Step One in The Bush Dog Campaign: Creating a Public Record

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 08:00


(This post will stay at the top of the page for a while today. New content can be found below it - promoted by Chris Bowers)

Cross-posted on Dailykos

I'm hearing more and more frequently a sense of rage with the Democratic leadership in Congress.  From failing to stop the war to expanding Bush's wiretapping authority, the swing vote of conservative Democrats in the House are forming an effective conservative majority that is enabling Bush to govern as he wishes.  The polls show that this is a very bad political move for Democrats.  Congress has an 18% approval rating, from Democrats, and 60% of all voters strongly disapprove of Bush's new wiretapping authority.  Democrats haven't stopped the war, haven't stopped torture, haven't curbed corporate abuses, and haven't really done anything except raise the minimum wage as part of a package to send $100B of taxpayer into the sands of Iraq.

By and large, the conservative Democratic elites really don't care, and they think they are going to win in 2008 without having to lead on anything the public or the activists in the party thinks is important.  For instance, DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen complained about progressives upset with Chris Carney, even though Carney lied to get campaign contributions in 2006 and just endorsed a Republican for President.  This is part of a pattern.  DCCC recruitment chair Artur Davis complained earlier after the blank check bill passed that Moveon was criticizing Democrats, saying, "I would urge MoveOn and others to recognize that the person who is extending this war is George Bush."

There's no doubt that Bush is a very bad man and a very bad President, but this excuse to not lead will no longer fly.  I think we're all tired of conservative Democratic politicians thinking that their goal in life is to get better parking spots than they did last cycle.

Matt Stoller :: Step One in The Bush Dog Campaign: Creating a Public Record
And so, you may have noticed a lot of chatter about 'Bush Dog' Democrats over the past few days.  That's not an accident.  We've been working to identify the group of conservative Democrats in the House who are holding back progressives from being able to effectively govern.  These are concentrated in two main caucuses, the Blue Dog Caucus and the New Democrat caucuses.  Blue Dogs consider themselves heirs to the Southern conservative wing of the party, and tend to vote for socially restrictive policies and a hawkish foreign policy.  The New Democrats tend to be more partisan, but often are key to passing important pieces of right-wing legislation, such as the Bankruptcy Bill. In the last few years, these two caucuses have expanded their numbers, and the Blue Dogs have become the swing vote in the House allowing for effective conservative control of the Congress.  We want to put a stop to the embrace of conservative values among House Democrats, and make sure that when Democrats are elected, they act like Democrats.

So who specifically are these people?  As Chris Bowers noted, the two biggest defeats for House Democrats so far in 2007 have been the capitulation vote on Iraq, and the vote to allow Alberto Gonzales warrant-less wiretapping powers. We're calling the Democrats who capitulated on both bills 'Bush Dogs', as these are the most likely to capitulate on important fights in the future. 

The first step in stopping this behavior is to identify the people engaging in it and offer up criticism.  There are a few reasons for this.  One, many of these members feel no pressure to vote correctly or uphold progressive values.  Criticism is the signal they are relying on to let them know when they err.  Two, some of these members may need to face a primary challenge, and it's useful for potential primary challengers to know that there is criticism of these members.  Three, other members considering joining the Bush Dog caucus may be dissuaded if they know there will be criticism.  Four, candidates running for office will finally have a signal on how they should talk about being good Democrats that are willing to take tough votes.

So here's my ask.  Would you profile one of these Bush Dogs?  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.

An example of a profile is this one on Congressman Brian Higgins of New York's 27th district (who is not quite a Bush Dog, but comes close).  My method of researching and writing a blog post on a member is as follows, and relies on our friend Mr. Google.  First, I looked for mentions of Higgins on local blogs via technorati.com and the Albany Project/Rochester Turning.  Second, I looked at the district by checking the party registration numbers, which I got from the Secretary of State's web site.  Some states don't have this kind of data, but if you can find out the margin between Kerry and Bush in 2004 or Gore and Bush in 2000, that gives you some sense of what the district is like.  Third, I looked at some high profile votes - the authorization for the use of force in Iraq, the Bankruptcy Bill, the blank check bill to fund the war, the FISA vote, etc.  I use Progressive Punch to quickly identify where Higgins broke with progressives, and then drilled down into the votes to see when they are significant.  Fourth, I read about ten articles on Google news and got a sense for when he's in the local papers.  I also made a few calls to contacts, but those didn't turn out to be helpful.

