Vital Stats on "Bush Dogs"--Battleground Status AND Progressive Punch Scores By Issue Category

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 03:24

Spurred on by David Kowalski offering Progressive Punch scores in a comment, I've done another iteration of this table, which is now dominated by the Progressive Punch scores for all the issue categories. Color coding is used for Progressive Punch scores, grouping by deciles, descending from moderate to light blue, and then from light to moderate red.

I have two versions of the table over the jump. The first maintains the alphabetical order within battleground tiers, the second is in descending order of Progressive Punch total scores, again within battleground tiers. The second is particularly helpful for seeing the relative conservatism of different members at a glance.

I believe this provides the most comprehensive visual overview of the overall political orientations of the Bush Dogs to date. It is very clear that the Bush Dogs are particularly bad on Family Planning and on Civil and Criminal Justice issues. Average scores on other issues range from the low 90s (Housing) to the low 70s (Human Rights & Liberties, Corporate Subsidies), but then drops precipitously to the mid 50s for Civil and Criminal Justice and the high 40s for Family Planning.

However, even for Government Checks on Corporate Power, where the overal average is in the mid 70s, there are three Safe District Bush Dogs who score under 50%--Boren, Peterson and Cuellar.

Paul Rosenberg :: Vital Stats on "Bush Dogs"--Battleground Status AND Progressive Punch Scores By Issue Category

