In every case, a "Y" refers to the vote that gave money to Wall Street, and a "N" refers to a vote against giving Wall Street money. ("A" refers to not voting.)
Totally for Wall Street, no for Homeonwers Rick Boucher: Y, Y, A
Chet Edwards: Y, Y, Y
Bart Gordon: Y, Y, Y
Consistent: Bobby Bright: N
Chris Carney: N, N, N
Travis Childers: N, N, N
Kathy Dahlkemper: N
Lincoln Davis: N, N, N
Parker Griffith: N
Baron Hill: N, N, N
Tim Holden: N, N, N
Larry Kissell: N
Frank Kratovil: N
Betsy Markey N
Eric Massa: N (what the fuck Massa?) Jim Matheson: N, N, N
Bart Stupak: N, N, N
Gene Taylor: N, N, N
Harry Teague N
Given that they represent blue districts, if either Ron Kind or Mike Arcuri was to vote against President Obama's budget, it should be open season on both of them in their 2010 primaries. To vote to hand hundreds of billions over to Wall Street, but then to oppose even a New Democrat approved housing bill and oppose President Obama's budget--at that point, you simply don't deserve to be a Democratic nominee for Congress anymore.
Ron Kind in particular needs to go, as he was a pro-FISA rewrite, pro-Iraq blank check Bush Dog on top of all this. As such, I don't even really care how Ron Kind votes on the budget--he has crossed the line way too many times for an Obama 58% district. Let's get a primary challenger on him now. Even with Wisconsin's open primary laws, that is an exceptionally winnable primary campaign.
I am going to write something that might sound a little bit off character: I am willing to give Bush Dog, and apparently soon to be New York Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand a chance during her time in the Senate. In practice, what this means is that while I will be interested in looking at primary challenges she receives in 2010, and while I am wary of her past performance, the defeat of the working conservative majority and the newly arrived Democratic trifecta does appear to have altered the congressional playing field. It now seems likely new alliances can be formed for progressives, and no approach to passing progressive legislation, or stopping bad legislation, should be dismissed out of hand.
With today's plunge in the stock market, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index has now fallen 42 percent over the last year. Just how bad is that?
It's nearly as bad as one terrible 12-month period from late 1973 to late 1974. Other than that, it's the worst decline since 1932.
These historical comparisons are best done in real - that is, inflation-adjusted - terms, so that's what we will use from here. In real terms, the decline since Oct. 9, 2007, has been about 45 percent. From the end of September 1973 to the end of September 1974, the S.&P. 500 dropped 48 percent.(...)
The worst 12-month period happened between June 1931 and June 1932, when the stocks fell 62 percent. (Mr. Shiller's data is monthly, so there was probably a 365-day period that was slightly worse than this.)
Given that this was published yesterday, we have probably blown past 1973-1974, trailing only 1931-1932. And there is reason to believe that it will continue to fall.
I don't know if the progressive "No Bailouts Act" bill will receive a floor vote in the House this week, but if it does I think we should consider making it a third "Bush Dog" vote along with FISA and Iraq. This is a progressive solution that could avoid making a huge bailout. If there is a floor vote, any Democratic opposition to the proposal will likely be responsible for causing the $700 billion bailout to occur when a better option was on the table.
What say you? Is opposing the progressive solution to avoiding the bailout worthy of Democrats favoring FISA or a blank check on the Iraq war? I also like the idea of adding a third Bush Dog vote not just to identify new Bush Dogs, but to give the 70 current Bush Dogs a chance to clear their names. If current Bush Dogs were to vote in favor of this bill, and then go on to oppose the $700 billion bailout, that might be good enough to at least temporarily clear their names.
I'd like to hear from the community on this. Is Democratic opposition to the "No Bailouts Act" worthy of Bush Dog status?
The Senate, on its ninth try, finally passed legislation last night to extend a package of renewable energy tax credits. To get it done, Senate Democrats had to remove revenue-raising provisions to mollify GOP senators.
