Certainly, Pennsylvania will be key to victory. Women, older voters, and suburban voters will all be necessary to achieve this win ... Chet Edwards would help Sen. Obama win in swing districts like mine and in states like Pennsylvania...
Chet Edwards would provide strong support to the new administration by engaging Members of Congress to pass critical legislation: health care for all Americans; comprehensive energy policy; new tax policy; and an end to war in Iraq, bringing our troops home safely and responsibly..."
Yes, when you think of champions for new a new energy economy, universal health care, and ending the war in Iraq, Chet Edwards immediately leaps to mind. When you think of people who are good at good at winning suburban women voters in the northeast, nothing would be better than some conservative white dude from Texas.
This is, to be blunt, dishonest bullshit. I explain why in the extended entry.
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
I decided to contribute to this campaign myself and sat down to write a profile of Chet Edwards, the erstwhile member from Texas. Chet Edwards represents TX-17. He was first elected in 1991 to represent TX-11, but after Republicans redistricted a plurality of his constituents in 2003, Edwards decided to run in TX-17 in 2004, taking on ultra-conservative State Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth. This was part of the huge redistricting project by the Texas Republicans who aimed to maximize Republican representation in the U.S. House, spearheaded by Tom DeLay. Unfortunately, the plan was successful and four of the five representatives targeted by the gerrymandering were defeated. Despite having to change districts, Chet Edwards was the only Democrat to keep his seat in the House.
Today, Edwards represents the district that is home to President Bush as well as a PVI that favors Republicans by 18 points. It stretches from the suburbs of Fort Worth to College Station, and includes all of Waco. Despite Bush capturing 70% of the vote in TX-17 in the 2004 election, Edwards was able to hold on with a narrow 4 point victory. In 2006, Edwards solidified his hold with a convincing victory, picking up 58% of the vote.
Not surprisingly, given the district, Edwards has voted with Bush quite a lot. He voted yes all the way in supporting and reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act as well as voting yes to the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Bill and to permanently repeal the estate tax. In addition, he was one of many Democrats to vote with President Bush in the original vote to go to Iraq and Edwards was one of few to vote for HR 2206 in May 2007, which would have funded the war without the timetable proposed by Democratic leaders. Edwards has a weak environmental record, voting for drilling in ANWR and recently joining just 8 other Democrats in opposing the recently passed House renewable energy bill. Again, given that this is a district with a lot of oil drilling, this is not a big surprise.
Edwards has done a fair number of good things as well. Although up until recently he supported the war and its funding, Edwards has finally amended that position and voted for H.R. 2956, the Redeployment from Iraq Act, this past July. He voted against extending the Bush tax cuts and against making them permanent. He also voted "no" to CAFTA in 2005. Given his district, he gets lots of courage points for that one from me. "Burnt Orange Report" blogger Phillip Martin wrote of Edwards:
Congressman Edwards fought hard against the administration's recent cuts to Pell grants, college work-study and federally-insured student loans. He's fought for affordable prescription drugs, and the protection of social security funds. He's done excellent work for our veterans, so we can honor the men and women who have sacrificed so much for us. He recently has voted against his own congressional pay raise, and helped secure millions of dollars for economic development in his communities.
One other important thing to note for someone like myself who gets really antsy about messing with the First Amendment to the Constitution: he's been a strong champion in terms of fighting the flag-burning amendements.
Progressive Punch, a group that rates voting records in comparison to those of the Progressive Caucus, gives Edwards an overall Progressive Punch rating of 69%, making him the 18th most conservative Democrat in this Congress.
In his tight 2004 race, he received massive help from labor PACs like the Carpenters and the AFL, along with ATLA, as well as the usual local-district business PACs. But in 2006, when he had a much easier time of it, he received little labor support. Nearly all of his contributions came from PACs like TXU Corporation and Kirby Corporation. His support from local trial lawyer firms and ATLA continued to come in.
Edwards doesn't face any opposition for the Democratic nomination. In the two years he has run in TX-17, he has been unopposed in the Democratic primary. Edwards is very well-liked among local bloggers and the media. Phillip Martin calls Edwards "One of our best leaders here in Texas." In 2006, Edwards was endorsed by both the Dallas Morning News and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The Star-Telegram wrote, "Chet Edwards brings experience, understanding and the closest thing to statesmanship one can find in Washington these days."
Chet is a lot more conservative than I would like him to be, but given the numbers in his district and Bush's relative popularity there, I think he's a pretty good guy.
STATE BLOGS