All in all, it took about two or three hours to research and write the post.  It might take a little longer if you're not used to doing this type of research, but when you're done you do have a sense for who this person is.  It's also fascinating that the conversation in the comments led to a good sense of how Higgins is received in the district.

A list of core Bush Dogs is as follows, though as I'll explain in a bit, I'm sure we'll be expanding the Bush Dog pool as the fall Congressional period begins.  Chris has a lot more stats on who these people are on his post here.

Jason Altmire, PA-04
Brian Baird, WA-03 (he didn't vote for FISA, but he just switched his position and now supports the surge)
John Barrow, GA-12
Melissa Bean, IL-08
Dan Boren, OK-02
Leonard Boswell, IA-03
Alan Boyd, FL-02
Chris Carney, PA-10
Ben Chandler, KY-06
Jim Cooper, TN-05
Jim Costa, CA-20
Bud Cramer, AL-05
Henry Cuellar, TX-28
Lamar Davis, TN-04
Joe Donnelly, IN-02
Chet Edwards, TX-17
Brad Ellsworth, IN-08
Bob Etheridge, NC-02
Bart Gordon, TN-06
Stephanie Herseth, SD-AL
Baron Hill, IN-09
Nick Lampson, TX-22
Dan Lipinski, IL-03
Jim Marshall, GA-08
Jim Matheson, UT-02
Mike McIntyre, NC-07
Charlie Melancon, LA-03
Colin Peterson, MN-07
Earl Pomeroy, ND-AL
Ciro Rodriguez, TX-23
Mike Ross, AR-04
John Salazar, CO-03
Heath Shuler, NC-11
Vic Snyder, AR-02
Zack Space, OH-18
John Tanner, TN-08
Gene Taylor, MS-04
Tim Walz, MN-01
Charlie Wilson, OH-06

So far, Tim Walz and Jim Costa have been profiled.  If you have a few hours and know one of these members, grab them and do a profile on your blog or on a diary here or elsewhere.  And put the link in the comments so I can update our list.  There's no limit on the number of profiles per member, this is about conversation and education, so the more views the better.  You can defend your member, if you think the criticism is unfair. 

When we're done doing these profiles, we can begin to track these members, engage in online advertising to let their constituents know their record, and/or help local activists in their districts.  This is going to be a completely open process, and as votes come up this fall, we won't hesitate to add new Bush Dogs or honorary Bush Dog titles based on political games played by leadership.  I've had conversations with sources in the House who think that this wasn't the fault of the Bush Dogs, even though they were the ones who voted for FISA.  So fine.  There's more than enough wankery to go around.

Already, there's a contempt vote in the House that I'm going to watch closely, and of course, there's the Petraeus PR ploy.  So grab a member from this list and profile him (all but two are men).  And I'm sure, based on the newfound aggressiveness we're seeing among liberal advocacy groups like the ACLU, that the work we do in profiling these members will be useful to other progressive groups as well.

This is going to be uncomfortable for many of us.  Criticizing the people we just elected, people who may even be nice to us personally, is never easy.  And shifting away from raw partisanship, which was necessary from 2002-2006, towards the idea that we need good Democrats and not Bush Dog Democrats, is going to take some slight adjustments.  We're going to be told that we are jeopardizing candidates in swing districts, that we are hurting the possibility of retaining the majority.  We're going to be told we're bad Democrats.

None of that is true, and it is loser talk.  There is no such thing as a Republican district, and Democrats only get stronger when we stand confidently for our values.  Criticism makes us better, not weaker, and demanding that our candidates stand for ideas and not just party labels will make the Democratic Party a more vibrant and effective vessel for change.  After all, at the same time as we push against Bush Dog Democrats we are also trying to elect Democrats all over the country.  I mean, beating Lieberman in the primary in 2006 was just the spark the party needed to focus on Iraq.  Perhaps this is the spark that progressives in the House and Senate need to get some ferocity of spirit.

In other words, this is a new project for many of us, but it's part of the continuum of what the netroots is all about.  Such is how movements get stronger.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Sign me up (4.00 / 3)
I want Leonard Boswell.  He's been at the bottom of my list for at least six months.  OTOH, a number of these critters are intriguing.  Boyd came out early and stupidly in favor of Social Security privatization.  Charlie Melancon earned a soft spot in my heart by being the one LA pol to attack Bush and FEMA from the start with great heat and elan.  Gene Taylor is not only the most conservative Democrat in the House but he scores to the right of the 50% mark on Progressive Punch.  Taylor also comes from a 70% Bush district and gets comfortably re-elected.  He's the Ben Nelson of the House.