Today, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the package wasn't good enough. The reasoning is the same as it always has been -- that the credits aren't offset by spending reductions elsewhere or a revenue increase -- but as Congress debates a $700 billion unpaid-for bailout, that case becomes hard to make
"While we applaud the Senate for acting yesterday and taking a step toward being fiscally responsible, their bill still falls short of the pay-as-you-go principle that House Democrats have insisted on. The House has already passed responsible legislation this year to extend expiring energy incentives and business tax credits," said Hoyer.
The Senate Democrats are being irresponsible. The Blue Dogs are being both dishonest and irresponsible. This bill would help move a few dollars to put up some windmills and solar panels. Maybe if they assured Congress that the electricity would only go to thieving wealthy pricks Congress would pass it.
Here's the industry's play: progressives will approach Nancy with ideas for reform, and she'll agree to push for their proposals, and she'll really mean it. Then industry lobbyists will go to Dennis Moore, Melissa Bean and a few other Democrats, and tell them how dire the consequences of the proposals would be, and that the members who understand how the economy works need to step up to stop Nancy and the crazy liberals from doing something rash. Then those Democrats will go to Steny and tell him how terrible Nancy's crazy ideas would be, and how we can't rush into something like that without much, much more thought. Maybe Barney will try to talk to Dennis or Melissa, but it will become apparent quickly that they have no idea what they're talking about; they're just repeating by rote what the lobbyists told them to say. Melissa may actually be dumber than Sarah Palin. Barney will realize he might as well talk to the lobbyists directly and save a step. The lobbyists will agree to something inconsequential, but certainly nothing that would really affect the industry's conduct. Then the leadership will do the math and conclude that because the vast majority of Republicans will vote against any bill, we can't get enough votes without the Dennis and Melissa crowd. The only way, our leadership will conclude, to get anything at all passed is to include nothing more than the inconsequential proposals that the lobbyists agreed to. Then we'll all go along because it would be wildly irresponsible not to act when we're staring over the brink of a complete collapse of world financial markets.
I'd diagram it for you if I had a chalkboard. I've seen the play again and again, and it always goes for long yardage.
The only defense for the play is for a significant group of Democrats to say they won't vote for any proposal that isn't unpalatable to industry, and mean it. It's a pretty high stakes game of chicken, but otherwise we come out of this with nothing but a $700 billion giveaway to a crooked industry.
Ouch.
If anyone out there is good with diagramming software it'd be a neat picture to put together.
Chris posted yesterday about the swelling of the Bush Dog ranks to 70. These are the democratic representatives who voted "yes" on the FISA bill (with telecom immunity) and "yes" on restriction-free funding for Iraq into early 2009. Given the weakess of Bush and Republicans in congress, it's a dispiriting development. You might wonder what else you can do.
Here's an idea. Let's take a look at the Bush Dog polar opposites: the 117 Democratic representatives who vote "no" on both these bills:
Abercrombie Allen Andrews Baldwin Becerra Blumenauer Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Capps Capuano Carnahan Carson Clarke Clay Cohen Conyers Costello Courtney Cummings Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dingell Doggett Doyle Edwards (MD) Ellison Eshoo Fattah Filner Frank (MA) Grijalva Hall (NY) Hare Hinchey Hirono Hodes Holt Honda Hooley Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kagen Kaptur Kennedy Kilpatrick Kucinich Larson (CT) Lee Lewis (GA) Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lynch Maloney (NY) Markey Matsui McCollum (MN) McDermott McGovern McNulty Meek (FL) Michaud Miller (NC) Miller, George Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Price (NC) Rangel Rothman Roybal-Allard Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Scott (VA) Serrano Shea-Porter Slaughter Solis Speier Sutton Thompson (CA) Tierney Towns Tsongas Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Wexler Woolsey Wu
Credit is due all of these members for their votes on these bills. But certain members took bigger political risks than others when they took their votes. So here's what you can do to further voice displeasure at yesterday's developments: consider donating to one or more of the campaigns of the candidates listed below.
I know this is a crushing defeat. But damn if this doesn't make me proud of the netroots again. For awhile there the primary fight was gut wrenching in many regards. But here everyone is again, firing on all cylinders against the very people they helped elect.
