More Information On the Bush Dogs

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 16:58


Based on the Bush Dog vital statistics chart that I produced yesterday, which I think can serve as an important reference point for the upcoming campaign against the Bush Dogs, over the last 24 hours I have discovered some more useful information about this caucus:
  • Of the thirty-eight members listed in the Bush Dog chart I produced yesterday, twenty-seven of the them were in the 109th Congress. Twenty-two of those twenty-seven voted in favor of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, and only ten other Democrats voted in favor of destroying habeas corpus.  Cooper, Costa, Lipinski, Melancon, and Snyder actually showed some decency on that vote. Now, of those five, three come from solidly blue districts (Cooper, Costa and Lipinski), one come from a swing district (Snyder) and one comes from a red district (Melancon).

  • In 2005, looking at those same twenty-seven members, only Gordon, Matheson, Peterson, Salazar, Snyder, and Tanner voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. In this case, none of them are from blue districts, but some of them are from swinging districts.

  • Looking further back, only seventeen of these thirty-eight members were in Congress in 2002, during the vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. Every single one of them, except Rep. Snyder, voted in favor of the use of military force.

  • Considering that his name keeps appearing on these lists, I am starting to think that there is real hope for Representative Vic Snyder. It is always possible to stop being a Bush Dog. It also makes me wonder if there is any hope at all for the older members who never appeared as exceptions to any of these votes: Boswell, Boyd, Cramer, Edwards, Etheridge, McIntyre, Pomeroy, Ross and Tanner. They just appear to be neo-cons. Considering that Leonard Boswell's district is both in Iowa and lean Democratic, that might be a nice high visibility location to run a primary challenge. It wouldn't even be a waste of money, either, considering that the DCCC is constantly forced to spends money to defend Boswell, who appears to be a weak candidate,  in that district. Rather than giving money to the DCCC to defend a Democratic neocon, let's defeat Boswell in a primary, and then give money to the DCCC so they can support someone else as the Democratic nominee. That way, the money the DCCC spends in the districts won't be such a waste.

  • Disturbingly, fully twenty-one of the Bush Dogs have entered Congress since 2002. while that still makes them only about 25-30% of the new Democratic members since that time, that also means they have a larger presence among newer members than they have of older members, where they are only about 10% of the Democratic House population. This makes me wonder just how anti-progressive Democratic House recruiting practices were from 2001-2006. To a very real extent, Democrats seem to have brought this working conservative majority on themselves. DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen can complain about the Bush Dog campaign all he wants, but until he demonstrates improved recruiting practices on behalf of the DCCC, I am not budging.

  • 36 of the 38 Bush Dogs are men, with only Melissa Bean and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin representing women. By way of contrast, 48 of the 194 Democrats in Congress who are not Bush Dogs are women. Overall, that is a difference of 5.3% to 27.4% female representation. Being a Bush Dog, and supporting neo-conservative foreign policy despite being a Democrat, seems to be a male habit. In fact, I think there is a much more direct correlation to Bush Dogs being male Blue Dogs, than there is to them being Blue Dogs from red districts. It is a dude thing.

All food for thought. You can sign up for email alerts on our Bush Dog campaign in the upper right hand corner of Open Left. Also, you can read the entire Open Left Bush Dog archive here. The more we learn about these problem Democrats, the better our campaign against them will become. Keep digging.

Chris Bowers :: More Information On the Bush Dogs

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"Disturbingly..." comment is just a statistical sampling bias (0.00 / 0)
Chris,

Very nice post overall (I'm a big fan of intraparty electoral politics, cleaning house), but your penultimate "Disturbingly..." point is a statistical artifact.

Who are the most likely to enter congress in a given year?  Those who snatched a district from the GOP.  Thus there is a correlation between (a) seats going GOP -> Dem in a given year, and (b) close-to-zero partisan index.

On the other hand, very progressive, deep blue districts rarely change hands --- the incumbent can sit there merrily for many years, even as a "San Francisco liberal".

Bottom line, we have correlations:

change GOP-to-Dem <---> near-zero partisan index <---> right-wing of the Dem caucus in congress <---> Bush Dog.

So you might want to adjust this bullet point of yours.

PS Love the new site.  I found MyDD getting less thoughtful and in-depth over time, becoming contaminated with dailykos-like hysteria, full of Edwards/Obama/Clinton spam in the rec diaries.


Let me see if I've got this right.... (0.00 / 0)
...there are indeed lots of 'Bush Dogs' but 'Bush BItches'...