Back to Boswell.  He's old.  He's boring.  He's sickly.  And he scooped up $800,000 in DCCC cash in a Democratic tidal wave.  For a pretty close district.  Apparently he ran better when he was younger and healthier but jeez Louise.Chet Culver took the state by 100,000 votes.  Democrats in the House carried 3 of 5 districts (all close) and actually "lost" the state (total vote wise ) to the Republicans.  Braley and Loesback (particularly Loesback) should do much better as incumbents.  Loesback beat a real moderate with 30 years in the House, Jim Leach.  He won't have as tough a challenge this time.


Go for it (0.00 / 0)
When your piece is ready, let me know and I'll link to it.

[ Parent ]
Boswell (4.00 / 2)
Wrote it as a diary, Matt.  It's under Leonard Boswell, Bush Dog.  Went up about 30 minutes ago.

[ Parent ]
Democrats win when we fire on ALL cylinders (4.00 / 1)
If Democratic representatives really believe this,
"By and large, the conservative Democratic elites really don't care, and they think they are going to win in 2008 without having to lead on anything the public or the activists in the party thinks is important.", then they are in for a rude awakening.  We, Democrats, I believe, won in 2006 because of the Netroots, the activists, the DCCC, progressive talk radio, and many other progressive movements all working towards the same goal.  The progressive movement fired on all cylinders and ground the right wing noise machine to a halt.  If these Bush Dogs think they will be able to skate back into office without the netroots, they are in for a rude awakening.  After the 1992 elections many felt the republicans were seriously crippled, losing Senate seats, the presidency but gaining seats in the house.  With fundraising favoring the Democrats 2-1, a republican takeover appears unlikely but it is not unthinkable to assume that it will take every last $ of that advantage to hold the majority.  Last time I checked Fox News is still up and running, talk radio is still dominated by conservatives 10 to 1 and by the by, the MSM is reporting that the surge is working, just give it more time.  And money we can save in 2008 will be vitally important for the 2010 campaign, where we have the hope and promise of governing, hopefully with a Democratic President, but also with the liability that incumbency can bring and 2010 isn't the year we want to lose majorities especially in the state legislators. 

I'm 200% with you on pushing the Blue Dogs.  We are working hard up here in MI to increase our Democratic margins in the state house and Senate.  And we are also trying to use our netroots clout to let the leadership know they wouldn't be where they are without the people powered netroots movement.  But, hey if the Blue dogs think they can do it with $$ and 30 second ads, more power to them, I know they won't get any help from me. 


this looks great! (4.00 / 2)
and I'm urging everyone at Democrats.com to support you.
http://www.democrats.com/put-a-leash-on-the-bush-dogs

thanks (0.00 / 0)
I've been using your wiretap polling all over the place.  It's great stuff.

[ Parent ]
Blue Dog electoral districts where the voters are progressive (0.00 / 0)
What I would like to see are polls showing where the constituents of the Bush Dogs stand on the issues on which these representatives vote with the Republicans.

I suspect that in many cases the constituents' preferences diverge from those of their representatives because the representatives take campaign financing from corporate sources that belong to the military-industrial complex.

I also suspect that many of these BlueDogs may be multi-term incumbents in gerrymandered districts where they have unfair electoral advantages over challengers.

These districts, what I call divergent districts because constituents favor progressive stances on issues and their representatives support conservative stances, are the ones that are ripe to have progressive candidates run in primaries and kick these phony influence-peddling Democrats off the ticket.


Recommended the DK diary... (0.00 / 0)
I like this.  That list is depressingly long.

Would it be more effective at some point to pick the 5 worst offenders and target them?  I know you're still in an info gathering stage, but this looks far too big to effectively take on.


I think/hope it will (0.00 / 0)
depend on the district.  Obviously, we won't primary challenge someone in a 70% Bush district who won reelection by .5%.  For some people you just put their feet to the fire, some you try to scare, some you try to beat.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
I'm working on (0.00 / 0)
making a spreadsheet of all of these guys and Bush's performance in their district in 2004, their performance in '06, and the registration numbers for their district.

So far Jim Costa stands out.  A Kerry district where he was unopposed in '06 and has 34% registered Republicans to 51% registered Democrats.  What's his excuse?

