Time For Blue Dog Accountability On The Stimulus

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 20:42


On March 31st, there will be a special election to fill Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's vacated seat in the House of Representatives. Her old district, the New York 20th, encompasses much of the Hudson Valley, centering near Albany. President Obama won the district 50.70%--47.70%, which is 4.25% below his national average but still provides the district a light-blue hue.

There was no primary for the special election. Instead, local Democratic committee members chose the nominee themselves:

Glens Falls venture capitalist Scott Murphy is the Democrats' choice to take on Republican James Tedisco for the 20th Congressional District seat.

Democratic committee chairmen from 10 counties on Sunday chose Murphy from the narrowed-down list of four hopefuls at a meeting at the Gateway Diner in Colonie.

Completely unaccountable to Democratic primary voters, venture capitalist Murphy is seeking to join the Blue Dogs:

Murphy also said he plans to be a Blue Dog, just like Gillibrand when she represented the 20th, and has already applied for membership to the caucus.

Now, let's have a quick review of Blue Dog stimulus performance:

During the stimulus fight, Blue Dogs extracted a restrictive PAYGO promise from President Obama and a "fiscal responsibility summit" in exchange for votes on the stimulus. And yet, despite this, six Blue Dogs still voted against the stimulus package. Further, four of the other five Democrats who voted against the measure are freshmen who will probably become Blue Dogs soon (they did indicate there are now 51 Blue Dogs, even though their website only lists 47 members, none of whom are freshmen). In return for this awesome loyalty on the stimulus package, Blue Dogs get a meeting at the White House, while Progressives--who extracted no promises or summits, all of whom voted for the stimulus, and who even had many of their programs cut from the bill--stay on the waiting list.

I am going to take a pass on this election, and take it pretty loudly (if this blog post counts as "loudly.") Best of luck Mr. Murphy, but you will get no resource assistance from this website. In the extended entry, I explain why.

Chris Bowers :: Time For Blue Dog Accountability On The Stimulus
There was a time when we needed more Democrats simply to remove Republicans from power. Now, however, if we lose the election, then the Democratic majority in the House drops from 40 to 39 seats. Such a drop won't impact a single piece of legislation over the next two years. Further, no matter who wins the election, the Republican plus Blue Dog majority in the U.S. House stays constant at 229-206. That is the majority we need to be concerned about--and work toward--flipping right now.

As long as the Blue Dogs are extracting right-wing policy promises from the Obama administration, giving credence to Republican opposition to even to tepid legislative proposals that are probably inadequate to solve our myriad crises, and making not so subtly veiled threats to cut Social Security and Medicare in the form of "fiscal responsibility summits," progressives should not be assisting them in elections. In fact, progressives should not only deny assistance, but they should be loud in clear in their denial. Elections are one of the few areas where we can provide or deny politicians with something they truly value: namely, the resources required to win elections. As Mike Lux wrote in mid-2008:

For me, being able to hold a politician accountable is having the real power to actually have a negative impact on something they really care about, namely getting elected and passing legislation they want to pass (although there might be a few other smaller things some politicians might care about). Unless you have the ability and willingness to mess with a politician in a serious way on either of those things, I don't think you can hold them accountable.

If we want to hold Blue Dogs accountable for their abominable performance on the stimulus, then the absolute last thing we should do is funnel money toward a perspective member in the days immediately following the stimulus fight. That would actually reward their performance.

Consider sitting on your hands to be a form of Blue Dog accountability for extracting a PAYGO promise in return for partial stimulus support. Consider sitting on your hands to be a form of Blue Dog accountability for extracting a "fiscal responsibility summit" from the Obama administration. Consider sitting on your hands in NY-20 to be a form of Blue Dog accountability for the constant threats they issue other Democrats about blocking progressive legislation. If you give Scott Murphy money now, it shows that you are not serious at all about changing Blue Dog behavior.

We were even denied a primary election, which is the most basic time to pursue alternatives. Given the current political climate, a progressive Democrat, or at least a non-Blue Dog Democrat, could have potentially won both the primary and the general election. Now, we will never know.

If Scott Murphy wants me to help him raise money, then I have a simple demand: he must withdraw his application from the Blue Dog caucus. Until he does so, there is no way I can help him fundraise right now. We need to work toward overthrowing the narrow Republican plus Blue Dog majority in the U.S. House, not reward it with our money right after it pushed the Obama administration to the right on the stimulus package.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
seems you need to drop a w! (4.00 / 1)
Best of luck Mr. Murphy, but you will get now resource assistance from this website.

to

Best of luck Mr. Murphy, but you will get no resource assistance from this website.

ps. I wholeheartedly agree


also (4.00 / 5)
Helping Blue Dogs hold the seat will reward the elevation of a blue dog into the Senate instead of picking a Democrat from a less competitive seat.  If Dems lose this seat, Paterson deserves a little egg on his face.


I dunno... (4.00 / 1)
I don't really want to reward the GOP either, and I'm sure the GOP would trump a win here has "reward" for lurching so far to the right in opposing everything Obama supports.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
Works for me. (4.00 / 3)
There are far more good causes than I can fund...why drop $ on a very mediocre cause?

I can understand... (4.00 / 1)
Why some here don't want to do anything to help in NY-20. And honestly, I can't blame you for this sentiment considering recent actions by Democratic leadership (in NY and DC). Still, I personally feel uneasy abandoning NY-20, as I'd rather not be tarred and feathered by the GOP if they win & they try to make "momentum" out of this.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

If Republicans (4.00 / 7)
If Republicans are the only politcians you want to hold accountable, that is your business. However, if you want to change Democratic behavior too, then don't reward Blue Dogs in this instance.

