U.S. Representative Mike McIntyre announced today that he will vote to support the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and not support the presidential veto of this bill.
McIntyre's district has a Republican PVI of +3, which isn't particularly high, and the district's demographics are shifting rapidly. Baron Hill flipped earlier this week in response to pressure, Jim Marshall is facing a primary challenge, Bob Etheridge is undecided, and Gene Taylor is still obstinate (though he's getting criticized by radio ads from pro-life group Catholics United).
McIntyre To Vote For SCHIP Bill
Will Not Support Presidential Veto
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Representative Mike McIntyre announced today that he will vote to support the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and not support the presidential veto of this bill.(...)
Congressman McIntyre stated, "As a long-time advocate for children for over 25 years, and as one who has consistently supported family health issues, I will not support President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, and I will vote to override his veto. My objection to the method of funding for this bill and my support of North Carolina's farmers and the economic well-being of our communities are well-known, but I have always supported the SCHIP program and will do what is necessary to preserve it for the sake of children and families in need. As Chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee that oversees tobacco, I will also continue to do all that I can to support our farmers and our region's economy. That commitment has not changed with this vote for our children."
Along with Baron Hill, that makes two of the ultimate Bush Dogs to flip. Remaining targets: Boren (OK-02), Ethridge (NC-02), Marshall (GA-08), and Taylor (MS-04). Contact information for these Representatives can be found here.
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.
These six Bush Dogs voted against health care for kids.
Rep. Gene Taylor [MS-04]
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7]
Rep. James Marshall [D, GA-8]
Rep. Baron Hill [D, IN-9]
Rep. Bob Etheridge [D, NC-2]
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2]
There is no reason for them to be Democrats. No, as we've seen, the vote for Speaker doesn't matter. These two members also voted against health care for children.
Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10]
I'm glad Kucinich is getting a primary challenger. His time is over.
Bush Dog Congressmen Mike McIntyre represents North Carolina's 7th district. He was elected to Congress in 1996, when he replaced the retiring Charlie Rose (also a Democrat). He was re-elected in 2006 with 73% of the vote. The district leans Republican (Bush received 56% of the vote in 2004, PVI R+3) but is not overwhelmingly so. Democrats maintain a lead (52% to 30%) in voter registration. The 7th district is in the Southeastern corner of North Carolina. It includes the rapidly growing coastal area in and around Wilmington, as well as less-well off and shrinking areas in and around Lumberton and Fayetteville. McIntyre comes from a heavily military part of the state. His district includes part of Fort Bragg and borders both Pope Air Force Base (in Fayetteville) and Camp Lejeune (near Wilmington).
McIntyre is a member of both the BlueDog and New Democrat coalitions. He voted yes on the AUMF, the bankruptcy bill, the capitulation bill, and FISA. He is also anti-abortion, is opposed to stem-cell research, and voted to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. In the bonus round, he voted to reduce funding for the UN and to prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages.
Republican Will Breazeale, an Iraq war veteran and member of the Army Reserves, is challenging him for his seat.
He is already being pressured on the war by local activists, who, in association with MoveOn.org recently delivered a check for $813 million dollars to his office.
In return he released the following statement:
"This war is costing too much money. We need a change in policy, and we need to be moving toward a conclusion of the war in Iraq."
Finally, something Mike and I agree on.
If you have local knowledge about this Bush Dog, please add it in the comments!!
I've been kicking around the idea with Chris that we should raise the costs of bad decision-making on things like FISA, or when they fold to Republicans on the supplemental or (insert fight here).
It's not much to put up some google ads criticizing these members for their position on FISA. The way Google adwords works is that the ad will only show up for the search terms we select. That means that if we select 'Chris Carney', then people searching for Chris Carney (PA-04) will see an ad criticizing Chris Carney for his vote on FISA. And the people who are searching for Chris Carney are people who want to know more about Carney, like reporters, activists, and constituents. We can even geotarget his state, so only people in Pennsylvania see the ad.
It'll probably run around $100-150 per member for a six month period, which is the amount of time until the law must be reauthorized.
Would you put a bit of money and effort to go after these wayward Democrats? We can't replace all of them with progressive Democrats, but we can certainly annoy at least a few of them and raise the costs for voting against the Constitution.