Is this something that might be useful later on?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


good work (0.00 / 0)
I think we really need to start paying more attention to the Districts some of these Reps are in.

[ Parent ]
misreading (4.00 / 1)
What exactly do you think this campaign is about?

[ Parent ]
attacking... (0.00 / 0)
From everything I have read it looks like the campaign is about attacking Democratic candidates who are not in full agreement with your positions on the war, FISA, and other issues.

My suggestion is that you do more research (original research, not just election results and PVI) into these districts to better understand where these democrats are coming from and what pressures they face.

You are very likely to see this backfire by destroying opportunities for dialogue and pushing candidates farther right in many of these districts.

Also, you are really bashing some Democrats who are the first and perhaps only Reps some of these districts have seen in a  long time and perhaps will see for a long time if they are defeated.

Criticism is fine, but I think when you take a second to look at it, you will agree that some of the rhetoric being thrown around by you, Howie, and others is really not genuine.

At one point Howie calls one Bush Dog an "across the board reactionary" or some thing like that which is demonstrably not true of most of these Reps who are strong on a lot of core Democratic issues like labor, access to fair trials, progressive tax structures, and more.

Why not try to foster better dialogue and working groups with the conservative Dems?  Wouldn't that put you in a better position to push progressive change in Districts where we need to fight year-in and year-out to keep a D, any D in office?


[ Parent ]
You're really missing the boat here (4.00 / 2)
"My suggestion is that you do more research"

Did you read this post? The whole thing is asking the community to provide in depth research and insight into these representatives and districts.

"You are very likely to see this backfire by...pushing candidates farther right in many of these districts."

In California, I've noted the opposite from Ellen Tauscher and Jane Harman, in their way. Just as two examples. Joe Lieberman I guess would be the counterargument, but I'm not sure that he's moved to the Right so much as just acted like more of a prick.

"Why not try to foster better dialogue and working groups with the conservative Dems?"

Why wouldn't they do the same thing for the same reasons? Why should we have to go to them?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.


[ Parent ]
...? (0.00 / 0)
Did you read my diary on the subject? 

That what I was referring to when I said "original research" here... link:

http://openleft.com/...

Also, note that most of the research being solicited here about the district (results, PVI, etc) as a whole is generic and does not tell the whole story, as noted in my diary:

http://openleft.com/...


[ Parent ]
Yes I did read it (4.00 / 1)
And it's all well and good to call for polling in 20 congressional districts until one actually has to pay for it.  It shouldn't be such a problem to expect accountability, and if voters in a given district are happy with who they have and what they hear, then it's not a problem.

I continue to wonder why there's an obligation to reach out that only goes in one direction.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.


[ Parent ]
Attacking Democarcy (0.00 / 0)
In a democracy, we're obligated to criticize our representatives when we don't like what they are doing. Criticism is part of the "better dialogue" you want.  Sticking with the lesser of two or more evils is part of the reason we are where are now with this Congress. 

[ Parent ]
aoei (0.00 / 0)
I'm not comfortable with how blithely you dismiss the FISA and Iraq issues.  These are fundamental issues of progressive and Democratic politics for our era.  That one is progressive on labor or health care does not make up for being wrong on FISA and Iraq, particularly when even the reddest district occupied by a democrat wants the war to end and judicial oversight to wiretapping.

These are not minor quibbles.  These representatives have failed the democratic party, and their constituents on 2 extremely vital issues, instead siding with the most unpopular president in decades.  What excuse is there for that?

We want to go after the people, who, when the chips are down, side with Bush/Cheney.  Perhaps some names on Matt's list don't belong in that category, and if so, make a case for those people. 


[ Parent ]
Here it is! (4.00 / 1)
This is a spreadsheet of all the Bush Dogs on the list.  Also included is the % of the vote Bush got in their district in 04, the percentage of the vote they won in '06 and, in the few places it was available, the % of registered Republicans in the district.  If they were unopposed, I counted them as winning 100% of the vote though I understand that is technically incorrect.

http://spreadsheets....

