Friday, December 11, 2009

House Democrats Could Lose 28 Members And Be A FAR Stronger, More Effective Force In 2011

>


In fact, yesterday they did. When H.R. 3288, an appropriations bill with employment stimulus in mind, came up for a vote, every single Republican-- as expected-- voted against it. But so did 28 Democrats, including many of the ones most likely-- and most deserving-- to lose their re-election bids next year. The aisle-crossing "No" votes:

John Adler (NJ)
Brian Baird (WA)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)
Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA)
Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Kathy Dahlkemper (Blue Dog-PA)
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
Steve Driehaus (Anti-choice-OH)
Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN)
Bart Gordon (Blue Dog-TN)
Ron Kind (WI)
Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)
Dennis Kucinich (OH)
Dan Lipinski (Anti-choice-TN/IL)
Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Charlie Melancon (Blue Dog-LA)
Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID)
Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)
Bill Owens (NY)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)
Ike Skelton (MO)
Bart Stupak (Anti-choice-MI)
John Tanner (Blue Dog-TN)
Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)

A more progressive freshman-- and one, unlike these mangy corporate owned Blue Dogs, with impeccable ethics-- is Eric Massa (D-NY) who explained to his constituents why he voted for the bill. "Creating jobs is my highest priority which is why I'm proud to have voted for this fiscally responsible bill designed to help get struggling Americans back to work. By making meaningful investments in our infrastructure, job training and small business programs, we are working to improve our economy... Omnibus bills like this are always difficult to vote on because you can't vote no on the specific programs you don't like and yes on the ones you do-- you just get to vote yes or no. Overall however, this bill makes important investments in our economy and earned my vote." He went on to point out that there were three ways it was specifically targeting increased employment opportunities:
·    providing nearly $42 billion to improve our nation's aging highway system which means construction jobs;

·    making a $1.4 billion investment in training and support services for workers that have faced mass layoffs during the recession;

·    providing increased funding for several small business programs so they can help lead us out of this recession

Nothing Republicans or obsessed, corrupt Blue Dogs like Bobby Bright, Travis Childers and Walt Minnick care a whit about. Losing them on this vote didn't prevent the bill from sailing through yesterday. Having them inside the Democratic caucus is actually very destructuve since they are forever doing the work of the reactionaries and the special interests from within, moving the caucus and the caucus' legislative initiatives further and further away from helping ordinary working families achive their aspirations. A Congress without men like Bobby Bright, Travis Childers and Walt Minnick will be a far more progressive Congress even if they're replaced by Republicans who are tangentially worse than they are. In the current congressional year, these 3 Blue Dogs have ProgressivePunch scores (on substantive votes) of, respectively, 22.64, 16.98 and 26.42. Parker Griffith and Gene Taylor actually have even worse scores and some of them score worse than a handful of Republicans! But let's put it like this, these Blue Dogs are three or four times more likely to vote with Joe Wilson, Mike Pence, Michele Bachmann and Virginia Foxx than with Nancy Pelosi, Raul Grijalva, Henry Waxman or even a moderate like Bruce Braley or Loretta Sanchez (also a Blue Dog).

Labels: , , ,

10 Comments:

At 6:32 AM, Anonymous Balakirev said...

Howie, the point about a smaller, less inclusive party for the Dems being good for all of us is a great one, but--do you have any research to show that the losses will be proportionally greater among the Blue Dogs will and the corrupt lot? I'm thinking of people like Dodd in the Senate, who are looking shaky for the next election, and would be a loss to progressives.

 
At 6:48 AM, Blogger Come Ride The Whale said...

I'm more interested in voting out the 150+ Dems who will probably vote to fund the never ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Interestingly, there are at lest 6 Repubs who will vote against the war funding. I hope they all get re-elected.

 
At 6:51 AM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

Balakirev, the Senate is a very different dynamic and I was just talking about House races.

Dodd is an even odder situation since you have two perceptions at play-- a fighter for progressive ideals and working families on the one hand, and someone who is in bed with corrupt business interests on the other hand. Michael Moore's latest movie-- in a mania to prove how fair and balanced the filmmaker is-- may well prove to be the final nail in Dodd's political coffin and the delivery of another solidly blue seat into the hands of conservatives.

 
At 6:57 AM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

Come Ride, actually there are now 8 Republicans on board as opposing the war funding. The latest addition is Jason Chaffetz (UT), who is on the wrong side of every other issue but this one and, in fact, is currently leading Republicans in the battle against allowing the DC city council to allow for marriage equality in that city. Another is Timothy Johnson, whose opponent is a sterling progressive who Johnson is probably reacting to when he says he's against the war.

 
At 7:07 AM, Blogger Come Ride The Whale said...

Good Points--I amend my hopes-- I'd only vote for the Repub non-funders if their challenger was not strongly against paying for anymore of these useless wars, otherwise from my view war/peace trumps other issues.

 
At 8:52 AM, Anonymous Bil said...

I am Really glad Howie that IL14 Bill Foster who won Former Speaker Denny Hastert's deserted Congress seat has stayed OFF your Blue Dog list for the most part. TGIF!

 
At 9:49 AM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

Bil, the Blue Dog caucus isn't a state of mind. It's an actual organization. Although Foster usually votes with them and has said that he is one in his heart, he never joined the club formally. If you look at the ProgressivePunch voting scores on substantive issues for the current year, you find Foster's abysmal 35.19 far worse than Blue Dogs like Joe Baca (69.23), Marion Berry (68.52), Loretta Sanchez (66.67), Leonard Boswell (64.15), David Scott (64.15), Mike Michaud (61.11), Patrick Murphy (60.38), Jim Cooper (55.56)-- all moderates-- and even worse than some of the reactionary Blue Dogs who vote more frequently with the GOP (as he does) than with the Democrats, like Allen Boyd (49.06), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (40.74), Brad Ellsworth (38.89), and Baron Hill (35.85). To get worse than Foster, you have to dig way down in the dregs to neo-Confederate oddballs like John Barrow, Mike Ross, Heath Shuler, Bobby Bright, Dan Boren, Parker Griffith and Gene Taylor.

 
At 5:20 PM, Anonymous Megaman_X said...

After 2010 we'll hopefully have someone less embarrassing replace Brian Baird.

 
At 11:44 PM, Anonymous Bil said...

Thanks Howie

 
At 6:48 AM, Anonymous The Big E said...

Howie,

Collin Peterson (D?-MN) will only leave the House of Representatives when he decides he wants to. You know as well as anyone that entrenched incumbents rarely if ever lose. Furthermore, his district is really conservative, Cook Political Report declares it a R=5 ... which sounds about right to me.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home