Reminder to Bush Dogs, Blue Dogs: "All Americans are impacted by all federal votes."

[madfloridian]

Chris Bowers at Open Left is starting to get crticism for that site's new effort to hold the Blue Dogs/Bush Dogs accountable. To tighten the leash on them so to speak.



I think Chris and Matt and others there should take that as a great compliment. What they are doing is the right way to do it. Hold those accountable who vote against the best interests of the Democratic Party.

This statement by Chris needs to be remembered by every single Bush Dog Democrat.....how they vote affects all of us in every state. That excuse of red state doesn't fly anymore. In fact Chris shows they are mostly from safe states.

Read this statement and repeat it to those who continue to enable Bush's agenda:

All Americans are impacted by all federal votes. The United States Congress is a national legislative body, and the laws that it passes, or does not pass, affect the entire nation. The notion that I should only engage in electoral activism within those federal elections in which I am eligible to vote (PA-Sen, PA-02) is to deny that I, and indeed all American, are impacted by the votes of every member of the US House and US Senate. Let me put it this way: as soon as how the legislative actions of Senators and Representatives for whom I cannot vote stop affecting me, I'll stop engaging in electoral activism outside of my home districts.

More from If It Wasn't For You Meddling Kids…

Ending the conservative governing majority in Washington, and replacing it with a progressive governing majority, requires national activism and a national movement. As such, I endorse the national, progressive, people-powered movement, since I believe it is our best chance to succeed in that aim. Further, I believe that our actions, both on Open Left and on Blue Majority, are reflective of that. Both the Bush Dog campaign and the candidacy of Al Franken are demonstrative of national activism and a national, people-powered, progressive movement.


If people disagree with the actions we take on Blue Majority and Open Left, I hope that they would do so because they disagree with the substance of the actions, not just because Matt and I are from different parts of America than Minnesota or Ohio. After all, people in Minnesota and Ohio are affected by the legislative actions of my representatives, Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Bob Casey Jr., and Congressman Chaka Fattah. As such, I see so reason why people in Minnesota and Ohio should not engage in activism advocating for the election or defeat of those candidates, not to mention attempts to change the voting behavior of "my" congresscritters more to their liking. To do so would not be an example of "meddling" outsiders, but rather reflective of the simple fact that we are all Americans.

Chris points out that there are only twelve congressional districts in the country where a majority are opposed to getting out of Iraq.

Chris points out this important point.

None of these districts are held by Democrats. So, one thing I know about every Bush Dog is that by voting to allow the Iraq war to continue without a mandated troop reduction, they are voting against the wishes of their constituents.

How Tim Mahoney or Brian Baird or Jerry McNerney vote on Iraq has a direct effect on me and my family and their families. I will continue to hound them when they vote against the best interests of this country.

Good for Open Left.

[madfloridian]

1. How they are defining "Bush Dogs" at this point....from FDL

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/20/bush-dogs/

Considering how successful progressive primary challenges have been in pushing Ellen Tauscher, Al Wynn and Jane Harmon into less knee-jerk reactionary positions, they’re asking people who have representatives on the list to help them get up to speed regarding what’s going on in that district.

And a further explanation of how they arrived at the difference.

A few of us at OpenLeft have been working on a campaign to identify the group of conservative Democrats in the House who are holding back progressives from being able to effectively govern. These are concentrated in two main caucuses, the Blue Dog Caucus and the New Democrat caucuses. Blue Dogs consider themselves heirs to the Southern conservative wing of the party, and tend to vote for socially restrictive policies and a neoconservative foreign policy. The New Democrats tend to be more partisan, but often are key to passing important pieces of right-wing legislation, such as the Bankruptcy Bill. In the last few years, these two caucuses have expanded their numbers, and the Blue Dogs have become the swing vote in the House allowing for effective conservative control of the Congress. We want to put a stop to the embrace of conservative values among House Democrats, and make sure that when Democrats are elected, they act like Democrats.

As Chris Bowers, notes, the two biggest defeats for House Democrats so far in 2007 have been the capitulation vote on Iraq, and the vote to allow Alberto Gonzales warrant-less wiretapping powers. We’re calling the Democrats who capitulated on both bills ‘Bush Dogs’, as these are the most likely to capitulate on important fights in the future.

The first step in stopping this behavior is to identify the people engaging in it and offer up criticism. There are a few reasons for this. One, many of these members feel no pressure to vote correctly or uphold progressive values. Criticism is the signal they are relying on to let them know when they err. Two, some of these members may need to face a primary challenge, and it’s useful for potential primary challengers to know that there is criticism of these members.

This is serious business. They are in effect giving Bush his agenda. They do not care what their constituents think, or what activists think. They have a set premise and go from there.

Open Left has the names in a chart here...with details of their votes.

Vital Statistics on the Bush Dogs

Be sure to check it out.