I would say our top tier of "No Excuse Bush Dogs" are those who won with a super-majority in districts that Kerry took in '04.  Three Shameful Reps fit that description:

Dan Lipinski, IL-03
Jim Cooper, TN-05
Jim Costa, CA-20

Please take a look.  If you want to add information or alter what's there, just let me know your gmail address and I'll add you as a collaborator.  Otherwise let me know the correction and I'll add it immediately.  All of the info I got was off of the amazing www.2008racetracker.com

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
Correction (4.00 / 1)
It's Lincoln Davis in TN-04, not Lamar Davis.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

also Melissa Bean (0.00 / 0)
is IL-08, not IL-18

[ Parent ]
Please be careful on this (0.00 / 0)
Shuler is infinitely better than the republican he beat, Charles Taylor (for one thing, Shuler has no allegations of Federal bank fraud in his past and at least seems to be an honest operator).  They are running a young Republican Taylor sycophant against Shuler.  I can promise you, if Shuler loses, we won't get that seat back.

Asheville is an island of progressive thought in a sea of unbelievable radical Republicanism.  We've tried to run "true" progressives up there against a criminally compromised Taylor, and he always won by about 8 points.  Shuler whupped him.

Let us continue to hound Shuler at the NC level.  Outside interest groups swooping in and undermining his campaign will not be appreciated up there.


I agree (0.00 / 0)
See my diary, I am making a similar point:

http://openleft.com/...


[ Parent ]
Letter to Matt (0.00 / 0)
Matt,

I just posted this as a diary because it is so long.

I think you are making a big mistake by moving too fast with this project and by not paying attention to the Bush Dog Districts themselves.

Here:

http://openleft.com/...


Republicans LOVE the war? (4.00 / 1)
You write:

It is a long-time Red District, where the Republicans love the war

How much do they really LOVE the war? How many of them are signing up or sending their kids?

They don't love the WAR, they love the war PROPAGANDA they see on FOX News.

It's up to Democrats - not just activists but also elected officials and candidates - to show all voters, including Republican voters, how horrible the actual WAR is:

* how many of our kids are being killed, maimed, and driven nuts

* how many Iraqi civilians are suffering the same fate (multiply by a factor of 250)

* how the war is recruiting MORE Al Qaeda far faster than we can kill them and turned the world's 1 billion Muslims against us

* how the war is costing $10 billion per month that is starving all of our other needs, both at home and abroad

In other words we should never accept voter perceptions as they are manipulated by FOX Propaganda, but rather we should work hard to change those perceptions.


[ Parent ]
Bean is IL-08, not 18, FYI (0.00 / 0)
Good Diary.

An equal amount of time needs to be spent (4.00 / 1)
vetting candidates better for next year.  Some of these folks, like Tim Walz, got a great deal of netroots pop.  We need much better vetting next year, and some sort of commitment from the candidates.

While the campaign is basically a good idea aand should be pursued, we need to be very cautious about the districts, and more respectful of the voters therein.  All politics is ultimately local, and having a bunch of outside agitators try to come in and tell people how to vote is counterproductive.  In fact, it is very likely to backfire.  Locals need to be contacted and listened carefully to here. 

I'm now feeling the leadership needs to assume more responsibility for what has happened.  they really, really don't get it, while many of these BDs may be reflecting their constitutents.  We need to sort that out.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


yes! (0.00 / 0)
Mimi, you speak the truth!

[ Parent ]
Agree, the leadership deserve bush-dog labels (0.00 / 0)
I think we should treat the leadership that allowed these votes exactly like we do the members who made the votes.

Give them the same treatment, because they more than deserve it.


[ Parent ]
They deserve it more. I am with you (0.00 / 0)
enough is enough!

[ Parent ]
That logo (0.00 / 0)
I kind of hesitate to say this, but I feel like I should probably speak up now rather than later: I strongly support this campaign you're doing, but that logo is ugly. The colors are jarring, and the thing is very visually confusing-- it doesn't convey any message until you think about it for a moment.

For starters, the text is dominated completely by the rest of the logo; your attention is drawn to the big white dog thing in the center first and the text only after.

Second, the colors, as I said, are a bit odd; the red and blue are a bit intense against each other, the "gloss" semicircle interacts with the white dog logo in a really weird way (since the gloss is invisible over the dog, it's difficult at first glance to tell what it is at all), and the strange shade of blue you colored "left" with tends to make the url just hard to read.

Finally, it's very unclear to me what the symbols here are supposed to mean. You want to "tighten the leash" on the Bush dogs, but what the logo is actually showing us is the red X over... a dog on a leash. If this were a no smoking sign, what would the X be telling us to avoid? "No leashes"? "No dogs"? It looks like you're trying to communicate that you want the leash taken off. (Come to think of it, whose leash are the Bush dogs on? The Democrats'? Bush's?) A logo that leaves the viewer in a position to wonder about these things probably has problems, the point of the logo should be to just convey things automatically. It might be a good idea to just drop the red-circle thing completely, since it forces you to create all that dead space in the logo and scrunch the text down to fit into the edges of the red circle...

