The Democrats who voted to weaken FISA represent red districts

[bluestateguy]

I took out my Almanac of American Politics and crunched some numbers today. I looked at the district vote for president in 2004 in each of the districts of 37 out of 41 of these Democrats. I had to omit four, because their district boundaries have since changed due to Georgia's 2005 redistricting and 2 districts in Texas that were altered by a 2006 Supreme Court decision (Ciro Rodriquez and Henry Cuellar). The numbers on how these new districts voted in 2004 is not available yet.

I found that these Democrats represented districts that on the average, voted 56%-44% for Bush over Kerry in 2004. Only five districts voted for Kerry.

My thinking as to why they voted as they did was that they did not hear from their constituents in opposition to the bill. If that does not happen, then we should not be surprised that they will simply default to voting the way the political winds blow in their districts. I'm sure Bush is rather unpopular in many of those districts, but that does not necessarily mean that conservatism or the Republican Party is unpopular there. If they didn't hear from their constituents, they probably just assumed that the "safe" choice was to vote for it.

I am not defending what they did. They were wrong, but they are also politicians.

[cynatnite]

1. I wondered that...

doesn't surprise me any, either.

[bryant69]

2. Well a few points

The mistake in voting on this bill wasn't made on Friday. That was just the culmination of the mistake. The final scene of act 1 if you will.

Where they failed their constituents and failed America is in failing to come up with a sensible and constitutional alternative well before this crisis moment. They could have presented President Bush with a bill cleaning up a few loopholes in the FISA structure while leaving the organization generally sound, and said "We want to fight Terrorism as bad as you. We just want to do it within the constitution, and here is a bill that will do that."

If they had done this, gotten ahead of the fight so to speak, than we wouldn't be passing this bullshit bill. Granted Bush and his bots would still have opposed it, probably. But we would be in a lot stronger position than we are now.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BridgeTheGap]

3. Bush is abusing his power...why give him more?

I doubt that this one would register in a large way with these reps constituents.
Besides, I thought "conservatives" wanted the government to have LESS power not more.

[BuyingThyme]

4. Very bad politicians.

[sandnsea]

5. Change Minds, Change Votes

I don't know how many times I have to say it. We won't get anywhere with these reps until we kickstart a grassroots movement in those districts to bring the truth to those voters. It wouldn't take long, if we just organized and got going. That's the most important thing that needs doing, a helluva lot more important than running against Nancy Pelosi.

[madfloridian]

6. That does not matter anymore.

We have passed the point of excusing such caving in...our personal freedoms have been compromised.

They should have spoken out.

[ProSense]

7. So are the two Republicans who voted against it. n/t

[pnwmom]

8. Thanks for the research, bluestateguy.

And the dose of reality. Before we start our knee jerk calls to "throw the bums out," we should probably consider what the ACTUAL alternative is. A too-conservative Democrat or an even more conservative Republican.

[The Magistrate]

9. Even So, Sir, they Should Have Stood Up And Taken The Bullet

They will be attacked as 'soft on terror' next fall anyway, and their only hope of success remains to rally those who do not support the administration anymore. They will be unable to do so on avoting record that contains many votes like this one.

Until Democrats in Congress display discipline and act as a cohesive whole despite individual risk, and function as a bloc, we will continue to be rolled by the enemy.

"Politics ain't bean-bag."

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. So "being politicians" makes it all better?

I dearly wish I could use that as an excuse.

[Zodiak]

11. Does anyone believe that the political conditions of 2004

exist in this country today?

2004 Electoral map




May 2006 Bush approval ratings by county




The little tinpot dictator is even less popular now. I would wager that high-paid political consultants aren;t doing their jobs very well if they are responding to a 3-year old electoral map that existed before New Orleans floated away and Bush's cronies got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

The "red state" excuse no longer holds water when the state is no longer red. The whole country hates this guy....the whole country has seen that Gonzales is a criminal, but we just handed them more power with barely a whimper and absolutely no oversight. It is cowardice that red staters do not respect....so I would argue that this little episode just turned more counties red. I certainly have as much rationale for my conclusion as you do.

Certinly Congressional approval ratings agree more with my hypothesis than yours.

[tekisui]

14. EXACTLY!!! Every Dem elected in 2006 was by definition

elected in a BLUE district. Goddamnit, The People voted them in as fucking democrats.

[dkofos]

12. That's the problem. THEY ARE POLITICIANS!!

[ProSense]

13. In the Senate:

Bayh (D-IN)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI) -- compare to Akaka (D-HI) who voted against the bill
Mikulski (D-MD)


This is issue had nothing to do with constituents, people don't want to be spied on.

[Nite Owl]

15. Things have changed

considerably since 2004. We are now dealing with a President with an appoval rating under 30%.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. thank you

people here seem to think that it's possible to elect liberal democrats in those districts.

Running liberals will only ensure that Republicans get elected to those seats.