Note to anyone who espouses the ridiculous idea that "both extremes are the same" in any form: What did the Republican base do when their Majority leader was actually indicted for multiple felonies? What did they do when their Speaker was found covering up for a Republican known to make advances on teenage boys? What did they do when their President's rationale for war proved untrue, then proved to have been known to be untrue? They stood by them. Tooth and nail. Clearly there are some core principles at stake on the left, lines people will not cross even for people they really like.
I don't like losing these fights any more than any of you, but I am proud of the response. We are fighting the fights that need fighting and I don't imagine we will have any regrets about this. Chris thought we might be approaching peak "I told you so" but I think we just found some new reserves yesterday.
The only bit of good news to report is that three of the Bush Dogs from 2007, Leonard Boswell, Baron Hill and Tim Walz, all voted against at least one of the above bills, thus moving them out of the ranks of the Bush Dogs. The Boswell change is particularly important, since it demonstrates that even failed primary challenges can have a positive impact. Also, now with thirty-five new Bush Dogs to choose from, we have a wide range of primary targets for 2010.
The new potential primary targets, signified by an asterisk in the table below the fold, include virtually every member of the House leadership, such as James Clyburn, Rahm Emanuel, and Steny Hoyer, not to mention prospective leadership member John Murtha. Numerous blue district Democrats have joined the ranks of Bush Dogs, as have a handful of Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic caucus members. With a list this broad, it should be possible to build an organization over the next two years that targets a large number of these Bush Dogs--possibly as many as half of them. If we can take out a dozen of these Bush Dogs in 2010, it would change the behavior of the Democratic caucus for a long time to come.
Anyway, the gruesome details on the 70 Bush Dogs can be found in the extended entry.
It would appear that today, June 19th, will go down as the day that Bush Dogs achieved total victory in the 110th Congress.
Ten months ago, here at Open Left we coined the term "Bush Dog" to describe the forty House Democrats (38 plus two of the three special election winners) who sided with Bush on both blank check Iraq funding and warrant-less spying on American citizens through FISA. Today, it appears that Bush Dogs are headed to victory on both counts.
So a deal has been reached on no-strings-attached war funding well into the next President's first year, and all the Democrats get out of it is a GI Bill that isn't paid for (they had to drop the tax on millionaires), some appropriations for flooding in the Midwest and Gulf Coast and modified unemployment insurance for an additional 13 weeks. That's not nothing, but given that it's a signing of a death warrant for tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, it's perverse to even talk in terms of what you "get" out of the deal.
CQ reports (sub. req.) that "a final deal has been reached" on FISA and telecom amnesty and "the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday." I've now just read a copy of the final "compromise" bill. It's even worse than expected. When you read it, it's actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program with the "Protect America Act," so it shouldn't be hard to believe at all. Seeing the words in print, though, adds a new dimension to appreciating just how corrupt and repugnant this is:
While it is not particularly remarkable that the Bush Dogs won these two fights, it is kind of remarkable that they happened on the same day. In fact, I just heard that the FISA bill and Iraq the supplemental will even be merged into a single bill. As such, it would appear that June 19th, 2008 will go down as Bush Dog Victory Day for the 110th Congress.
More in the extended entry, focusing on achieving a non-Bush Dog majority.
In the IA-03 Democratic congressional primary, progressive Ed Fallon lost to Bush Dog Leonard Boswell by a seemingly wide margin by on Tuesday, 61%-39%. That is a margin quite similar to Mark Pera's defeat at the hands of Bush Dog Dan Lipiniski in the IL-03 primary back in February. As such, it appears that our only progressive primary victory in 2008 will be Donna Edwards's historic victory over Al Wynn back on February 12th.
While a 22% defeat is not a cause for celebration, it still provides a very useful bit of information for future progressive primary challenges. Considering that Fallon had no paid media and Boswell was endorsed by every single establishment organization except the Des Moines Register, we now know the benchmark, floor support for an Internet supported, progressive primary challenge to a conservative Democrat. As Matt wrote the day before the election:
So now, this is the rawest test of an internet fueled grassroots campaign with none of the bells and whistles of a Donna Edwards or Ned Lamont, up against everything the establishment can throw at a candidate. It's an interesting test case of paid media - this primary will demonstrate what percentage of primary voters have moved their information and political habits away from low information broadcast channels, and towards internet and a more social form of politics.