Anyway, I guess this isn't really as big a deal as deserves me having typed all this about it, but you may want to consider rethinking that logo.


Contact me (0.00 / 0)
MCC, I designed the logo, and I'd love to talk a bit more about your suggestions for improving it. Can you drop me an email? seminal@theseminal.com

The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics

[ Parent ]
Logo looks good (4.00 / 1)
Just my 2 cents, but I think the logo is fine. Just after a second of looking at it I could tell that there were are these Bush Dogs that need to be stopped, and that OpenLeft is the main driver behind the campaign. Nice gradients too.

Leftmost Bit

[ Parent ]
followup mimikatz (0.00 / 0)
The true story regarding how the fisa vote went down is still incomplete.  But dem house and senate leadership are clearly culpable.  Pressure is needed on dem leadership

Here (0.00 / 0)
is my piece on Allen Boyd (FL-02): link.

Boyd (0.00 / 0)
This is a really weird district.  Democrats hold a humongous registration edge here of something like 95,000 voters (232 K to 137K IIRC) but many of these are de facto Republicans, at least at the national level.  This may make it difficult to defeat Boyd in a primary. 

Back in the 80's when I lived in Florida, the entire sherriff's department of one of the counties in Boyd's district was turned into the local drug smuggling operation.  This somehow seems like an appropriate metaphor for the district.  Things are not always what they seem.  Boyd's predecessor, Pete Peterson defeated a Democrat who jumped to the GOP in his first and only election after the change.  This has got to be in his mind and must be one fact keeping Boyd in line.  Or at least running as a Democrat.

I thought messing around with Social Security would have had a serious effect but it didn't.  The redneck Riviera is really more a part of the south than a part of the "Florida" us northerners think of. 


[ Parent ]
I added Mike McIntryre (NC-07) below (0.00 / 0)
as a regular diary. I'll work on some more!

I posted this table at Kos (4.00 / 1)
but I thought I should cross-post it (and the rest of my comment) here since it might actually do you guys some good over here; if you can scrape out the html code and re-use it, it'll save you the trouble of having to build the table yourself, if you want to have a permanent Bad Dems page on your site.

I added some data points (the district's PVI, the critter's Progressive Punch score so we can judge them across the totality of their votes, not just FISA, and whether they're a freshman, a Blue Dog member, a New Dem member, or a double-dipper). And I've organized them from most-Democratic to least-Democratic districts, so we can focus our energy on primary challenges and other pressuring acts that have a vague hope of succeeding (like Lipinski, where even if we lose we have a good likelihood of causing a Harman or Wynn-style epiphany), rather than ones that would just be empty chest-beating (like a challenge to Gene Taylor).

Also, it's worth noting that Matt's list... I don't know if it's oversight or something else on his mind... leaves out one key FISA-supporting Democrat, Artur Davis from AL-7. He seems like the most vulnerable Dem of all to a primary challenge, as he's in a majority-black district that's D+17, with a Progressive Punch score of only 80.19. I realize he's had some good moments, like some of his questioning as a Judiciary committee member, so maybe he drew a free pass here.







































LipinskiIL-3D+1083.51-
CooperTN-5D+671.93BD
CostaCA-20D+577.81BD
BarrowGA-12D+267.35BD, ND
BoswellIA-3D+170.83BD
RossAR-4D+072.79BD
SnyderAR-2D+077.65ND
TannerTN-8D+063.19BD
WilsonOH-6D+088.64BD
WalzMN-1R+190.88Fr
BoydFL-2R+261.84BD
CuellarTX-28R+270.20ND
AltmirePA-4R+372.63Fr
DavisTN-4R+368.01BD
EtheridgeNC-2R+377.58ND
McIntyreNC-7R+362.82BD, ND
DonnellyIN-2R+473.64Fr, BD
GordonTN-6R+469.45-
BeanIL-8R+575.52 BD, ND
BorenOK-2R+560.51BD
RodriguezTX-23R+583.36-
CramerAL-5R+658.68BD
PetersonMN-7R+659.63BD
SalazarCO-3R+679.42BD
SpaceOH-18R+679.92Fr
ChandlerKY-6R+779.22BD, ND
HillIN-9R+774.57BD
MelanconLA-3R+768.89BD, ND
ShulerNC-11R+771.32Fr, BD
CarneyPA-10R+876.92Fr
EllsworthIN-8R+974.12Fr, BD
MarshallGA-8R+1063.20BD
HersethSD-ALR+1175.48BD, ND
PomeroyND-ALR+1374.72BD
LampsonTX-22R+1575.16-
TaylorMS-4R+1650.15BD
MathesonUT-2R+1765.58BD
EdwardsTX-17R+1869.07-