Vital Stats on "Bush Dogs" -- In Alphabetical Order Within Tiers

Member	Dist.	__PVI__	Term #	06 win %	New Dem	Blue Dog	Prog Punch Total	Hous- ing	Labor Rights	Fair Tax- ation	Health Care	Aid to the Less Ad- vant- aged, at Home & Abroad	Making Gov't Work for Every- one, Not Just the Rich or Power- ful	Edu- cation, Human- ities, & the Arts	War & Peace	Gov't Checks on Corp- orate Power	En- viron- ment	Hu- man Rights & Civil Lib- erties	Corp- orate Sub- sidies	Justice for All: Civil and Crim- inal	Family Plan- ning
Tier One Battleground Districts
Altimire	PA-04	R +2.6	1	52	Yes	No	72.6	93.8	100.0	76.2	93.8	92.1	91.0	83.3	92.3	89.7	95.8	84.6	80.0	62.5	(N/A)
Barrow	GA-12	R +2	2	50	Yes	Yes	67.4	94.7	86.7	72.2	80.0	81.8	79.5	70.8	72.1	89.4	84.6	72.9	93.3	60.5	83.3
Bean	IL-08	R +5.2	2	51	Yes	Yes	75.5	100.0	96.7	77.8	83.3	85.2	85.5	75.0	83.7	89.2	92.3	81.4	85.7	62.8	100.0
Boswell	IA-03	D +1.4	6	52	No	Yes	70.8	87.5	79.4	82.2	86.8	82.0	79.6	80.4	69.9	74.7	71.1	75.2	76.1	64.3	64.0
Carney**	PA-10	R +8.0	1	53	Yes	Yes	76.9	100.0	100.0	81.0	93.3	89.2	89.4	81.8	72.0	89.3	87.5	80.8	60.0	62.5	(N/A)
Hill	IN-09	R +7.1	1 / 4*	50	Yes	Yes	74.6	85.7	74.1	92.9	84.3	81.6	82.4	79.5	72.0	71.8	67.7	74.5	71.2	51.0	52.4
Lampson	TX-22	R +14.5	1 / 5*	52	Yes	Yes	75.2	84.2	89.4	84.2	87.9	83.9	83.3	86.1	71.2	76.8	64.2	74.7	73.9	74.0	61.9
Marshall	GA-08	R +8	3	51	No	Yes	63.2	91.3	68.4	77.6	72.8	73.5	67.8	68.2	55.1	65.6	56.4	52.5	57.1	52.7	31.3
Shuler	NC-11	R +7.1	1	54	No	Yes	71.3	100.0	94.7	81.0	81.3	86.8	91.0	83.3	92.3	86.2	100.0	88.5	100.0	62.5	(N/A)
Space	OH-18	R +6.1	1	62	No	Yes	79.9	100.0	100.0	81.0	87.5	89.5	92.5	83.3	88.5	86.2	95.8	88.5	80.0	62.5	(N/A)
Walz**	MN-01	R +0.9	1	53	No	No	90.9	100.0	100.0	90.5	93.8	94.7	94.0	83.3	92.3	100.0	100.0	96.2	100.0	75.0	(N/A)
Avg/ Subtots	--	R +5.5	1.8 / 2.4	53	6 of 11 55%	9 of 11 82%	74.4	94.3	89.9	81.5	85.9	85.5	85.1	79.6	78.3	83.5	83.2	79.1	79.8	62.7	65.5
Tier Two Battleground Districts
Donnelly	IN-02	R +4.3	1	54	No	Yes	73.6	100.0	94.7	81.0	87.5	89.5	90.9	83.3	88.5	96.4	100.0	88.5	100.0	62.5	(N/A)
Edwards	TX-17	R +17.7	9	58	No	No	69.1	91.7	77.6	80.5	79.8	78.7	73.1	78.0	59.6	61.1	47.1	66.7	50.0	53.6	74.1
Ellsworth	IN-08	R +8.5	1	61	No	Yes	74.1	100.0	94.7	81.0	81.3	86.8	91.0	83.3	84.6	93.1	100.0	88.5	100.0	62.5	(N/A)
Melancon	LA-03	R +4.8	2	55	Yes	Yes	68.9	89.5	83.3	72.2	80.0	75.0	77.1	66.7	81.4	56.9	60.4	71.2	33.3	58.1	16.7
Rodriguez**	TX-23	R +4	1 / 5*	54	No	No	83.4	95.2	92.9	90.6	95.9	92.6	89.9	84.6	78.2	85.9	77.2	87.1	81.8	79.1	100.0
Avg/ Subtots	--	R +7.9	2.8 / 3.6	56	1 of 5 20%	3 of 5 60%	73.8	95.3	88.7	81.1	84.9	84.5	84.4	79.2	78.5	78.7	76.9	80.4	73.0	63.2	63.6