So, now we know the answer, and it confirms the results of the Illinois 3rd primary back in February. We start a campaign like this at 39%, and need more allies and paid media in order to earn the rest.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to Ed Fallon on Open Left. While a 22% isn't great, it is 78% better than we would have done if we didn't try at all. If we don't keep trying, we will never get better. If we don't keep trying, we have no means to hold Bush Dogs accountable. Even though they were unheard of only four years ago, now with Ned Lamont, Donna Edwards, Mark Pera and Ed Fallon, progressive primary challenges to incumbent, conservative Democrats are becoming something of a regular occurrence. We are learning a lot, finding our bearings, putting many Democrats on notice, and building toward the future. This is important, because next year, when we have a large Democratic trifecta in D.C., we will have to be ready to identify and recruit many more of these primary challenges. Any and all congressional Democrats who hand Republicans any victories during our brief progressive window need to be held accountable in primaries in 2010. Our primary campaign experiences in 2006 and 2008, even the ones we lose, will be invaluable to maximizing the impact of our efforts in 2010.
Building a movement is a marathon, not a sprint. Even without paid media and allies, we are at 39%. While that is not where we need to be, it is still progress.
Several elections tonight. In the Iowa 3rd, we have Bush Dog incumbent Boswell vs. progressive challenger Ed Fallon. In New Jersey, we have Incumbent, machine-bakced, but generally progressive Frank Lautenberg vs. corporate challenger Andrews. And, of course, we have the final presidential primaries in Montana and South Dakota. I will begin live-blogging returns here at Open Left at 8 p.m., when the first polls close in South Dakota and all polls close in New Jersey. All polls close in Montana and South Dakota at 9 p.m. eastern. Polls close in the Iowa 3rd at 10 p.m., eastern.
What Is At Stake Tonight
Momentum. Currently, Barack Obama is precisely tied with John McCain in national polls, and effectively tied with McCain at the state, electoral college level. The ideal scenario for Obama to pick up momentum this week is to win both primaries tonight, reach the magic number tomorrow, and for Clinton to give her "acknowledging reality" speech on Thursday. That would give Obama three consecutive positive days of press coverage, and allow the nomination campaign to end on a positive note for the nominee.
The nightmare scenario for Obama is if he actually loses one of the two primaries tonight. As unlikely as it seems, this is actually possible. Poblano predicts Obama to win South Dakota by only 5%, and ARG predicts Obama to only win Montana by 4%. (Granted, Poblano predicts a Montana blowout while ARG predicts a South Dakota blowout.) Given that the Clinton's have been campaigning in the two states much harder than the Obama's, it is not out of the realm of the possible for Clinton to sneak out a victory tonight. This would be terrible for Obama, since wrapping up the nomination after a loss is exactly the sort of "stumbling across the line" scenario that has hurt Democrats, such as Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter, in the past. So, a double victory for Obama tonight, while not important in terms of winning the nomination, is important in terms of positioning for the general election.
More of what is at stake, along with my personal predictions, tonight in the extended entry.
Thanks again to Matt and Chris for letting me post here about this race, and for creating an Open Left for Fallon page at Act Blue that has raised $6,200 so far.
It's election day in Iowa, and the Democratic primary between Congressman Leonard Boswell and Ed Fallon is one of the highest-profile races in the state.
