|Here's a list.
AL-05: Bud Cramer
AR-02: Vic Snyder
AR-04: Mike Ross
CA-20: Jim Costa
CO-03: John Salazar
FL-02: Alan Boyd
GA-08: Jim Marshall
GA-12: John Barrow
IA-03: Leonard Boswell
IL-03: Dan Lipinski
IL-08: Melissa Bean
IN-02: Joe Donnelly
IN-08: Brad Ellsworth
IN-09: Baron Hill
KY-06: Ben Chandler
LA-03: Charlie Melancon
MS-04: Gene Taylor
MN-01: Tim Walz
MN-07: Colin Peterson
NC-07: Mike McIntyre
NC-02: Bob Etheridge
NC-11: Heath Shuler
ND-AL: Earl Pomeroy
OH-06: Charlie Wilson
OH-18: Zack Space
OK-02: Dan Boren
PA-04: Jason Altmire
PA-10: Chris Carney
SD-AL: Stephanie Herseth
TN-04: Lamar Davis
TN-05: Jim Cooper
TN-06: Bart Gordon
TN-08: John Tanner
TX-17: Chet Edwards
TX-22: Nick Lampson
TX-23: Ciro Rodriguez
TX-28: Henry Cuellar
UT-02: Jim Matheson
WA-03: Brian Baird
You can find more detailed stats, including PVI for their districts, here.
Gee, there's a lot of white people on there, aren't there?
Gee, there's a lot of dudes on there, aren't there?
Gee, there's a lot of Southerners on there, aren't it?
Southern white dudes. What a surprise. Political scientist Tom Schaller can explain why Bush Dogs concentrate in this demographic.
Why are you doing this? Why are you criticizing Democrats from conservative districts?!? You're a bad Democrat!
First of all, the 'I've voting my district' argument doesn't hold. There are basically no districts where the war is popular, and warrantless wiretapping as an electoral issue moved numbers against Republicans last cycle. These members are not voting their districts, they are just conservatives. There are also a number of districts represented by a Bush Dog Democrat, such as Dan Lipinski's in Illinois and Leonard Boswell's in Iowa, which lean Democratic.
Second of all, Bush Dog Democrats are dragging down the rest of the party. According to Zogby, 80% of Democrats disapproval of the job that Congress is doing. This is a remarkable statistic. Historically, Congress gets low marks from the opposite party, but the party in power tends to think their leaders are doing a pretty good job. Yet, currently, four fifths of Democrats do not approve of the job their leaders are doing, which is amazingly high for a partisan Democratic group. In other words, the term 'Bush Dog' is just giving a name to the frustration of many Democrats.
As for why we're doing this, well, despite the 2006 election, George W. Bush is still able to govern along right-wing lines and has formed an effective conservative working majority in Congress, with this block of members as the pivotal swing block.
Without challenging these members, we will never be able to get progressive legislation through Congress. Or, to put it another way, we think expanded warrantless wiretapping authority is awful for any President to have because we don't want to be spied on. We think the Iraq war is really bad and that troops should be withdrawn. We don't agree with Bush Dog Democrats on the substance of their policy ideas, nor do we think it's a good thing that they are helping George W. Bush govern in an effective working conservative majority.
So what are you trying to do to these Bush Dogs?
We want to get local activists to profile their districts, who they are, and their voting record. Here's who we have done so far.
Ok, I want to help you, even though I think you're a bunch of Stalinists.
Great! Sign up here, so we know who you are.
But I want to do more than just give you my email address!
Cool. Then go here for more detailed instructions on how to profile a member.
What we need is a brief profile of the member, their voting record, their personality, and the district and its politics. Is there a primary challenge? Is the member well-suited for his or her district? Did the member do something to mitigate this criticism? Remember, this is not an attack, it's a profile so we can get to know these people and eventually persuade them to do the right thing. It doesn't have to be comprehensive or long, just enough to get a sense of who this person is and how they do their politics.
When you're done, email stoller at gmail.com with a link. You can do a profile on your own blog (ideal), or on one of many sites with diaries such as OpenLeft, Dailykos, MyDD, etc.
Will you do more?
Yes. Already, there are several primaries in the making, including one in Illinois's third district against Dan Lipinski by a challenger named Mark Pera. Activists have already pledged a primary challenge against Brian Baird unless he changes his position on Iraq.
We may also do Google ad campaigns targeting specific districts, and we will try to support local activism.
What is your track record?
Last cycle, the swirling networks of people known as 'the progressive movement' specifically challenged Joe Lieberman, Al Wynn, and Jane Harman in primaries. Ellen Tauscher also received a substantial amount of criticism, including threats of primary challenges. Lieberman lost in the primary, so he's no longer a Democrat, and Al Wynn, Jane Harman, and Ellen Tauscher have changed their positions on Iraq. Wynn is facing a primary challenge today from progressive hero Donna Edwards.
We also elected a good number of freshmen, and with the exception of Tim Walz and Chris Carney, none of them are Bush Dog Democrats.
Will you do the Senate at some point?
Sure. If you want to profile a Bush Dog Senator, go for it.
What are the long-term goals here?
We want to elect more and better Democrats, strengthen the hand of progressives in Congress, and reduce the branding and power of the Blue Dog and New Democrat caucuses. All of this is in service to passing progressive policies and crafting a progressive governing majority.
What's happened since you started blogging about 'Bush Dog Democrats'?
Today, there are just under nine hundred results when you search for "Bush Dog Democrats". Left in Alabama, Calitics, Booman, Howie Klein, MN Campaign Report, Archpundit, and the Side Track have all profiled or helped to profile members. We've had positive profiles of Tim Walz, aggressive criticisms of Collin Peterson, and an analysis of the geographical distribution of the Bush Dogs from noted political scientist Tom Schaller.
The campaign has been covered in USA Today, on Fox News, the Politico, the Weekly Standard, Firedoglake, and in the New York Observer. Anonymous Democratic strategists are attacking us with the straw man argument that criticism will jeopardize Democratic seats, wingnuts are upset, and some local Democrats are very very angry.
Insiders don't like what we're doing. DLC Senior Fellow Ed Kilgore at the Democratic Strategist has the standard insider criticism of what we're trying to do, Conn Carroll at the National Journal helpfully instructs us not to go after Brian Baird because his only issue difference is Iraq and the netroots doesn't want to be known only as an antiwar faction, so there is obviously some insider buzz. DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen has also voiced frustration with our efforts.
Ok, I'm sold.
Great! Go sign up, and tell your friends!