Safe Districts
Boren	OK-02	R +4.9	2	73	No	Yes	60.5	100.0	63.0	63.9	83.3	67.1	64.2	62.5	76.7	45.5	52.9	59.3	26.7	42.9	0.0
Boyd	FL-02	R +2.2	6	100	No	Yes	61.8	83.3	66.9	85.8	79.1	77.6	71.4	72.6	65.5	56.4	59.6	64.5	65.2	43.0	62.5
Chandler**	KY-06	R +6.6	3	85	Yes	Yes	79.2	95.0	84.9	77.8	81.8	82.5	79.5	76.0	80.4	85.0	81.4	65.6	100.0	64.3	37.5
Cooper	TN-05	D +6.2	3 / 9*	69	No	Yes	71.9	81.8	73.7	90.3	82.2	80.6	78.9	84.1	79.8	72.4	76.0	75.3	79.3	44.6	81.3
Costa	CA-20	D +4.6	2	100	No	Yes	77.8	100.0	93.1	80.6	86.2	80.7	77.8	75.0	83.7	78.8	73.6	75.4	73.3	58.5	83.3
Cramer	AL-05	R +6.4	9	100	No	Yes	70.2	100.0	80.0	86.1	90.0	81.8	60.6	87.5	51.8	56.1	64.2	65.5	33.3	51.2	16.7
Cuellar	TX-28	R +1	2	68	Yes	No	58.7	83.3	60.6	70.7	61.2	64.5	75.8	64.0	81.4	43.1	46.4	50.8	40.8	30.2	29.6
Davis, L	TN-04	R +3.2	3	66	No	Yes	68.0	87.5	70.4	85.5	70.6	72.3	84.5	75.0	72.0	63.4	63.4	52.1	63.2	35.5	12.5
Ethridge	NC-02	R +2.7	6	66	Yes	No	77.6	91.7	81.9	89.7	90.5	88.4	72.2	90.2	66.2	84.6	74.7	73.2	82.9	73.3	74.1
Gordon	TN-06	R +3.8	12	69	No	Yes	69.5	79.2	77.0	81.0	78.3	72.6	82.5	72.6	81.8	64.3	69.3	64.0	66.7	43.5	50.0
Herseth**	SD-AL	R +10.0	3	69	Yes	Yes	75.5	100.0	92.9	80.6	77.4	80.5	70.4	75.0	71.4	78.1	78.9	76.3	60.0	55.8	100.0
Lipinski	IL-03	D +10.3	2	77	No	No	83.5	100.0	93.3	86.1	76.7	77.3	84.3	79.2	86.1	92.4	94.3	64.4	86.7	60.5	0.0
Matheson	UT-02	R +16.9	4	59	No	Yes	65.6	87.5	70.9	73.5	73.3	73.6	68.5	82.4	62.9	61.0	61.0	65.1	61.8	41.9	59.3
McIntyre	NC-07	R +2.8	6	73	Yes	Yes	62.8	87.5	78.0	79.6	73.0	73.7	76.5	78.4	67.6	70.3	73.4	55.6	72.4	65.5	11.1
Peterson	MN-07	R +5.6	9	70	No	Yes	59.6	83.3	71.4	77.1	53.6	65.1	64.8	76.5	58.7	45.5	52.9	52.8	43.4	31.8	11.1
Pomeroy	ND-AL	R +13.1	8	66	No	Yes	74.7	87.5	74.8	90.2	79.1	77.4	77.9	78.0	64.1	66.7	57.8	66.1	52.6	52.3	40.7
Ross	AR-04	D +0.5	4	75	No	Yes	72.8	87.5	83.5	82.2	85.3	80.3	77.1	82.4	66.4	65.9	56.5	68.5	57.9	62.8	33.3
Salazar	CO-03	R +5.6	2	61	No	Yes	79.4	100.0	93.3	80.6	86.2	83.0	84.2	70.8	83.7	83.3	84.9	75.9	73.3	71.4	33.3
Snyder	AR-02	R +0.1	6	61	Yes	No	77.7	87.0	75.4	89.7	89.4	82.5	81.0	83.3	64.3	74.3	69.5	74.0	77.3	67.4	66.7
Tanner	TN-08	D +0.1	10	73	No	Yes	63.2	87.5	70.3	86.9	79.3	74.0	72.2	68.6	70.2	60.7	60.8	64.5	73.7	43.9	44.4
Taylor	MS-04	R +16.3	10	80	No	Yes	50.2	79.2	69.3	86.4	64.0	71.4	69.0	60.8	60.8	61.4	72.7	46.4	57.9	40.0	3.9
Wilson	OH-06	D +0.4	1	62	No	Yes	88.6	100.0	100.0	90.5	87.5	92.1	94.0	83.3	88.5	100.0	95.8	92.3	80.0	62.5	(N/A)
Avg/ Subtots	--	R +3.6	5.1 / 5.4	78	6 of 22 27%	18 of 22 82%	70.4	90.4	78.4	82.5	78.6	77.2	75.8	76.3	72.0	68.6	69.1	65.8	64.9	51.9	40.5