There's a nasty fake scandal in Minnesota about Al Franken's candidacy for Senate. Eight years ago, Franken wrote an article for Playboy, which is kind of funny and kind of obnoxious. You can read excerpts here. Franken was, for many years, an artist, who helped create the groundbreaking show Saturday Night Live. He has done huge amounts of work fundraising and supporting Democrats for more than ten years, and USO tours to support and entertain soldiers on tours in the Middle East. The jokes he told aren't always family-friendly, but then, I'm assuming that we're all adult enough to recognize that life isn't always family-friendly. Writing Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them was important; when few Democrats stood up against the right and when few journalist would call Bush and the punditocracy a group of liars, Franken did. And he's continued that track record in his campaign, smacking Norm Coleman around and refusing to condemn Moveon when they ran the Petraeus ads, unlike Amy Klobuchar, the junior Senator from Minnesota, who proudly voted to condemn 3 million Democratic activists.
I just got this thank you note from Ed Fallon for our fundraising. I was honestly shocked at how much you are willing to throw down against bad guys, and immensely proud.
Our race for Congress is a hard-fought one. It's tough running as a progressive candidate against a six-term incumbent who is well funded by corporate PACs and who has spent months attacking my character. As this campaign has worn on, I've been grateful for and encouraged by the coverage our race has received from Open Left.
And now, with less than a week before our primary, you have given me an additional boost with your fundraising on behalf of our campaign. Your donations will help us to answer the latest scurrilous attack from our opponent and the local 527 group supporting his campaign. The races for the presidential nomination and some other high-profile campaigns have made this a tough environment for raising money. But a lot is at stake in this central Iowa district. We have the opportunity to retire one of the Blue Dog Democratic votes that President Bush has been able to rely on to support the Iraq War, his assault on our civil liberties, and a host of other issues that have weakened our country at home and abroad. We have a chance to add another voice to the Progressive Caucus in Congress that will work for real, lasting change.
Thank you so much for your support.
Ed Fallon
Candidate for Congress
This is a tough race, but we're excited to back Ed. And since there's such an appetite among OpenLefties for supporting liberals, we're going to think about cool ways to fundraise for candidates that select for the most transformational of the bunch.
Still, if you want to know why Boswell is such a putz, just watch this video where he justifies - even today - the invasion of Iraq as a 'liberation'.
Over the few days, we have held a fundraiser on Open Left, and right now we stand only $3,000 short of our financial goal. However, for the next week, we are putting that fundraiser on hold, and instead asking you to contribute money to Ed Fallon instead, whose primary against conservative Bush Dog Leonard Boswell is only seven days away.
Matt's post earlier today covers many of the issues where Boswell is a Bush-enabling conservative, and an old post of mine from last August tackles several more. Suffice to say that at Open Left working toward a progressive governing majority is our tagline, and changing Bush Dog behavior was one of our very first campaigns (heck, Matt actually coined the term "Bush Dog.") It is difficult to find a clearer opportunity to take a step toward accomplishing both goals than the IA-03 primary campaign. Defeating Leonard Boswell would send a message to all 39 of the other Bush Dogs: stop supporting Bush policies, and start voting your districts, or you will be held accountable. If you support the founding missions of Open Left, then supporting Ed Fallon is a no-brainer.
Fallon is a serious candidate, and a proven winner in this district. Even before the Des Moines Register endorsement today, Fallon defeated an incumbent Democrat for state assembly in a primary in 1992, and did so by a 2-1 margin. Ten years later, also by 2-1 margins, he fended off party-backed primary challenges for his seat. In 2006, he won this district in the Gubernatorial primary. He is experienced at winning primaries in this district, and surely with the endorsement of the DMR he will be charging hard at the end of this campaign.
In his endorsement interview, Boswell talks about how we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein and how the Iraqis have had elections.
Last week, I blogged about Ed Fallon and his race against Bush Dog Democrat Leonard Boswell. Fallon faces a tough race, but got a key boost this weekend. Here's what I noted on Saturday.
The hope for Fallon is that the media continues to report on the race in a substantive manner, and that Boswell's ducking of debates continues to annoy the voting public.
Today, the Des Moines Register endorsed Ed Fallon. Here's what it said about Boswell:
But currently holding the job of congressman doesn't mean a candidate automatically deserves to be re-elected. After interviewing both candidates and reviewing their records, the editorial board can no longer embrace the congressman as the best person to represent Iowa in Congress. Fallon is running under the slogan "new energy for Iowa." On June 3, Democrats in the 3rd District should give Fallon a chance to unleash some of his ideas and energy in Washington.
