REPUBLICANS INTENT ON PICKING OFF REACTIONARY DEMOCRATS WHO VOTE LIKE REPUBLICANS

Bush Regime mouthpiece/right-wing propaganda sheet Weekly Standard is trying to bolster a counterintuitive notion that the GOP is not dead yet by quoting Democratic pollster Stu Rothenberg. Rothenberg acknowledges that the NRCC has some reason to be hopeful that they can minimize House losses by winning back a handful of seats that Democrats captured in deeply red districts. Rothenberg lists 5 as problematic for the Democrats.

Of them, a handful stand out because of their fundamentally Republican nature. Rep. Nick Lampson’s Texas district is horrible for Democrats, and that’s why he probably is the single most endangered Democrat who won in 2006. Yes, the Republican field has evolved in such a way that it now lacks big-name local officeholders, but that doesn’t change Lampson’s dubious prospects.

Reps. Nancy Boyda (Kan.), Christopher Carney (Pa.), Tim Mahoney (Fla.) and Jerry McNerney (Calif.) probably round out the top five ‘06 Democratic takeovers who are now vulnerable to a snapback...

If you examine the Progressive Punch rankings of every Democrat in the House you find Lampson way at the bottom of the barrel, far more likely to vote with the GOP than all but 3 reactionary Dixiecrats, John Barrow (GA), Gene Taylor (MS) and Jim Marshall (GA). Lampson's the 4th worst; not very inspiring for Democrats to go out and vote or to volunteer. But is it enough to convince actual Republicans to vote for him?

Chris Carney finds himself in a similar situation-- very red district, very Republican-friendly voting record that antagonizes every Democratic constituency except die-hard partisans who just want someone with a "D" next to their name, regardless how he votes on crucial values issues. Carney not only has a decidedly reactionary voting record, he has also developed a reputation for dishonesty and political expediency.

Tim Mahoney isn't even really a Democrat. Last year when Rahm Emanuel decided to take out hypocritical Republican closet queen/child predator Mark Foley, he found a wealthy countryclub Republican, Mahoney, convinced him to switch his party registration and run as a Democrat. In return Emanuel and Hoyer and their puppets at the pathetic excuse for a Florida Democratic Party knifed an anti-war grassroots progressive, Dave Lutrin, in the back so that Mahoney the Republican would have no opposition in a Democratic primary, and then made sure the Foley news was timed just right for an electoral win, Since coming to Congress Mahoney has supported the Bush Regime far more frequently than almost any other freshmen Democrats.

Nancy Boyda and Jerry McNerney have both racked up moderate voting records that reflect their red-leaning moderate districts. Each has a reputation in their district as a popular political straight-shooter and, although the DCCC is clueless about how to operate-- or even read-- either district, both seats are probably safe. Boyda was smart enough to tell the DCCC to keep out of her race altogether and let her do it on her own, the way she did last time. If McNerney is in trouble at all, with I doubt, it is because he has alienated his own personal core supporters in the progressive activist base. By burnishing his moderate credentials he may have lost many of his most avid volunteers and the goodwill of bloggers and activists but he has endeared himself to independents and moderate Republicans in the district and his seat looks far safer than freshmen who have chalked up truly reactionary voting records, particularly Lampson and Carney, the two Democrats I would bet will lose next year.

HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE DEMOCRATS START ACTING LIKE BUSH RUBBER STAMPS? MEET NANCY BOYDA (D?-KS)

You won't find many congressmen (or ex-congressman) with voting records as radically right as recently unseated Jim Ryun's. The Kansas fanatic was breathtakingly consistent across every issue, a total knee jerk fascist. The sensible voters in Kansas' second CD had a little surprise for him a few weeks ago and they elected ex-Republican Nancy Boyda who was sworn in today as a Democrat.