Averages/ Totals	--	R +4.7	3.9 / 4.3	62	13 of 38 34%	30 of 38 79%	72.0	92.2	83.1	82.0	81.5	80.6	79.6	77.6	74.7	74.2	74.2	71.6	70.3	56.6	48.3

Notes [Chris's Original]
PVI = Partisan Voting Index, produced by Cook Political Report
* = Non-consecutive terms in Congress
** = Received significant national blogosphere support
Also, Tim Walz did vote in favor of the McGovern amendment. All others voted nay on that amendment, and are clearly ideologically opposed to progressives in this area.

Vital Stats on "Bush Dogs" -- In Descending Order of Progressive Punch Total Scores Within Tiers
Member Dist. __PVI__ Term # 06 win % New
Dem Blue
Dog Prog
Punch
Total Hous- ing Labor Rights Fair Tax- ation Health Care Aid to the Less Ad- vant- aged, at Home & Abroad Making Gov't Work for Every- one, Not Just the Rich or Power- ful Edu- cation, Human- ities, & the Arts War & Peace Gov't Checks on Corp- orate Power En- viron- ment Hu- man Rights & Civil Lib- erties Corp- orate Sub- sidies Justice for All: Civil and Crim- inal Family Plan- ning
Tier One Battleground Districts
Walz** MN-01 R +0.9 1 53 No No 90.9 100.0 100.0 90.5 93.8 94.7 94.0 83.3 92.3 100.0 100.0 96.2 100.0 75.0 (N/A)
Space OH-18 R +6.1 1 62 No Yes 79.9 100.0 100.0 81.0 87.5 89.5 92.5 83.3 88.5 86.2 95.8 88.5 80.0 62.5 (N/A)
Carney** PA-10 R +8.0 1 53 Yes Yes 76.9 100.0 100.0 81.0 93.3 89.2 89.4 81.8 72.0 89.3 87.5 80.8 60.0 62.5 (N/A)
Bean IL-08 R +5.2 2 51 Yes Yes 75.5 100.0 96.7 77.8 83.3 85.2 85.5 75.0 83.7 89.2 92.3 81.4 85.7 62.8 100.0
Lampson TX-22 R +14.5 1 / 5* 52 Yes Yes 75.2 84.2 89.4 84.2 87.9 83.9 83.3 86.1 71.2 76.8 64.2 74.7 73.9 74.0 61.9
Hill IN-09 R +7.1 1 / 4* 50 Yes Yes 74.6 85.7 74.1 92.9 84.3 81.6 82.4 79.5 72.0 71.8 67.7 74.5 71.2 51.0 52.4
Altimire PA-04 R +2.6 1 52 Yes No 72.6 93.8 100.0 76.2 93.8 92.1 91.0 83.3 92.3 89.7 95.8 84.6 80.0 62.5 (N/A)
Shuler NC-11 R +7.1 1 54 No Yes 71.3 100.0 94.7 81.0 81.3 86.8 91.0 83.3 92.3 86.2 100.0 88.5 100.0 62.5 (N/A)
Boswell IA-03 D +1.4 6 52 No Yes 70.8 87.5 79.4 82.2 86.8 82.0 79.6 80.4 69.9 74.7 71.1 75.2 76.1 64.3 64.0
Barrow GA-12 R +2 2 50 Yes Yes 67.4 94.7 86.7 72.2 80.0 81.8 79.5 70.8 72.1 89.4 84.6 72.9 93.3 60.5 83.3
Marshall GA-08 R +8 3 51 No Yes 63.2 91.3 68.4 77.6 72.8 73.5 67.8 68.2 55.1 65.6 56.4 52.5 57.1 52.7 31.3
Avg/ Subtots -- R +5.5 1.8 / 2.4 53 6 of 11
55% 9 of 11
82% 74.4 94.3 89.9 81.5 85.9 85.5 85.1 79.6 78.3 83.5 83.2 79.1 79.8 62.7 65.5
Tier Two Battleground Districts
Rodriguez** TX-23 R +4 1 / 5* 54 No No 83.4 95.2 92.9 90.6 95.9 92.6 89.9 84.6 78.2 85.9 77.2 87.1 81.8 79.1 100.0
Ellsworth IN-08 R +8.5 1 61 No Yes 74.1 100.0 94.7 81.0 81.3 86.8 91.0 83.3 84.6 93.1 100.0 88.5 100.0 62.5 (N/A)
Donnelly IN-02 R +4.3 1 54 No Yes 73.6 100.0 94.7 81.0 87.5 89.5 90.9 83.3 88.5 96.4 100.0 88.5 100.0 62.5 (N/A)
Edwards TX-17 R +17.7 9 58 No No 69.1 91.7 77.6 80.5 79.8 78.7 73.1 78.0 59.6 61.1 47.1 66.7 50.0 53.6 74.1