Why Boswell falls short
Boswell's own record of accomplishment in a dozen years in Congress is relatively light, and, in a recent meeting with the editorial board, he seemed out of touch about some serious issues facing the country.
One example: Boswell expressed skepticism about the financial problems facing Medicare, asking what economists the Register had consulted to conclude the health-care program was in fiscal trouble. It's hardly an issue for debate. The Medicare Board of Trustees has issued numerous reports outlining the trust fund's looming deficits. David Walker, former comptroller general, has expressed concerns about projected Medicare spending. Yet Boswell talked about further studying the issue rather than proposing how to address it.
On immigration, he suggested that undocumented immigrants should go back to their home countries and "get in line" for a chance to come here. That's hardly realistic considering there are an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
When asked about Republican presidential candidate John McCain's prediction the previous day that most American troops could be home from Iraq by 2013, Boswell seemed unaware of McCain's statement. When asked about education in Iowa, Boswell said the state does "pretty good." And when asked what he based that on, he said Iowa's history and his own experience. But Iowa's educational system - not to mention the world economy - looks nothing like it did in Boswell's childhood.
Fallon has endorsed Obama, whereas Boswell is a Clinton superdelegate. There couldn't be a more stark difference. Here's Fallon's letter on May 10th to Boswell on his vote in the Intelligence Committee offering retroactive immunity to telecom companies.
May 10, 2008
The Hon. Leonard Boswell
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Dear Congressman Boswell:
I am writing today to ask you to disclose to the people of our district how you voted last week in the House Intelligence Committee on Rep. Heather Wilson's measure to add the Senate-approved FISA bill to the fiscal year 2009 intelligence authorization bill.
Published reports indicate that one of the Democratic members of the committee voted in support of Rep. Wilson's measure, thus supporting the Bush Administration's agenda of giving retroactive immunity to the telecom companies for assisting in the Administration's program of eavesdropping on Americans. You were also one of the 21 Democrats who signed a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi on January 28, 2008, asking the House to grant such retroactive immunity to the telecom companies.
Your original and continued support of the so-called "Protect America Act" and of the PATRIOT Act is an issue to be addressed in public debates. As one of your constituents, I want to know why you supported these bills, and whether you continue to support them. In particular, I want to know whether you continue to support granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies.
On a related matter, I am disappointed that you have refused to debate me, and I encourage you to reconsider. You and I both know that, as candidates for public office, we have a responsibility to voters to let them see us, face-to-face, discussing the key issues facing our district, state, and nation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ed Fallon
Candidate for Congress
We are thinking of doing a special OpenLeft fundraiser for Fallon.
What is progressive if not a willingness to push back? There is much to be gained by pushing back against right winged conservatives and even Blue Dog Democrats and, I would maintain, there is also much to be gained by pushing back against ourselves. The blogosphere, including the Open Left, not unlike other collections of people, is such a diverse assortment of homogenous pod. Safe though it may be, the chrysalis has little impact on the world beyond its shell.
I am not a wonk. I am an activist on a very local level, which, I suspect, puts me in a different universe than those focused more nationally and globally. One of the few sources I read for analysis of the world beyond my own little pod is Openleft.com. It is practically the only blog that I read and I read it only sporadically. I find depth and insight here that broadens my understanding from a perspective that I share. I have never found a lot of connection between most of the posts that I read here and the Bush Dog strategy. But here lately I keep stumbling against this approach that seems somewhat ancillary to the value I find in Openleft. I am increasingly irritated and baffled by this Bush Dog approach.
I suspect that part of this difference may be a reflection of perspectives from different scales. As a local activist, I am very much of the "all politics is local" perspective. The authors of Openleft come more from a "politics of the possible," big institutions perspective. As someone who works on very localized and often nonpartisan issues that allow me to join hands with Republicans and others I might not agree with on issues other than those at hand, I want to consider context and extenuating circumstances. National politics serves to average context across great distance.
