Here is a promise you don't see in a hotly contested Democratic primary campaign very often. Bill Foster, one of the three Democratic candidates vying to replace Dennis Hastert in the now open Illinois 14th Congressional District, promises to work with the Blue Dogs once in office:
Like most of us, I believe we need to invest in education, in small business assistance, on health care and other domestic priorities to strengthen us here at home. But the debt built up by President Bush and Speaker Hastert is preventing us from doing this. Paying down this debt must be the first order of business. I intend to work with the Blue Dog Democrats in congress -- a group dedicated to curing this by making the hard decisions necessary.
OK-at least he is out in the open about it. However, it is important to note that Blue Dogs and Bush Dogs are not the same thing. Consider, for example, what Bill Foster says about Iraq:
Last year, I worked on the campaign of Army Captain Patrick Murphy - the only Iraq War Veteran elected to Congress. He was on the ground in Baghdad and saw up close how the Administration's policies weren't working. Congressman Murphy has been clear: any solution to Iraq's problems must start with the Iraqis. I've listened to, and worked side by side with Congressman Murphy, and I trust his judgment on Iraq far more than the Administration that got us into this mess.
Patrick Murphy is a Blue Dog himself, but he has been rock-solid on Iraq. Not only has he voted well since entering Congress, and not only did he endorse the Murtha plan for withdrawal in late 2005 when many other Democrats saw it as political poison, but Murphy has taken a prominent media role to help lead the fight to end the war. To put it one way, a Patrick Muphy Blue Dog is the sort of Blue Dog to whom I can provide enthusiastic, activist support for Congress.
The point I am trying to make here is that there is a difference between Bush Dogs, who capitulate with conservatives on the key civil liberties and foreign policy issues of our times, and Blue Dogs, who are simply members of a caucus in Congress. There is some cross over between the two groups, but it is by no means absolute: thirty of the thirty-eight Bush Dogs in the 110th Congress are also Blue Dogs, and thirty of the forty-eight Blue Dogs are Bush Dogs. However, that still means there are eighteen Blue Dogs who are not Bush Dogs, and there are eight Bush Dogs who are not Blue Dogs. The lack of coherency in Blue Dog voting is further revealed when looking at their loyalty to the Democratic Party on the 18 pieces of legislation in 2005 that passed the House with the majority of Democrats voting differently than the majority of Republicans:
In and of itself, being a Blue Dog does not seem to mean all that much as far as determining voting patterns on key pieces of legislation. Despite somewhat broad correlations, there is no direct connection between being a Blue Dog and being a Bush Dog. Figuring out where Foster falls in this range is always difficult, but I am not encouraged by this vague statement on Iraq:
I give my full support to the efforts of bipartisan groups in Congress that are attempting to use all the powers allowed by our Constitution to shake some sense into the Bush administration on Iraq. The first step must be to abandon the Bush Administration's stubborn insistence on an American solution to an Iraqi problem. Whether the troops come home by applying pressure to Bush administration, by the installation of a president with new ideas, or by the election of veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress -- the troops will come home.
This is a very strange passage. On the one hand, it talks about "use all the powers allowed by our Constitution" being taken to end the war in Iraq, which sounds pretty good. On the other hand, it talks about "bipartisan groups" that are trying to "shake some sense into the Bush administration on Iraq." As with the OH-10 primary challenge against Dennis Kucinich, that feels like Washington Post speak for "let's allow Republicans to say they want the troops to come home without actually forcing them to commit to bringing troops home." And then there is the strange statement that the troops will come home one way or the other, no matter what happens.
Bill Foster has said he wants to be a Blue Dog if elected to Congress. While not helpful, that is also not, in and of itself, a disqualifier for primary support in my opinion. Being a Bush Dog obviously would be such a disqualifier. There are enough certainly worries about which category into which Foster falls in that category that progressives in the area should take a long look at Jotham Stein and Jon Lasech (note: I am certainly not endorsing or non-endorsing any candidate at this time). Considering that it will be an open seat to replace Hastert, this campaign will receive a lot of attention, and who the Democratic nominee is will reflect on the party over a much wider area.