Melancon LA-03 R +4.8 2 55 Yes Yes 68.9 89.5 83.3 72.2 80.0 75.0 77.1 66.7 81.4 56.9 60.4 71.2 33.3 58.1 16.7
Avg/ Subtots -- R +7.9 2.8 / 3.6 56 1 of 5
20% 3 of 5
60% 73.8 95.3 88.7 81.1 84.9 84.5 84.4 79.2 78.5 78.7 76.9 80.4 73.0 63.2 63.6
Safe Districts
Wilson OH-06 D +0.4 1 62 No Yes 88.6 100.0 100.0 90.5 87.5 92.1 94.0 83.3 88.5 100.0 95.8 92.3 80.0 62.5 (N/A)
Lipinski IL-03 D +10.3 2 77 No No 83.5 100.0 93.3 86.1 76.7 77.3 84.3 79.2 86.1 92.4 94.3 64.4 86.7 60.5 0.0
Salazar CO-03 R +5.6 2 61 No Yes 79.4 100.0 93.3 80.6 86.2 83.0 84.2 70.8 83.7 83.3 84.9 75.9 73.3 71.4 33.3
Chandler** KY-06 R +6.6 3 85 Yes Yes 79.2 95.0 84.9 77.8 81.8 82.5 79.5 76.0 80.4 85.0 81.4 65.6 100.0 64.3 37.5
Costa CA-20 D +4.6 2 100 No Yes 77.8 100.0 93.1 80.6 86.2 80.7 77.8 75.0 83.7 78.8 73.6 75.4 73.3 58.5 83.3
Snyder AR-02 R +0.1 6 61 Yes No 77.7 87.0 75.4 89.7 89.4 82.5 81.0 83.3 64.3 74.3 69.5 74.0 77.3 67.4 66.7
Ethridge NC-02 R +2.7 6 66 Yes No 77.6 91.7 81.9 89.7 90.5 88.4 72.2 90.2 66.2 84.6 74.7 73.2 82.9 73.3 74.1
Herseth** SD-AL R +10.0 3 69 Yes Yes 75.5 100.0 92.9 80.6 77.4 80.5 70.4 75.0 71.4 78.1 78.9 76.3 60.0 55.8 100.0
Pomeroy ND-AL R +13.1 8 66 No Yes 74.7 87.5 74.8 90.2 79.1 77.4 77.9 78.0 64.1 66.7 57.8 66.1 52.6 52.3 40.7
Ross AR-04 D +0.5 4 75 No Yes 72.8 87.5 83.5 82.2 85.3 80.3 77.1 82.4 66.4 65.9 56.5 68.5 57.9 62.8 33.3
Cooper TN-05 D +6.2 3 / 9* 69 No Yes 71.9 81.8 73.7 90.3 82.2 80.6 78.9 84.1 79.8 72.4 76.0 75.3 79.3 44.6 81.3
Cramer AL-05 R +6.4 9 100 No Yes 70.2 100.0 80.0 86.1 90.0 81.8 60.6 87.5 51.8 56.1 64.2 65.5 33.3 51.2 16.7
Gordon TN-06 R +3.8 12 69 No Yes 69.5 79.2 77.0 81.0 78.3 72.6 82.5 72.6 81.8 64.3 69.3 64.0 66.7 43.5 50.0
Davis, L TN-04 R +3.2 3 66 No Yes 68.0 87.5 70.4 85.5 70.6 72.3 84.5 75.0 72.0 63.4 63.4 52.1 63.2 35.5 12.5
Matheson UT-02 R +16.9 4 59 No Yes 65.6 87.5 70.9 73.5 73.3 73.6 68.5 82.4 62.9 61.0 61.0 65.1 61.8 41.9 59.3
Tanner TN-08 D +0.1 10 73 No Yes 63.2 87.5 70.3 86.9 79.3 74.0 72.2 68.6 70.2 60.7 60.8 64.5 73.7 43.9 44.4
McIntyre NC-07 R +2.8 6 73 Yes Yes 62.8 87.5 78.0 79.6 73.0 73.7 76.5 78.4 67.6 70.3 73.4 55.6 72.4 65.5 11.1
Boyd FL-02 R +2.2 6 100 No Yes 61.8 83.3 66.9 85.8 79.1 77.6 71.4 72.6 65.5 56.4 59.6 64.5 65.2 43.0 62.5
Boren OK-02 R +4.9 2 73 No Yes 60.5 100.0 63.0 63.9 83.3 67.1 64.2 62.5 76.7 45.5 52.9 59.3 26.7 42.9 0.0
Peterson MN-07 R +5.6 9 70 No Yes 59.6 83.3 71.4 77.1 53.6 65.1 64.8 76.5 58.7 45.5 52.9 52.8 43.4 31.8 11.1
Cuellar TX-28 R +1 2 68 Yes No 58.7 83.3 60.6 70.7 61.2 64.5 75.8 64.0 81.4 43.1 46.4 50.8 40.8 30.2 29.6
Taylor MS-04 R +16.3 10 80 No Yes 50.2 79.2 69.3 86.4 64.0 71.4 69.0 60.8 60.8 61.4 72.7 46.4 57.9 40.0 3.9
Avg/ Subtots -- R +3.6 5.1 / 5.4 78 6 of 22
27% 18 of 22
82% 70.4 90.4 78.4 82.5 78.6 77.2 75.8 76.3 72.0 68.6 69.1 65.8 64.9 51.9 40.5
Averages/ Totals -- R +4.7 3.9 / 4.3 62 13 of 38
34% 30 of 38
79% 72.0 92.2 83.1 82.0 81.5 80.6 79.6 77.6 74.7 74.2 74.2 71.6 70.3 56.6 48.3