Give Blue Dogs the money after what they just did, and you will only get more that sort of behavior down the road.

A Republican winning the seat doesn't thrill me, but we have to be more than just Democrats vs. Republicans.


[ Parent ]
I'm with Chris (4.00 / 5)
When we were in the minority, it was different. I wrote (small) checks to Leonard Boswell (IA-03) despite the fact that he sold me out repeatedly.

Even if he faced a serious Republican challenge in 2010, there are probably 50 House Democrats I would give money to before I would lift a finger for Boswell.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]
I'd rather have a blue dog than a republican, but (4.00 / 5)
not enough to write him a check. Write Tom Geoghegan a check instead.

[ Parent ]
We also need to primary the blue dogs (4.00 / 7)
January 28th: Allen Boyd votes against the stimulus bill

February 11th: A Tallahassee State Senator announces that he's challenging Boyd in the democratic primary

February 13th: Allen Boyd votes for the stimulus bill


Wow--awesome (4.00 / 2)
I hadn't noticed Boyd flipped. I'll probably turn your post into an article later tonight.

Great catch!


[ Parent ]
Why is this truth (4.00 / 1)
being made to apply only to the Blue Dogs?

For me, being able to hold a politician accountable is having the real power to actually have a negative impact on something they really care about, namely getting elected...

How about those progressives who gave Obama a full pass when, for example, he voted in favor of the FISA legislation, and, instead, only seemed to double down their support for him? Surely, by this axiom, they have forfeited any reasonable expectation that Obama should adhere to progressive policy, right?

Now I know that Mike Lux's original post was some kind of defense of staying completely in the tank for Obama despite what Obama had done with FISA. The argument was, Oh, but the Republican is so bad, I must stop my mouth, and I must work as hard as I can to support Obama no matter what!

But let Lux and all others of his ilk now acknowledge the obvious: they have no right to declare themselves in any way betrayed if Obama simply ignores their policy demands at this stage.  They have exacted no price for their support -- none. They have already made it abundantly clear that their support for him is for all practical purposes unconditional. Their own actions have demonstrated this. Surely the same considerations which inclined Lux to support Obama unconditionally in 2008 will apply as well in 2012 against any Republican who becomes nominee.

Lux and his cohort made a bargain with the Devil. Now they must pay.  


OK, I'll bite. (4.00 / 1)
So, you think last summer, we should have all voted for Ralph Nader when Obama went the wrong way on FISA?

Tell me, how'd that work out in 2000?


[ Parent ]
Who? (0.00 / 0)
I understand why you don't want to get involved in this race, but progressive alternatives don't just appear out of nowhere. There were no progressive alternatives to be had in the district, at least none that would have a shot a beating Tedisco (and not because of ideology). Hell, the likely alternative to Murphy was an assemblyman who wasn't even a Democrat.  

Shout out to the Working Families Party (4.00 / 3)
Here is the perfect opportunity for the WFP to flex their muscles and show they mean business.  

They show it by running a legitimate candidate on their own ballot line (someone like Joel Tyner) who might actually have a chance in a special election, or else they run a less credible candidate for the express purpose of spoiling.

In either case, the message that gets sent to the NYS DP  loud and clear is that not only is running a blue dog  a stupid strategy, its a losing one.  And we will make sure, everywhere where it is possible to do so, that it is a losing one.

I have my doubts that the WFP will consider this-which explains (in part) why I have doubts about the WFP.


Sabotage Murphy because he's a blue dog? (4.00 / 2)
I can understand doing that in extreme cases (i.e. Bobby Bright, Alan Boyd), but for FSM's sake, Gillibrand was a blue dog too. It's not like he's going to act like Bright just because he's a blue dog.

[ Parent ]
If they do that (0.00 / 0)
purposely to cause Murphy to lose, they will lose all credibility in New York politics.

Because he wants to a be a Blue Dog? In a Blue Dog District? No one had problems with Gillibrand as a Blue Dog.

Are we turning into the Democratic Club for Growth over here?


[ Parent ]
At least a dozen (4.00 / 2)
There are at least a dozen Blue Dogs from districts that are more Democratic than the national average (53%).  Why is David Scott (Obama got 71% in his district) a Blue Dog?  And he doesn't vote so great either.  Joe Baca, Loretta Sanchez, Jane Harman and Adam Schiff all don't belong with the Blue Dog pack or at least their districts don't.

I thought Gillibrand was going to be more liberal than what she is when she first ran.  No donations.

Travis Childers is not a Dog, votes conservatively and represents a very conservative MS district.  That's OK. The NY, CA and IL Dogs need to leave the pound pronto.  Guaranteed their districts do not want to privatize Social Security or demonize Medicare.


[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
I've been wondering if I should continue posting here, and this answered my question.

Bye.


Thanks, Chris (0.00 / 0)
I'm with you on this.  The need for more Dems in the House, no matter who they are or how they vote, is so 2006.

The real question to me -- where are those 23 members going to come from who will give us a real progressive majority?

Of course, I don't think we'll make that up in 2010, but what are the pickup opportunities - both in terms of taking seats from Republicans, but perhaps more importantly, mounting primary challenges to Blue Dogs in blue districts.  Whom should we target?  

I'm sure someone has posted about this -- does anyone know?

Chris, you're absolutely right in terms of a reconsideration of what a "majority" in the house looks like.  The D and R numbers are kind of meaningless after a point.

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search