Two years ago while I sat on the leadership council of our local Planned Parenthood facility, I worked to help elect a City Council woman who is rather avidly anti-choice. It just so happens that this woman also believes in quality of life for our community and opposes sprawl development. The clinic is in a neighboring town so she could do no damage there. Many in our progressive community could not bring themselves to support this candidate. While I can appreciate this principled stance, I feel that in supporting her I gained a lot for my community, and for a progressive agenda. While my support is not going to change her stance on choice, this woman now sees progressives as her ally on at least some issues. No longer will she be able to marginalize and demonize all progressives - nor I all conservatives.
As a southerner, I know the power of welcoming hospitality. While many southerners are anything but progressive, they often do hold this uniquely southern and distinctly progressive value of hospitality. I know some who are eloquent in their defense of civil rights, yet treat the individuals around them with little dignity. I know others who hold racist thoughts, yet manage to treat all with dignity. Neither is justifiable, yet both hold the elements of redemption that we seek.
Painting all Bush Dogs with the same brush is counterproductive and maybe even ill-progressive. Where there is a chance to replace a conservative Democrat with a more liberal one we should make the effort, but attacking Democrats who represent Republican, or swing districts for making some less than progressive votes is cutting off our nose to spite our face. So often what we get from Openleft is detailed and nuanced analysis, yet this approach lacks any of that. As a progressive I am thrilled to be represented by a Bush Dog. My congressman, Chet Edwards, has received a few letters from me lamenting his votes against such things as gay marriage. He has also received donations from me for his consistent votes for choice and even his only occasional vote against the war because I know that if he were not in office we would probably have a big-business, anything but compassionate, mean spirited Republican in his place.
It is annoying to see Edwards listed as a Bush Dog by people outside of my district who have failed to consider the extenuating circumstance that he operates in. Even if you are unwilling to compromise idealistically, consider that maybe that is what he is doing. Democrats in Republican districts do not have the luxury of voting on principle with each and every vote. They must measure each vote against its likely impact and its proximity to election time. Look, for example, how these Democrats votes have changed since there has been a Democratic congress. Consider how critical their "wrong" votes are. Are they voting "wrong" when their vote has no chance to make a difference but coming through when they need to?
One cannot help but chuckle when Open Left points out the homogeneity of the Bush Dogs. I'm sure that the irony is lost on no one, least of all these perceptive writers. I am no more threatened by the maleness or whiteness of Bush Dogs than I am of that of Chris, Mike and Matt. And I can assure you that there is nothing in the warm water of the south that makes people conservative. These are correlations that cause some to make sweeping generalizations that malign what it is to be progressive.
I am just as willing to be tolerant of the few differences that I have with Openleft and this Bush Dog approach as I am willing to be of my Bush Dog representative. I can only hope for reciprocation
We're headed for a realigning period in American politics, but whether we get there with a group of conservative Democrats or progressive Democrats is an open question. In fact, in many ways, it's the political question.
Who will Obama be as President? If he is confronted with 60 Blue Dogs in the House that feel no pressure, he will be a moderate President, necessarily. If he has progressive allies advocating from the left pressing for a low carbon economy, a sustainable food system, and a return to a civil society that respects the rule of law and criminalizes torture, he will be progressive. The place to make this change is in primaries, but there is a reason most DC groups won't go there. It is because when you try to go after someone within the party, party establishment figures go after you. It's a compendium of little things, from denying credentials to conventions to being unable to find consultants and pollsters and media buyers to work a race.
The political market is divided into Democrats and Republicans, and if you don't play by the standard partisan rules, you get pushed out. And so it's not a surprise that after Donna Edwards in Maryland's fourth district, there is only one other significant primary going on, in Iowa's third: incumbent Bush Dog Leonard Boswell versus progressive activists Ed Fallon.