Earlier today Rep. Boyda-- as well as Democratic freshmen Patrick Murphy (PA) and Emanuel's Heath Shuler (NC)-- appeared with Charles Gibson on ABC-TV News. In light of what Jack Murtha is trying to accomplish-- in segregating requests for escalation funds-- it was a very disappointing discussion, particularly Boyda's part. Here's a transcript:

Charles Gibson: The poll [after the November election] indicated to us, more than anything else, that the public voted on the issue of the war. So is there a Democratic position on the war?
Patrick Murphy: There is, and the fact is that we know that we need to change. If someone like myself, who served over in Baghdad with the 86th Airborne Division, I saw with my own eyes what's going on over there.
The fact is that we need to change direction with what's going on in Iraq. We need to listen to the military experts, people like Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Abizaid, that say, "Listen, the surge isn't going to work." [Although Murphy didn't know this at the time, the BBC is reporting tonight that Bush, serious about finding scapegoats for his incompetence, is about to fire Abizaid.]
Gibson: So when the president, in the next few days, as he is anticipated to do, calls for a surge and more troops going over there, how's the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives going to react?
Emanuel's Heath Shuler: I don't think that's the solution, with the exception, if that's what our military leaders say-- that the increase in troops is an answer, then that would be more acceptable, but not just one person saying, even the president, not just one person saying that increasing our troop level is going to create that sense of security in Iraq.

Nancy Boyda: I would be happy to vote for more troops, but I am not happy to vote for more troops without a clear mission and sending more of young men into harm's way.
Gibson: But, of course, the president thinks he's defined one, a government in Iraq that can defend itself and sustain itself and govern itself. There's the mission that he's put forth. If he says we need more troops, is the Democratic majority going to be compliant?
Murphy: I think what you hear from Heath, Nancy and I is very clear and that's the president, unfortunately, doesn't get it. It's not a military solution that's needed in Iraq. It's a political solution.

Gibson: Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?
Boyda: I think we're going to vote to support what the commander in chief and head of military asks to do. At least, I am certainly going to vote to support it.
Gibson: If he wants the surge, he'll get it.
Boyda: Yes. He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don't get that choice. Congress doesn't make that decision.
Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, "We're voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home."
Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.

John Amato said he'd probably put the video up on Crooks & Liars tomorrow. (It's up now.) He e-mailed me and told me it made him sick to watch Boyda go on with her nonsense. "Is she nuts?" he asked. I haven't met her and I don't know whether she's nuts or not, but judging from this one discussion I'd say she's not the sharpest knife in the draw. I've been mentioning for at least 6 weeks now that Speaker Pelosi ought to start playing a role in determining which Democrats are offered to the media. Emanuel apparently has a thing for his boy Heath and Boyda sounds like Steny Hoyer's kind of gal. Thank God a sensible person like Murphy was along. Having someone like Boyda, a lifelong Republican until 2003, on national TV representing Democrats and espousing pure, unadulterated rubber stampism is just insane.

Anyone who'd like to let Congresswoman Boyda know how they feel about her pandering to the Bushists can call her office-- or do you like rubber stamp?s:

D.C. Office: (202) 225-6601
Topeka, KS Office: (785) 234-8111
Pittsburgh, KS Office: (620) 231-3011

AN AFTERTHOUGHT ON THE ABOVE FROM KEN--

It's a shame that Representative Boyda wasn't listening to herself. She didn't start out badly when she said, "I would be happy to vote for more troops, but I am not happy to vote for more troops without a clear mission and sending more of young men into harm's way"--though even here "willing" or "prepared" might be a happier choice of word than "happy."

But what Charlie Gibson then describes as the "mission" that "the president thinks he's defined"--"a government in Iraq that can defend itself and sustain itself and govern itself"--isn't a mission. It's a vague goal. A mission would be what military objective those additional troops are intended to accomplish, and how, militarily, they're expected to accomplish it, in pursuit of this overall goal.

If Ms. Boyda had listened to her own words, and stuck to insisting on hearing what military mission those added troops are intended to achieve before voting to fund them, who could argue with her?