Aside from money, this will take some work, since we'll have to get posts written about each member that did this. It's not worth doing unless you'd support it. So if you think this is a good idea, put it in the comments or send me an email at stoller at gmail.com. We need support in one of two ways. One, you could throw in a few bucks for this. Two, you could write up a problem Democrat, on this blog or on your own site, and we'd use that as the Google ad advertised link. Let me know if you'd be willing to do either.
Yesterday, I tested out the idea that what we are dealing with in Congress is a nominally Democratic majority but an effective Republican working majority. I mostly pinned this on the Blue Dog swing bloc and a conservative Senate, but there are other important factors at work. The conversation was really amazing, and punctured some holes in my piece.
The fact is, things have changed quite a bit. I'm friendly with a lawyer in a major executive branch agency, and she told me that the investigations going on by Congress are allowing her to do her job. Steve Novick, candidate for Senate in Oregon (who is really quite terrific), told me the same thing about friends he has in the Federal bureaucracy. Governance itself is getting better, or at least has stopped getting worse. So Blue Dogs are not Republicans.
There are other weaknesses in what I wrote, and the commenters pointed them out. In particular, this comment by Paul Rosenberg is I think accurate, as he argues that we are facing a conservative but not right-wing Blue Dog/DLC bloc combined with an anti-progressive elite consensus in the form of a hostile media establishment, a hostile think tank and academic structure, a hostile regulatory structure, a hostile set of cultural leaders and a set of old world economic incentives for elites.
I'm going to revise my earlier title, and argue that while we don't have a Republican working majority, we do have a conservative working majority to contend with. Most of the strategic problems I highlighted in the original piece remain, with the additional need to attack and/or subvert elite structures. The irony, or perhaps the not entirely-coincidental pattern of the Open Left, is that we're all at once going after the right-wing, their Blue Dog enablers, and the elite structures that love them.
I'm beginning to explore an idea that I'm not entirely sold on, which is that in the House, while Democrats are in control, there is effectively a Republican working majority. If true, this has a number of implications, both electoral and political. But first, I'll illustrate my thinking, which basically boils down to the fact that politically speaking, Bush is effectively using the surge model to govern in all policy arenas. Take tax policy.
President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.
Advisers presented Bush with a series of ideas to restructure corporate taxes, possibly eliminating narrowly targeted breaks to pay for a broader, across-the-board rate cut. In an interview with a small group of journalists afterward, Bush said he was "inclined" to send a corporate tax package to Congress, although he expressed uncertainty about its political viability.
It's a simple pattern. When Bush loses ground politically, he simply changes his ask. It's the equivalent of negotiating with someone to sell them a bike for $50, and when they find a problem with the bike, changing the price to $75 and negotiating the final price to $65. It's bad faith negotiating, but it's working, because Democratic leaders aren't able to walk away from the table out of a mixture of fear, incompetence, and insufficient liberal voting strength. They always stupidly buy the bike at the higher price.
The FISA bill debacle is a good example. I've been in email contact with a variety of sources inside the House, and there's certainly tremendous bitterness at what happened with FISA, as well as a recognition that the 'stand up and cave' rhetoric strategy is now a clear pattern for this Congress. Steny Hoyer is the weak link in the House leadership, and though I can't read tea leaves that well, I think that Blue Dogs are essentially threatening a revolt against Pelosi if she tries to impose real discipline. In addition, the Senate is making it nearly impossible for her to stand up for liberalism. With a reactionary Senate that has about 10 neoconservative Democrats and a neoconservative President, liberals cannot govern except on the most clear-cut and non-controversial issues, like poor children's health care (which itself might be vetoed).
So while we may have thought we gained a check on Bush in 2006, we actually didn't. What we gained was a more progressive Democratic Party, but we started from such a low base that the Republicans essentially can still govern. Now, holding the majority is nice for subpoena power, and that matters. But when you combine a conservative Senate, a Blue Dog swing block, and an extreme White House, you may have a situation similar to the Boll Weevil Democrats in the early 1980s and their working relationship with Reagan. I'm not sure how well the analogy holds up since I've never studied that period in history, but regardless, Bush has realized that his conservative governing mandate is still intact.