Fallon is hated by the establishment, much more so than Donna. He has raised a much smaller amount of money, around $200,000 versus $900,000 for Donna. The Iowa legislature actually passed a law during this campaign making it harder for Fallon to take a salary from an organization he runs, just to be punitive. Fallon is a pure anti-establishment guy; he beat an incumbent to get into the state legislature, and then came in third in the gubernatorial primary against the current Governor of the state (though winning the third district). He backed Edwards first, and now he backed Obama, though in 2000, he supported Nader. He refuses PAC money of all kinds, and has taken the Change Congress pledge put forward by Larry Lessig. There is literally no one less likely to piss off the establishment than Ed Fallon.
On the other side is Leonard Boswell, a 74 year old conservative Democrat representing a liberal district. Boswell is a Vietnam vet, and has been in Congress for twelve years, though redestricting changed the contours of who he represented; local politicos tell me that he has 'yet to jell with the district'. In other words, he's a jerk. A mean, curmodgeonly, sonuvabitch. About two thirds of his money comes from corporate and labor PACs.
If you can name it, Boswell's bad on it. Free trade, net neutrality, torture in the Military Commissions Act, subsidies for oil and gas companies, CAFE standards, the estate tax, increasing the use of coal, immigration, the Bankruptcy Bill, factory hog confinements, etc. My favorite is factory hog confinements, which are industrial size pig farms that create football field size pools of shit in rural areas. Boswell is for them. He's a mean-spirited, degraded, evil man who wants to jail immigrants, torture people, burn more coal, hurt the middle class while paying off the wealthy, and help AT&T spy on all of us to boot.
Boswell is also corrupt, sending out taxpayer funded mailers promoting himself and using $1.1M in PAC and wealthy interests to blanket the district. The abuse of franking privileges is a fairly common problem in Congress, but it's still the use of taxpayer money to run a political campaign. Nevertheless, the establishment closed ranks around him instantly, with major endorsements from labor, public officials and even liberal Senator Tom Harkin. This has resulted in a twenty four point lead in the only poll taken in the race for Boswell, back in April.
Boswell is a Blue Dog, and as part of that group, has pushed aggressively for retroactive immunity for telecom companies. While he has backed off his strident pro-war record since the primary began, in a recent intelligence committee vote, he was in all likelihood the vote that flipped the committee from 12-9 to 11-10 on immunity provisions. We don't know for sure, because he's ducking debates with Fallon, ten at this point, which means it is difficult to get him on the record.
The primary is on June 3, and Fallon has several advantages to offset Boswell's massive warchest and establishment help. He's the candidate of change, having endorsed Obama while Boswell (who is also a superdelegate) hews to Clinton. Yard signs in the district that have Obama signs tend to also have Fallon signs, and vice versa with Clinton. Obama took the district. It's also a low turnout primary. The Iowa caucuses have already happened, so people who vote again in a lower ticket race are going to vote for either Fallon or Boswell, so Fallon has a stronger activist core likely to vote in June. Finally, the media narrative is changing. Throughout most of the race, the media has been attacking Flalon for petty meaningless campaign problems, going along with Boswell's critique that Fallon is small-time and refusing to cover issus. Recently, that shifted, and Fallon's position on hog confinements is getting wide press
The hope for Fallon is that the media continues to report on the race in a substantive manner, and that Boswell's ducking of debates continues to annoy the voting public. He won't have the money to spend against Boswell, and he won't have the party establshment, so we'll see what his activists can do.
How do the Bush Dogs stack up on reproductive rights issues? Mostly bad, especially compared to the rest of the Democratic caucus. Not as bad as they could be, especially compared to the Republican caucus.
I used two voter scorecards to evaluate them on, the most recent available from NARAL Pro-Choice America (2007) and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (2006). The NARAL 2007 House scores were based on two 2007 votes, one partially repealing the global gag rule and the other and one preserving federal funding to support Planned Parenthood in providing family planning services to low income families, with possible voting scores of 0, 50 and 100%. The PPAF 2006 House scores are based on a composite of 11 votes and/or issue positions, which you can look at by clicking on any representative's name at the link, and giving a more nuanced view of a member's stance on reproductive justice.
I'm including here only the scores of the Bush Dogs. Scores of other House members were tabulated separately but from the same references, means were calculated without the inclusion of those marked NA, or otherwise indicated below.
