt is trying to do here makes sense?

Anybody done an analysis of her record?

[ Parent ]
Loyalty scores (0.00 / 0)
Tauscher has toed the line.  On August 5 I jotted down the ten most loyal Democrats and the ten least loyal according to the Washington Post.  Tauscher rated as the fourth most loyal Democrat in the House with a 98.7% loyalty score.  Outstanding, drill sergeant.
[ Parent ]
I suppose this means... (4.00 / 1)
even Bush Dogs can learn new tricks if properly taught.
[ Parent ]
It would seem so (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Thank you (4.00 / 2)
This was going to be my main point -- I agree with Matt's desire to target some of these members, but not all of them, and Chris Carney (PA-10), the subject of that article, isn't one of them.  Had Don Sherwood been a non-violent adulterer, we wouldn't have had a chance at this seat as presently drawn.
[ Parent ]
um (4.00 / 1)
I didn't argue that we should target Chris Carney for defeat, I just said we should criticize him.
[ Parent ]
What are you thinking now about.... (0.00 / 0)
...putting your plan into action.

I am ready to help as I feel this is a good idea.

And it's sort of....

Democratic.

Which is a good thing.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
That's not the point (0.00 / 0)
It's not that you are targeting someone like Carney for defeat. It's that you could better spend limited time and money in other districts.

It's that his voting record, almost 77% on PP (see: http://www.progressi...) is a lot better than you would get if a Republican represented the District again.

[ Parent ]
Some fear of Dogs justified (4.00 / 2)
The basic lie of the land is that the Dogs have chances to team up with the GOP, whereas the Progs have nowhere to go.

So, natch, that gives the Dogs some swagger.

Do they need FISA votes for protection in their CDs? Or is that just an excuse for poking Pelosi in the eye?

Doesn't terribly matter: they're (for the moment) in a good place, and the ever so risk-averse leadership isn't going to rock any boats until they get reelected to the majority (hopefully with a good-sized majority) in 08.

Even then, I suspect that the Dogs will at least maintain their current weighting amongst Dem reps in the 111th, and, though a bigger majority will give the maj leadership room that it hasn't at the moment to confront (or bypass) them, I can't see the Dog threat going away any time soon.

(The math: suppose the Dems go to 260-175 in 08: that means the GOP (on a full turnout) have 43 Dem votes to find to reach the magic 218. There should be issues (how many? how important?) on which they can find those votes from Dogs and nonaligned Dem mods.

Unless those primaries really Wounded Knee them.)

Seriously Matt... read this and digest it a bit... (0.00 / 0)
Okay so you are saying that... (0.00 / 0)
...we must get behind Liebermann?

Right?

Right?

Please wake up.

Matt is saying we must pressure Democrats to do what we want them to do.

Oppose Bush and the Republicans.

Funny....

That's what the voters want too.

Which leaves you and the dKos diarist you link to....

Where exactly?

Not anywhere I or any of the Progressives I know want to be.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
No not at all... (0.00 / 0)
What I am suggesting is that you and Matt are attacking the wrong people.  Lieberman ISN'T a Democrat.  What Matt falls into is the notion that attacking and targeting Democrats with such absurd attacks is doing nothing be acting like a cancer to the cause.  THEY are the enemy.  If a specific legislator you have a problem with, then work to convince them otherwise. 

[ Parent ]
Lieberman votes with the Democratic Caucus (0.00 / 0)
He is chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. How is he 'not a Democrat...' my point, which you missed, is that there are people in both Houses who call themselves 'Democrats' but they vote, or threaten to vote, Republican because that is, in fact, their political philosophy or they feel they cannot hold their seat if they don't.

Matt correctly makes the analysis that these folks must be de-seated. Run out of Congress if possible. Threatened with primary opposition  at the least.

This is the road to change.

Doesn't matter if a Republican does take their seat, something that is becoming very doubtful due to the tremendous shift the independents are making to the actual Democratic Party progressive need to push back against 'conservative' candidates no matter what they call themselves.

Supporting the likes of Ellen Tauscher or Joe Lieberman or Heath Schuler is a political dead end as all recent polling shows.

Don't agree fine.

Sit back and enjoy more FISA and...don't look now but Mr. Decider is taking your picture with a NSA satellite.

Me...

I'll be working to elect Charlie Brown and Donna Edwards and if  a viable Democrat runs against Boxer or DiFi or Pelosi I will get behind them also.

And I am not alone. Every progressive I talk to wants those last three....