In 2006, the midterms registered a clear antiwar message, but instead of listening, Bush surged troops, and politically speaking, it worked. No one stopped him. Bush, weaker than he's ever been as President in terms of popular approval and credibility, is governing this country through a mix of veto threats, bad faith negotiating tactics via surrogates like Mike McConnell and David Patraeus, and Blue Dogs. This is true with Bush's rampant lawbreaking and authoritarian criminal impulses. No one stops him. I'm no longer content to think that Blue Dogs are acting out of fear of being criticized, at this point I am going to take the Heath Shuler's at their word and recognize them as right-wingers.
To be clear, there's reason for optimism, as this is a temporary situation and we've made enormous progress since 2002. There are more self-identified liberals today than there have been since 1972, independents are swinging far to the left, and the base Democratic vote is making the difference in elections. The Democratic Party of 2007 is much more progressive than that of 2002, and at the rate we're gaining reliable liberal votes (10/year), there will be an unbreakable progressive House majority by 2012. The overall intellectual environment, the shattering of the right-wing careerist foreign policy community, the increasing efficiency of liberal advocacy groups, the increased participation of progressive economy sectors in the political sector, and the liberalization of the White House and Senate, can also have significant effects. Our politicians are obviously behind the curve, with Clinton quasi-supporting the surge and Obama in his most recent Iowa ad doesn't call himself a Democrat. But this is temporary.
I don't have a good strategy on how to 'fix' the Senate, but to get to a progressive working majority in the House, we need to pick up 41 more reliable votes, either by beating Republicans or by converting or beating Blue Dog Democrats. If we can get to an uncompromising progressive majority in the House, then the Senate will be dragged along through conference committees and a Democratic White House. In the Senate, we'll need 16 for a clear progressive majority, but because of institutional dynamics we'll probably need less to have a working majority.
There are several paths to making this happen in the House.
Pick Up Safe Seats Progressives: This is what we are trying to do in Massachusetts 5th, where a reactionary Niki Tsongas is facing four other candidates, including progressive Jamie Eldridge. There's also a primary in TN-09, Harold Ford's old haunt.
Convert Reactionary Democrats: Both Al Wynn and Ellen Tauscher are good examples of how this can be done, and this is continuing against Daniel Lipinski, Al Wynn, and Henry Cuellar.
Beat Republicans: In 2006, Democrats picked up 30 seats in the House. Out of those pickups, 11 voted for the FISA expansion, and 19 didn't.
Convert Republicans: I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq is trying to crack Republicans, but this is very very difficult. Republicans have run right-wing primary challenges against dissidents for 30 years, since 1978. Countering that is extremely tough, though recent moves by the Mainstream Partnership could have effects.
If there is a Republican working majority, with the Blue Dogs as the swing group, that should have one very significant effect on our strategy. In a House with a minority role for Democrats, electing a Blue Dog Democrat is far superior than electing a Republican. But in a majority Democratic House where conservatives have a governing working majority, electing a Blue Dog Democrat is little different than electing a Republican when it comes to public policy choices. Electing a Blue Dog is not going to help us restore out Constitutional fabric, hold these people accountable, deal with global warming, energy, health care, or restore a progressive tax code. More significantly, more Blue Dogs aren't going to give someone like Pelosi the leverage she needs to do any of these things.
What this means is clear. No longer should we as progressives particularly care whether a Democrat is in a swing district or Republican district when considering how to evaluate them. It is more important to elect progressives and destroy the power of Blue Dogs than to increase our partisan advantage in the House, though these goals are complements and not substitutes. The Colorado example, of turning a libertarian-esque red state into a Blue Dog state at the behest of wealthy billionaires, is not something to emulate. Rather, we should look at the New Hampshire example, which has turned a libertarian-esque red state into a deep blue progressive libertarian area.
There's one other important rhetorical consequence here. When Blue Dogs vote with Bush, they are not 'betraying' us any more than Republicans are when they vote with Bush. Blue Dogs just don't agree with us. And when they vote to expand wiretapping or to cut taxes for the wealthy or to support endless war, they are acting like Blue Dogs, and Blue Dogs support President Bush and the conservative movement.
STATE BLOGS
