|
One the the most common defenses for Democrats who break with their party on important votes is that they must, "vote their district." So, for example, when some Democrats vote to continue funding of the Iraq war without any mandated troop withdrawal, some people will argue that is alright because those Democrats are "voting their district." For example, as I discussed yesterday, some are defending Zach Space (OH-18) and Charlie Wilson (OH-06) for this reason:
Sure Space and Wilson haven't always voted the way we've wanted but have they looked at their districts?
This is a common variation of a widely used defense for conservative Democrats: Democratic Representative X has to vote a certain way, or else s/he will surely be defeated for re-election. And you know what? I absolutely agree with this sentiment. If you repeatedly vote against the wishes of your constituents, invariably the result will be that you will lose your seat. For example, that happened to thirty-six Republicans in the House and the Senate in 2006, and it seems as though it will happen to many more in 2008.
The Bush Dog campaign is focusing on two votes: the capitulation vote on Iraq, and the vote to allow Alberto Gonzales warrant-less wiretapping powers. In that sense, all we are trying to do to make sure that the thirty-eight members who voted with Bush on those two are instead voted with their constituents.
Take, for example, Bush Dog Leonard Boswell, who is from a district that leaned Democratic even in 2004. Over the last five years, Boswell has voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, to renew the Patriot Act in 2005, to eliminate Habeas Corpus in 2006, to fund the war without any troops withdrawal mandate in 2007, and to grant the Bush administration warrant-less wiretapping powers a few weeks ago (click here for links to all votes listed above). Let's see what his constituents think about one of those votes, from the Strategic Vision poll of Iowa released earlier today:
4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 51%
No 39%
Undecided 10%
6. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Democrats Only)
Yes 85%
No 7%
Undecided 8%
A majority of Iowa Republicans favor a total withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq in six months. Apparently, Leonard Boswell is among the 7% of Iowa Democrats who are to the right of the Republican rank and file on Iraq. The point, here, is that Leonard Boswell should be voting his district, but he clearly is not. That is something the Bush Dog campaign seeks to correct.
If he does not correct the way he votes and continues to side with Bush over his constituents on these key matters, given Boswell's lean Democratic district and history as a fairly weak campaigner, it is pretty easy to see him as one of the top five targets for a progressive primary challenge against a sitting Democrat in 2008. Can you imagine any lower hanging fruit? A fairly simple television ad pointing out that he voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq in 2002, to renew the Patriot Act in 2005, to eliminate Habeas Corpus in 2006, to fund the war without any troops withdrawal mandate in May, and to grant the Bush administration warrant-less wiretapping powers a few weeks ago would probably cause his approval rating to crash in just a matter of weeks. Not a single one of those positions is popular in his district--especially among Democrats--and this long-term pattern paints a clear picture of Boswell as a neo-conservative. A primary challenger to Boswell would have a legitimate change of success.
Or, preferably, Boswell could just stop voting with Bush, and instead starting voting with his district. That way, no primary challenge will be necessary.
|