Not so much?

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


Seriously... (0.00 / 0)
I am pretty excited about this idea and hope it can grow into an effective campaign to make our party more progressive. Just so you know this is all we've been talking about, how to influence the party to do the correct thing, the progressive thing, at meetup after meetup.

'We' being Drinking Liberally, Oakland and the Bear Republic Action Group.

We will be ready to blog, fundraise and participate in other ways, we have two bloggers assigned to upcoming campaign coverage for example, when this idea becomes reality.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


Worth Noting About Jane Harman (4.00 / 2)
36 of the 38 Bush Dogs are men, with only Melissa Bean and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin representing women.

Before she was challenged by Marcy Winograd (President of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles), Jane Harman would very likely have been among their number.  (Toward the end of the campaign, as Harman moved left, Winograd remarked that it was a bit disorienting, that she seemed to be running against herself.)

Political pressure really does work.

"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


Here's a thought (0.00 / 1)
Let's suppose one of these bozos gets a primary challenge from a lefty who goes on to beat him. (Apparently, they mostly are male.)

Thereby, not only have the Dems lost the protection of incumbency around that seat, but they've also got a candidate who's substantially (otherwise why bother?) to the left of the guy they've turfed out.

Plus - depending on the timing, quality GOP candidates who would not have bothered running against the incumbent might well enter the race.


well, then why bother doing anything? (4.00 / 2)
I mean, talk about the power of positive thinking!  Of course that could happen.  I could also be hit by a truck tomorrow (hope not!) or the lefty candidate could win.  My point is not to belittle your point but to say that yours sounds simply like an argument for the status quo...and the status quo isn't working.  Plus, when you think about how popular Ms. 28% is, and you think about how popular warrantless wiretapping is and the Iraq War and other administration actions that individual Bush Dogs have voted for, I think you really need to reconsider what the term "lefty" means these days.  An actual Democrat, running on a platform of separation of powers, Bill of Rights, you know, democracy, the Constitution, things like that?  I like those chances.

[ Parent ]
Er... (0.00 / 0)
Pep rallies, I'm no good at.

I surely don't need to point out here that questioning strategy is not the same thing as counseling inaction. And it can hardly come as news that - yes - some strategies may be worse than the status quo, even if the status quo sucks donkey bollocks.

(Assassinating Bush - there's one for you.)

Chris says food for thought: I'm thinking.

I can thoroughly recommend it.


[ Parent ]
Um... (0.00 / 0)
Some people say they think it's a good idea and that's a pep rally?  Okay. I guess I didn't read your post as questioning strategy but as questioning if it was worthwhile to do.  Of course it has to be done strategically; I think we would all agree on that.

[ Parent ]
Actually... (0.00 / 0)
I was putting forward specific points I thought worthy of being addressed.

(They still haven't been, by the way.)

Yours is a radical interpretation of the text - your privilege, natch.


[ Parent ]
"But what if we loo-oose?" (0.00 / 0)
is not a specific point.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Are you guys aware of (0.00 / 0)
or connected to, this effort:

http://www.democrats...

Montani semper liberi


Thanks, Chris! (0.00 / 0)
Wow! What an amazingly useful resource, Chris, for someone like me who decided before the last campaign that I would not give even my miniscule amounts of contributions to any umbrella groups, but would only target specific candidates.  My thought was to support the Dem candidates in the close races which could make the difference in majority/minority status of the parties in the chambers. This seemed like the most productive approach because in my state, Republicscum have a 60% registration edge, and Dems haven't been represented in Congress since the early 70's.

In a sense, the strategy was a good one, because the Dems are now majority party in both chambers, meaning instead of Boner (sic) as speaker and McConnell as Majority Leader, we have Pelosi and Reid. While I am not satisfied with Pelosi and Reid, they are incontestably better than the Republicscum alternatives, and control of the agenda, and of committee chairmanships, is no small thing.

On the other hand, I feel some of my (meager) support was wasted on candidates like Webb and McCaskill who keep genuflecting to the Republicscum authoritarianism. It's hard to identify the right balance in this matter, but it seems clear that even though it's possible that the Republicscum may win the contest for President next time, (shudder) Democratic majorities almost certainly are going to expand in both houses of Congress.  That's where your Bush dog archive comes in, by making more informed targeting of support for Congressional candidates possible.  Next time, I'll be supporting primary challenges to Bush dogs, and shunning them in the General election, while supporting progressive candidates in the primaries and the General. Thanks a bunch, Chris, and keep up the great work!
.


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