GONE!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
You all are whats wrong with the movement... (0.00 / 0)
Not all democrats are the same everywhere... a progressive in one part of the country is not a progressive someplace else.  Your "All or nothing" stance is going to destroy the movement.  You say you would prefer a Republican over a democrat in those seats? You just lost 20-30 percent of the votes on things OTHER THEN FISA... You are what gives the blogsphere a bad name.  Sure I was pissed off at FISA... I thought that was a no-brainer.  But dammit... you are just allowing the Republicans to win over 2 goddamn votes.  Look at the national journal stats... with only a couple exceptions almost every blue dog has a better voting record then a "Moderate" Republican.

Strategically you are taking WAY too much for granted if you think for a second that we are guaranteed to keep all the independants we won in 2006.  1994, which was just as big of a electoral wave was followed by several losses by the Republicans in 1996 what we need to learn is that that we NEED is to primary challenge dem's who failed us from safely democratic districts... NOT ones that are holding PVI r+ districts!!!!

I will work as hard as I can to insure a DEMOCRATIC majority not for ideological purism and a disgust for anyone who steps out of line.

[ Parent ]
Just don't get it do you. (0.00 / 0)
Anybody can call themselves a 'Democrat'. It's what they do in office that matters not what camouflage they assume to get elected.

Go ahead support Tauscher and DiFi and the rest of those who view you and me as chumps to be courted when our votes or money or support is needed but who...

Go under the bus when the election is over and the lobbyists come a' callin' with their money.

This has nothing to do with 'ideological purism...' by the way. It has to do with a working Democratic majority.

Something your approach will never create.


Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Hopefully... (0.00 / 0)
They have already seen and understood the reality of the threat and will act accordingly.  I am not a fan of partisanship for its own sake, but I can't vote for a congresscritter whom I see as failing in their Oath to protect and defend the constitution.

That said I do firmly believe the a representative's first responsibility is to their own conscience.  If I don't like what that leads them to do, then I will work to elect one whose morals I can respect.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

Brian Higgins supports Bush Wiretaps without Court Order (4.00 / 1)
...
I have no talent for this and yet it took just a few minutes to put this together...

http://farm2.static....

If I can do this, others with more talent could actually do something which could have more impact.

...

Nice (0.00 / 0)
I might do some work with that. :-)

Can it happen here?
[ Parent ]
The case for graphics like the one I provided above... (4.00 / 1)
We all devour detailed arguments about politics with text.

But in 6 months, who is going to remember where the link to the argument is if the argument is even recalled?

But a picture?  A picture!

A picture of the Bush Dog Congressperson which carries a message of what it means for that Congressperson to side with Bush/Cheney; what it means for the Constitution, what it means for the Country, what it means for the Democratic Party.

Then a little posting of the pictures to blog sites and email attachments to all the Bush Dogs, to TV and print journalists, to friends, etc.  I think these sorts of pictures will make the point and annoy and have the potential to trigger a jump start with a Bush Dog more than any text ad.

Seems to me that it makes sense to start with Bush Dogs in democratic districts.

[ Parent ]
Bush Dogs (0.00 / 0)
I love the name "Bush Dogs," but not "Bush Dog Democrats."  To me, Bush Dogs are not Democrats.  Democrats support the Constitution, not the national security state and not the unitary executive.  It is what separates Democrats from others.  If Bush Dogs vote to gut the Constitution, they should no longer be called Democrats.

Perhaps we should target Van Hollen along with Pelosi and Reid until they understand this distinction.

DCCC Funding (0.00 / 0)
The number of incumbent Democrats who received serious cash from the DCCC was extremely limited.  Under Rahm Emanuel, a lot of these recipients were Blue Dogs with bad loyalty records.  Among the bottom ten loyalty scores (among Democrats) for this session are perrenial cash drains John Barrow and Jim Marshall and five rookies (Heath Shuler, Jason Altmire, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, and Chris Carney).  Gene Taylor, Jim Matheson, and Dan Boren represent "really bad" districts and get re-elected on their own.

Even these folks have anywhere from a 79.5% to 86.9% loyalty score.

 

DCCC Funding (4.00 / 1)
But not all votes are created equal.  It's easy to maintain party loyalty on some votes, but if a so-called Democrat votes to gut the Bill of Rights, then I would argue they're not really a Democrat.  Critizing them, targeting them, pressuring them...if the Democratic leadership won't do it, then we have to.
[ Parent ]
DCCC Chair Van Hollen Whines About Bush Dog Campaign | 25 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