Very Nice (0.00 / 0)
I made a similar spreadsheet using Google Spreadsheets.  I have the PVI, % vote they took in 06, % Bush took in 04, and the registration numbers for the districts where it is available.  Would you mind if I add the Progressive Punch score and the info about their membership to it?

You can view it here http://spreadsheets.... and if you give me a gmail address I can give you the ability to edit it as well.


I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
Go for it (0.00 / 0)
Mi data es su data. (It's all available at Progressive Punch too.)

If you're feeling really crazy, you might want to add a breakdown of individual votes on other bills. (Matt's list seems to correlate exclusively with the FISA votes, with the exceptions of Brian Baird (who's on his naughty list) and Artur Davis and Harry Mitchell (who aren't on his list).) We can expand the universe of Bad Dems by adding those who voted the right way on FISA but the wrong way on defunding the war. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other big litmus test votes this year where we had a lot of Blue Dog defecations, er, defections, but maybe someone else will chip in with a few other suggestions.


[ Parent ]
Medical marijuana (0.00 / 0)
Considering the heavy correlation between this list and "No"votes on the July 27 Hinchey Rohrabacher Amendment, to the Justice Dept. budget, which would have prohibited appropriated funds from being used to arrest or prosecute patients in States with Medical Marijuana laws, you might want to consider bringing another constituency into the project. Roll Call.

The exceptions: Marshall -not Voting.
Melancon, Petersen, Rodriguez, Waltz -for.



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.


Bud Cramer, AL-05 (0.00 / 0)
I'm working on Cramer, but his official website is down and I want to verify a couple of things there.  It should be done tomorrow.

To be clear, I think a primary challenge against Cramer would be foolish.  Better to lean on him, which progressives have started doing in the last year or so.  A big problem in this district is the lack of a Democratic bench so we can replace him with another (better) Democrat when the time comes.

Join the conversation at Left In Alabama.


Furious IN-09 constituent here (0.00 / 0)
Count me in!

I left you a message out on your Daily Kos diary, basically to say that we may have a candidate to run against Baron Hill -- still waiting to hear if she really plans to run again in 2008 (Gretchen Clearwater.)  We're getting a little desperate here in the Bloomington area. 

This FISA vote was the last straw -- we were already angry enough about the war cave.


Jim Matheson (UT-02) Profile (0.00 / 0)
Matheson profile via The Sidetrack:

http://thesidetrack....

Shameless Blog Plug: The SideTrack


"Lamar Davis" does not exist; don't you mean Lincoln Davis? (0.00 / 0)
I lived in Tennessee the last five years, and when I saw the name "Lamar Davis" on your list, I was surprised.  There is no one by that name in the TN congressional delegation.  I think you meant to write "Lincoln Davis," who is certainly a "Blue (Bush) Dog" Democrat.  There is a GOP rep named David Davis who is a Brown-Nose Bush Republican, but I don't think you were referring to him in this context.

Vic Snyder - AR-02 (0.00 / 0)
Profile can be found here

Profile on Mike Ross (AR-04) (0.00 / 0)
The profile can be found here.

Anti Habeas Corpus Dems (0.00 / 0)
Let's keep track of those Dems (34 of 201) who voted for the 2006 Military Commissions Act which eliminated habeas corpus.  This 800-year-old right separates civilized government from absolute tyrannies.  These turncoats cast aside the Constitution and the principle of habeas corpus, which protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. They also gave the president absolute power to designate enemy combatants, and to set his own definitions for torture.

These are hardly Democrat, let alone American, values.

Missing from your above list:

Robert Andrews (NJ),
Sherrod Brown (OH),
Lincoln Davis (TN),
Artur Davis (AL),
Harold Ford (TN),
Brian Higgins (NY),
Tim Holden (PA),
Michael Michaud (ME),
Dennis Moore (KS),
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD),
David Scott (GA),
John Spratt (SC)


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox