Earlier this week, we hit five Bush Dogs who voted against SCHIP with thousands of calls to their districts. Jim Marshall in GA-08 was one of them.
Democratic-leaning groups are making hundreds of phone calls in the Macon area district of Democratic Rep. Jim Marshall, deriding Marshall for voting against the funding of a children's health program and potentially causing problems for Marshall, one of the most vulnerable congressional incumbents in the country in the 2008 elections.
The groups - Blue America and BlogPAC - are targeting Marshall and four other House Democrats who voted against the bill that would have added $35 billion over five years to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known nationally as SCHIP and in Georgia as PeachCare for Kids.
Today, one of our targets, Baron Hill, switched his vote. The North Carolina members are considering it as well. And Marshall? Not so much. Here's his spokesman.
"It's impossible to predict an impact," Moore said. "Some people were upset and some people were happy" with Marshall's vote, he said. "But you're only hearing from the upset ones. A lot of constituents agree with the way Jim voted."
This is rather amusing, since Democrats are quick to argue that they aren't hearing from progressives when they want to justify their vote on something reactionary. Now all of a sudden there's a silent conservative majority out there. Tell me, who are these people that are so excited about cutting funding to children's health care?
And then, of course, there's this.
Marshall's positions on SCHIP and the Iraq war, among other things, earned him at least two Democratic primary challengers. Macon Mayor Jack Ellis last week formed an exploratory committee to challenge Marshall. Robert Nowak, a schoolteacher from Macon, this week joined the primary race.
Two primary challengers? Here's Nowak's site, and a nice comparison of where he stands versus Marshall.
The Bush Dog campaign has more or less achieved its first step: compiling profiles of all those designated as 'Bush Dogs' by the criteria Matt laid out.
Some of the profiles are positive, some are negative (largely based on who authored them) and there is certainly room for more profiles to provide a more nuanced outlook, but the overall picture is in place. Now the question arises of what to do with them.
In the netroots there has been rather more caution, stemming not only from the traditional emphasis on partisanship but also from fear of strengthening a Republican Party which is almost entirely made up of Bush rubber-stamps.
Nevertheless, in general we can divide those on the list into 3 groups:
1) Bush Dogs in safe Democratic seats. It would be nice if they suddenly changed their positions, but frankly it's probably smarter to primary them and replace them with someone who doesn't have to be pressured into making the right votes. The best example here is Lipinski (IL-03) and it also seems fair to consider challenges to Costa (CA-20) and Cooper (TN-05) although the latter will quite definitely be the most difficult of the three.
2) Bush Dogs in seats with a PVI close to 0. Primary challenges here are riskier, but possible in the last resort. In general, however, the safer option is to make sure that any open seats in this category are occupied by progressives and in the meantime to try to bring the current occupants into line with their constituents.
3) Bush Dogs in blood red districts. Nobody in their right minds thinks that we can primary this lot and win a general election. Hell, we'd be lucky to win the primary. Whilst there might in theory be some value to a primary challenge here to put the fear of the netroots into the right wing of the party, it would essentially be a cynical and most likely foolish sacrifice of a seat, so I don't see there being sufficient support for that kind of enterprise. A more subtle approach is needed here.
Read on, and I'll suggest how we can put real pressure on the Bush Dogs, tailored to individual seats, without unduly biasing our chances in a general election.
As Yoda highlighted at PrairieStateBlue, there was big news in the Chicago Tribune last week that faux moderate Republican Mark Kirk and Bush Dog Democrat Dan Lipinski were joining hands to address the Iraq war problem. Unfortunately, it seems that their definition of the "Iraq war problem" is a little different than most of ours. You see, to me, or you, or the troops in the field, the Iraq war problem is that soldiers are getting killed, no real progress is being made, and there is no plan in place to change any of that reality. To certain Congressmen like Kirk and Lipinski, however, the "Iraq war problem" seems to be how to placate the general public who overwhelmingly want the United States out of Iraq, while still giving free rein to the Bush administration and the interests it represents to do what they will.
It seems that they have found a solution.
Now, contrary to the implication by the Tribune, this isn't something new; the bill that they refer to has been around since early June. It isn't anything too special and it has sat around without action for a while now. Nevertheless, a closer look shows an excellent example of political motivations and how harmful the appeasement strategy pursued by the Bush Dogs can be.
The bill is described by the Tribune as a "bipartisan bill that would give the Study Group's recommendations the force of law, including political benchmarks for the Iraqi government and a goal, but no requirement, of U.S. troop withdrawals beginning next year." I'd say that's a decent description of the bill. Of course, the way I'd describe it is a little different. I'd say that it basically says all the common sense things that anyone believes about the situation in Iraq but without holding anyone accountable when all those things are ignored and troops keep getting killed without any progress or hope for progress. It should go without saying that the "goal" of withdrawal without a requirement is worthless. It is the equivalent of a parent setting the goal of eating right and exercising for their overweight child, who has no desire to lose weight, and then failing to even remotely chastise them when they ignore the "goal".
The Tribune goes on to laud the bill as the bipartisan way forward. Kirk and Lipinski joined hands at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs to say this same thing. No comment from Kirk, but Lipinski came out strong.
Lipinski voted for a withdrawal timeline earlier this year but didn't like it because he knew Bush would veto the bill. He said he and Kirk -- along with 25 other Democratic and 35 Republican co-sponsors -- have agreed that "the Iraq Study Group bill is the way to go" to begin to change the course of the war.
"Over the last six months the president has been able to maintain the status quo [in Iraq] largely because Democrats haven't been able to get Republicans on board" to change the U.S. role in Iraq, Lipinski said. "This is all part of coming together."
It's bills like this that offer cover for faux-moderate Republicans like Kirk to go home to their constituents and claim moderate credentials and claim to be standing up to Bush on the unpopular war while in fact doing nothing of the sort. But it's "bipartisan" and "serious" so it must be the way forward right? Let's take a closer look at the co-sponsor list. (Full list below the fold) There are 35 Republicans and 26 Democrats. Of the 26 Democrats, 11 are Bush Dogs, 12 are Blue Dogs, and 15 are one or the other. There are also 4 members of the progressive caucus who have signed on and 4 members of the Out of Iraq caucus (for a total of 5 who are at least one of the two). Bush Dogs represent only 17% of all Democrats, but on this bill they represent 42% of the Democrats. (I've also put the sponsor list for the associated Senate bill below the fold. The names on it should come as no surprise to anyone here.)
This bill is a sham that does nothing but provide cover for Congressmen unwilling to stand up to Bush on Iraq. The Republicans are being actively aided in this effort by a group of Dems, the Bush Dogs in particular. Bipartisan doesn't have to be a bad word. It is something that should be a goal when possible. Never, though, should the goal of "bipartisanship" come above actually accomplishing the ostensible purpose of the legislation. This legislation accomplishes nothing, it only serves to shield Congressmen from criticism on the Iraq war stands (or lack thereof). Every Democrat on this bill should be ashamed.
First elected in 1998, defeated in 2004, and victorious in 2006 in one of the top races in the country, Baron Hill is a proud Blue Dog and fiscal conservative -- he has a national debt clock on his website. Our Bush Dog Spreadsheet notes that his district is R+07 and he has a 74.57 Progressive Punch score. He has voted with Democrats 89.5% of the time according to the Washington Post. He faced the same opponent in the last three elections, winning twice and losing once, and will probably face him again in 2008:
2006 He won with 50.0% of the vote.
2004 He lost with 49.0%
2002 He won with 51.1% of the vote.
2000 He won with 54.2%
1998 He won an open seat with 50.8%, succeeding Democrat Lee Hamilton.
I also noticed that there was been a huge increase in the libertarian vote in the last election, suggesting to me that there was dissatisfaction with the Republicans among those unwilling to vote for Democrats. In any case, the view that this district is challenging for Republicans and that Hill has to worry is obviously born out by these results. As you'd expect for one of the top 2006 battleground districts, a huge amount of money was spent on his behalf by all parts of the Democratic coalition: the Blue Dogs, MoveOn, unions, environmentalists, moderates, and most especially Democratic members of Congress. He even got $5000 from Wal Mart!
Mark Pera, the Democratic challenger in Illinois' 3rd U.S. Congressional District, will be the featured guest during an online chat beginning at 1 p.m. CST on Saturday, Sept. 8 with progressive activist Howie Klein.
Pera is battling for the Congressional seat held by incumbent U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski, a so-called "Bush Dog Democrat," who has voted in lockstep with the Bush Administration on issues such as reproductive rights, stem cell research, the Iraq war and the environment...
To participate, just click onto www.firedoglake.com at 1 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 8, click on the link and submit your question or comment to Mark Pera.
Pera said he hopes interested voters will take time to hear from the right kind of Democrat.
"We're committed to reversing the damage done by the Bush Administration and the more complacent members of Congress. I'm happy to have this opportunity to discuss my platform and field your questions. It's an honor to be asked to participate," Pera said.
Pera's campaign also has information up should you want to help collect signatures. Finally Pera has a greatissues page. It is not complete, but I love the format highlighting the differences between Pera and Lipinski.
Before I go, two meta things... Did ya catch the "Bush Dog Democrat" reference to Lipinski by Pera? Subtle building of netroots cred. Also the bright red behind the Lipinski positions on the issues page. Good use of frames, IMHO.
Democratic Representative Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23) is tagged in 151 dailykos diaries, having gained fame in the netroots world during his ultimately unsuccessful primary against Bush Dog Henry Cuellar in TX-23. As you may recall, Rodriguez served in Congress from 1997 to 2004, but the 2003 Texas redistricting added Laredo, and he lost a primary to Cuellar by 58 votes! The 2006 primary rematch features strong (see, for example, this endorsement by Chris Bowers:
By way of contrast, during the 108th Congress, Ciro Rodiguez voted with the Democratic majority on 28 out of 32 occasions. His loyalty rate of 87.5% is almost twice that of Henry Cuellar's pathetic 44.4%. In fact, Rodriguez's loyalty was above the Demcoratic average of 82.3%, and identical to the non-blue dog Democratic average of 87.7% in the 108th congress. Republicans essentially gained half of a seat in the House when Cuellar replaced Rodriguez last year. A real Democrat was replaced with a fake one, and I say it is time to gain that seat back.
The odd way it all worked out is after the flip...
Ok, so you want to profile a Bush Dog Democrat. That's very good, because the first step in a campaign to offer sustained criticism to Bush Dog Democrats is to get to know the people voting against core progressive values at key moments. Who are they? What is their district like? Do they face a primary challenge or did they face a close election last cycle? This information needs to be accessible and in one place for easy access. With this profile, activists and donors can learn about these members, and we can run Google ad campaigns that target them effectively. Additionally, these members can then know what activists think of them.
I wrote this FAQ for easy reference on Bush Dog Democrats.
What is a Bush Dog, in one sentence?
Bush Dog Democrats are Democratic members of Congress who enable the right-wing through their support of Bush's policies on core progressive values at key moments.
What are these core progressive values and these key moments?
Currently, we're using the capitulation vote on Iraq back in May, 2007, and the disgraceful vote to give Bush warrantless wiretapping powers as proxies for Bush Doggedness. We think that if you voted for both of these, you are an enabler of Bush's policies.
We've made an exception for Brian Baird (WA-03), who voted correctly on FISA. Upon getting back from Iraq, Baird, in the face of all the evidence, touted the surge's success and explained that opposition to the continuation of the surge was borne of partisanship and a lack of concern for American moral authority. Using the right-wing media to attack core progressive values is a quick route to becoming a Bush Dog.
As the campaign to reform "Bush Dogs" led by Matt Stoller and the Open Left team moves forward, I wanted to pause a moment to point out something that, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I couldn't help but notice: Of the 40 Bush Dogs, fully half of them are southern white Democrats. (The "South" defined here as the 11 Confederate states.)
Presently, Speaker Nancy Pelosi leads a 230-member Democratic House majority. Of those 230, just 32 are white southerners. That leaves 198 non-southern or minority (black, Hispanic) southern Democrats. And that means the splits for Bush Dog coalition are as follows: About 10% (20 of 198) of the non-southern or minority southern Democrats are Bush Dogs, but a striking 63% (20 of 32) of southern white Democrats made the list. (See chart.)
As I argued in Whistling Past Dixie, this is one of the painful tradeoffs of trying to be a "national" party. Liberals should keep that in mind the next time somebody spews feels-nice, but strategically empty phrases like "Democrats need to compete everywhere"-a "strategy" that is, in fact, the very absence of strategy. Not all Democrats vote the same way- and there are often very clear voting patterns by region. The South/non-South disparity should also be kept in mind when the inevitable arguments arise as to whether 2008 dollars and other resources should be directed toward trying to defeat or replace Republicans like, say, Randy Kuhl or Ray LaHood, or keeping the seats of Democrats Jim Marshall or Gene Taylor. Though Democrats may prefer to do both, politics is often about economics-the need to make decisions about scarce resources-and every seat is clearly not qualitatively the same when it comes time for floor votes in Congress.
Right now, Pelosi has those 198 non-southern and minority southern seats in her delegation; on the Senate side, Harry Reid already has 46 non-southern Senators in his, with upcoming opportunities in CO, MN, NH, OR and elsewhere outside the South. Say what you want about what Freedom's Watch is doing to moderate Republicans on behalf of the White House and the war, but as Eve Fairbanks compellingly argues in The New Republic, it is exactly this sort of clamping down on Republicans that has kept the Democrats from achieving much in the 110th Congress thus far. There's a lesson in that, as there is in the geography of the "Bush Dog" coalition.
We got a bunch of coverage for the Bush Dog Democrat campaign, and I'll go into reactions on Monday and what they mean. Let's just say the top two concern trolls were Fox News and their right-wing blogospheric toenail clippings, and anonymous Democratic senior strategists in the Politico (which did write a good article on the campaign).
UPDATE:Archpundit, a terrific and experienced Illinois blogger and activist, has some interesting things to say about Bush Dog Democrats Melissa Bean and Dan Lipinski. Larry is more politically cautious than I am, and tends to situate his politics in much less ideological and much more partisan terms. It's a useful creative tension, and he's a Bean supporter (I am not). Here's his read.
In the case of IL-8 we aren't likely to get a full throated progressive, but it's a significant problem that Bean has voted for issues trying to appear moderate that do not have the support of the political center even in her district. More than that, the 38 people Matt list are mostly in Republican leaning Districts, but even these votes aren't in the center of these Districts-they are well to the right.
With Bean this is especially relevant. It's true that her district is more concerned with taxes and budgetary issues than many others, but neither the bankruptcy bill nor the FISA changes are popular. They do get the attention of the Tribune which Bean uses to demonstrate she is a 'moderate' and so she ends up seeking their approval on everything. She's not going to change the triangulation pattern-it's a winning strategy in that District, but I think she can be moved towards targeting different issues that aren't nearly as destructive as these. In other cases, we just need to take people out-like Lipinski who is in a 59% Kerry District and votes horribly on just about everything.
However, in the case of Bean and presumably her consultants, we need her to be a strong voice for basic Constitutional Protections-protections gutted by the new version of FISA. We need her to not be voting for a bill that makes those in financial trouble because of sickness or the loss of a job even more vulnerable. We need her to stand up against torture. We need her to stand up against an incredibly unpopular President who not only got us into an unnecessary war, but continues to epically mismanage the war. When she does support such policies, she undermines the reason for Democratic control of Congress and the Presidency, but also, and more importantly, the country.
In a District like Illinois 8 I would never advocate a Democrat try and be Jan Schakowsky. I'll give them slack on tax and budgetary issues. I'll give them some slack on social issues to some degree. I'll give them slack on trade to some degree. But I won't give them slack on issues of fundamental fairness and Constitutional Rights. These are winning issues in all, but the very most conservative areas and even IL-8 isn't that conservative.