Notes [Chris's Original]
PVI = Partisan Voting Index, produced by Cook Political Report
* = Non-consecutive terms in Congress
** = Received significant national blogosphere support
Also, Tim Walz did vote in favor of the McGovern amendment. All others voted nay on that amendment, and are clearly ideologically opposed to progressives in this area.

Tags: Battleground Districts, Bush Dogs, Blue Dogs, Iraq, FISA, House 2008, House Democrats, New Democrats, Progressive Punch, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Vital Stats on "Bush Dogs"--Battleground Status AND Progressive Punch Scores By Issue Category | 16 comments

Bush Dog Myopia (0.00 / 0)

This clearly highlights my major problem with the Bush Dog campaign: it has defined those who are not worth of progressive support by two issues. Whatever happened to the demise of single issue voting? I guess it went out the door when the Iraq War and FISA bills were voted on.

It's hard for me to understand how you can expect anyone more liberal than Carney to represent PA-10, and despite his bad votes on a number of issues, he is clearly progressive on many others.

Waltz is an even clearer case: how can you call someone a "Bush Dog" who has over a 90% progressive rating?

There are clearly some candidates on here whom we should focus on getting rid of, or at least annoying (maybe those who don't reflect high D+ districts, and those who have lower than a 70-- or some other measure). But this campaign is just plain rediculous.

Thanks for the graphs, Paul!

by: Alex UA @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 15:34:16 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I feel like this has been reiterated (4.00 / 1)

all over the place, but the point of this campaign is not to remove all of these representatives from office. Ending the war in Iraq is not an issue where we can afford to have Democrats breaking ranks, and it is so massively unpopular that there is little rationale for doing so, no matter how conservative the district. So, no matter what the PVI of their districts, and no matter what their Progressive Punch scores are, they need to feel pressure on these issues.

I agree that eventually this focus should be widened to target on a much broader range of issues. Something along the lines of Paul's proposal for a battle ground districts campaign. But this is pretty urgent; we need to be ready for when FISA comes up again and for the next withdrawal vote.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

by: Sam L @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 15:52:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Precisely! (0.00 / 0)

You have captured perfectly the point of the Bush Dog campaign, and the relationship of my Battleground District campaign to the Bush Dog campaign.

"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

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 16:51:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Oh... (0.00 / 0)

And here I thought that the issues we should be really putting candidates feet to the fire included: the environment, workers rights, civil rights, consumer rights, ending corporate welfare, universal healthcare. My bad, I forgot that Iraq and FISA are just monumentally more important. Not that I'm saying that they aren't important, but going after Carney when we have Jack "never met a corporate giveaway he didn't love" Murtha in the same state, only serves to show the short sighted nature of parts of the netroots, and not much more...

The attempts to define what is most important to all Democrats and/or progressives (and thus what we should all be joining ranks to get behind) is counterproductive.

There just has to be a better way...

by: Alex UA @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 17:16:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The Most Important Issue NOW Is Not A Judgement On Other Issues (0.00 / 0)

Again, you are misrepresenting the argument. These are the headline issues that define whether people see the Dems as standing up to Bush, standing strong on their convictions, and delivering a change of direction.

If they can't win these votes, then the other issues you mention don't even come to the table.

"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

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 18:58:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sam Has The Right Idea (0.00 / 0)

It sounds to me liky your criticism is based on willfully misunderstanding the Bush Dog campaign, unless you just stumbled into the middle of it, and don't understand how and why it got started. [Chris defined the term here] It is a specific emergecy response to enabling a deeply unpopular war, and the destruction of rights dating back to the Magna Charta. It is not meant to be the ba-all and end-all of political organizing.

It's hard for me to understand how you can expect anyone more liberal than Carney to represent PA-10, and despite his bad votes on a number of issues, he is clearly progressive on many others.

So (a) What's with his 60% rating on corporate subsidies? Lot's of CEOs in his district? (b) His district's PVI is R +8.0. Boyda's is R +7.0, just one point more Democratic. Yet she's no Bush Dog.

Waltz is an even clearer case: how can you call someone a "Bush Dog" who has over a 90% progressive rating?

It's a really simple definition. As Yogi Bera said, "You could look it up."

There is nothing ridiculous about fighting back against officeholders who undermine party unity, betray the Constitution, and are out of step with their districts, all at the same time.

There are certainly better long-term strategies that take on a broader range of issues and seek to organize broader coalitions. But you have to learn to crawl before you walk, to walk before you run, and to run before you fly.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the 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

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 17:10:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

read between the lines... (0.00 / 0)

I don't misunderstand the issue, I disagree with the campaign, and I do think that it's rediculous to put Waltz into a category with the Blue Dogs who vote like Rs.

Sorry I forgot to march in line for a moment...

by: Alex UA @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 17:20:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Zack Space (0.00 / 0)

Forgot to add - yes he is tough on crime. There were 2 votes in this catagory where he went against party lines. I removed these 2 votes and recalculated his score and it was 90.

by: notimportant @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 17:51:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you (0.00 / 0)

and that's why it took me a week to respond to Matt's list after I volunteered to write up Zack Space Ohio 18th. After I did a lot of research, I realized not only is this concept off base, it is really dangerous. Sorry Matt.

by: notimportant @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 18:03:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Misrepresent the Campaign (0.00 / 0)

So if you actually do understand it, then you are intentionally lying about it.

I'd rather not believe that.

These two votes are crucial for our democracy, and have broad support across party lines, as well as being crucially important for party unity, and presenting the Democrats as a party that can govern and stick by its guns. If you disagree with any of this, then offer arguments against it.

I am not saying it's the only way to proceed. But if you're opposed to it, then you should (a) fairly represent it, and argue against what it is, not against a straw man, amd (b) offer some other way to deal with the problems the Bush Dogs votes have created.

"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

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 18:43:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I could not disagree more (0.00 / 0)

Take Zack Space Ohio 18th. Yeah - go ahead and challenge him with a Presidential Election coming up in the biggest SWING STATE in the Country. Give the Republican party a present.

by: notimportant @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 18:00:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Another Straw Man (0.00 / 0)

The Bush Dog campaign is not a demand that all Bush Dogs should be challenged in primaries. The pathological need to misrepresent it as such is indicative of the lack of any rational defense for these votes. I sincerely hope you will stop buying into these arguments, and take a more objective approach to the basic facts.

On this point, see my more recent diary, "Bush Dogs By The Numbers: It's Not The Districts, It's The Members". Space's district has a PVI of -6.1. Nancy Boyda's district has a PVI of 7. But space is a Bush Dog and Boyda is not.

Furthermore, Space has a total Progressive Punch index of 79.9 compared to Boyda's 84.4. And much of that difference comes from Space's more corporate-friendly votes, which don't exactly seem like they're politically required in Ohio nowadays. Here's a subset of their records compared:

Member PVI Prog
Punch
Total Corp- orate Sub- sidies Govern- ment Checks on Corp- orate Power Health Care Aid to Less Advant- aged People, at Home & Abroad Fair Tax- ation Edu- cation, Human- ities, & the Arts
Boyda -7 84.4 100.0 93.1 100.0 97.3 95.0 90.9
Space -6.1 79.9 80.0 86.2 87.5 89.5 81.0 83.3

It simply defies logic to argue that he couldn't have voted more like Boyda in these issue areas.

"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

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 18:37:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Zack Space Ohio 18th (0.00 / 0)

I was the person on Daily Kos the day Stoller posted his diary about profiling Blue Dogs. I chose Zack Space, even though I knew precious little about the Ohio 18th. What I have learned could fill a diary and someday it will. But now I will cut to the chase.

HE DOES NOT BELONG ON THE LIST. WHY?
(1)He is a FRESHMAN and there is a learning curve
(2)Yes it made the major error of voting for FISA
(3)Yes he has made (in my opinion) additional errors in supporting tax cuts for the wealthy which makes no sense because
(4)He has grown up in the 18th which is highly rural with some coal mines thrown in
(5) He has NOT taken a vacation this summer, instead he is working on new legislation to help the poor, fight for health care reform, and increase education for the poor.He is a decent man as far as I can see and HONEST.
(6)Most importantly OHIO IS A SWING STATE and this is the first time in 12 years a dem has sat in the 18th. As a result the GOP is throwing EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO UNSEAT HIM which would be tragic if it were to be pulled off.
(7) Their leading candidate is the corrupt MURRUY friendly HEAD OF OHIO'S COAL ASSOCIATION. Murruy has 5 mines in Ohio whose safety I am quite sure is questionable. The GOP will do nothing to ensure safety. With some pressure - Zack Place will.

So all in all its a LOSE LOSE to challenge him.He should be fully supported instead.

by: notimportant @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 17:47:13 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

But NO ONE Is Saying That He Has To Be Challenged In A Primary! (0.00 / 0)

Give me a BREAK!

All your points are irrelevant, since you're attacking a straw man argument.

You're also overlooking the two votes that are the sole criteria for being on the list.

In fact, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But it's non-responsive to the issue at hand.

Space is actually undermining the Democratic brand with his Bush Dog votes, and thus making it that much harder for himself to get re-elected.

"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

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 18:48:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Paul's Chart (0.00 / 0)

Paul as you know from DKOS I found your chart tremendously helpful. I just wanted to thank you again. These people can be "judged in a vacum". If you read my comment on Zack Space - forget about my rationale for not seeing him as a blue dog - all of which I believe - it OHIO. Isn't that the reason Kerry lost? Challenging a DEM in OHIO is just plain nuts!

by: notimportant @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 17:56:38 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Look, It's NOT About Running Primary Challengers Against Every Bush Dog (0.00 / 0)

Primary challenges are a big deal. They are not to be undertaken lightly, and everyone knows that they depend on local activist support in order to be credible. Thus, all that's been mentioned is that primary challenges would be appropriate for some Bush Dogs, and should be considered if there is a credible local effort.

This principle has already be demonstrated by Marcy Winograd's primary challenge to Jane Harman last time out. Harman has been much better behaved ever since. It only takes a couple of examples for other members to get the message. You don't have to run against every Bush Dog to bring pressure to bear. Plus, as my proposal for a battleground district project makes clear, there are other approaches to take as well.

"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

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 18:55:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Vital Stats on "Bush Dogs"--Battleground Status AND Progressive Punch Scores By Issue Category | 16 comments

USER MENU

New here?
Make a New Account

Have an account? Log in!

Forget your username or password?

Open Left Campaigns