Before I get into the main part of my post, I want to tell you all how much we appreciate the generous contributions the netroots community is sending our way. It means a lot to me to see people all across the country embracing our campaign's message - "It's time for a change."
Together we raised nearly $7,000 from more than 140 contributors during the last 14 hours and we're back in the Top Five on Act Blue.
Markos and so many other bloggers out there have done us a great service with their writing and the response from the readers has been tremendous. Thank you!
...
On Sunday, my cousin, U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo and her neighbors, Vega and Steven Gerber, graciously hosted a fund-raiser for my campaign for Congress at their home in Atherton, California.
First, I should tell you that my cousin, Anna, a Democratic Congresswoman from California, and our respective families share a very close bond.
During the Armenian Genocide, both Anna's grandmother and my own grandmother, Esther, escaped their homeland together to America. Their journey lasted three long years.
For Anna and I to stand together - a sitting Congresswoman and a candidate for Congress - was truly an honor. I don't think our grandmothers ever imagined that something like that could happen. I think it is true testament to their courage, the tenacity of immigrants, and their pursuit of the American Dream.
To introduce Anna to our friends and meet with hers was a great joy for me and my wife, Leslie. My cousin paid me the ultimate compliment when she called me a true patriot for having the courage to run for Congress.
Anna and I both believe strongly that, no matter your district, this race is your race.
Why?
Because every time your representative stands up in Congress to make the right vote on issues like stem cell research, choice, the Iraq war, FISA, privacy - you name it - Congressman Dan Lipinski stands up and votes with the Bush Administration and cancels out your voice.
Throughout his tenure, when the Democratic side of the U.S. House votes blue, there's a red blip in that sea of blue. That red blip is Congressman Dan Lipinski voting the wrong way.
But before I get into the update on the race in IL-03, I wanted to tell you about an extremely important deadline coming up. I'll touch on it more below, but on Sept. 30, we submit our third-quarter campaign financing information to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It's crucial that we show strong numbers to convince those who haven't signed on with our campaign to join us.
As many of you know, my opponent is out of step with the values of real Democrats. It is time for change and, if you agree with me, I hope you will contribute to my campaign.
Well so far 23 Bush Dogs have been profiled, which is amazing. We still need these 17 to be written up. If you have a blog and want some extra traffic, or if you just want a better Democratic majority, consider grabbing one and profiling him. I've found these profiles invaluable when doing work on the Bush Dogs. Instructions on how to do this are here. If you want to profile someone who has already been written up, that's great too.
CO-03: John Salazar
IN-02: Joe Donnelly
IN-08: Brad Ellsworth
IN-09: Baron Hill
KY-06: Ben Chandler
MS-04: Gene Taylor
NC-02: Bob Etheridge
ND-AL: Earl Pomeroy
SD-AL: Stephanie Herseth
TN-04: Lamar Davis
TN-05: Jim Cooper
TN-06: Bart Gordon
TN-08: John Tanner
TX-17: Chet Edwards
TX-22: Nick Lampson
TX-28: Henry Cuellar
As always, if you've gotten one done, leave a link to your Bush Dog profile in the comments or email it to me at stoller at gmail.com.
Chris Bowers pointed out that another blank check for Iraq is probably on its way. Whatever you think about funding strategies for Iraq, this is a good illustration of just how the Bush Dogs hurt us. Here's Jason Altmire, of PA-04, at a press conference upon his recent return from Iraq, on Bush's funding requests.
The president has made the decision to continue the mission at its current level, and I am never going to vote to withhold funding to our brave men and women when they are out in the field of battle serving in harm's way.
By way of background, Jason Altmire is a freshman in a district outside of Pittsburgh, and his district's PVR is R +2.6. He's facing a reelection campaign against either former Congresswoman Melissa Hart or Lynn Swann, neither of whom are particularly good candidates. Republicans have already set up an attack site against him quoting from Fox News and punishing him for voting against the troops.
With his statements on funding, Almire is preemptively caving in to whatever Bush wants. Here's Altmire on Petraeus's report.
So -- and I do want to say one thing about General Petraeus and the meeting that we had with him. I have the utmost confidence, after speaking with him and seeing his commitment to this report, that what you hear in his testimony and what he says is going to be from his heart. I don't think there's going to be any fingerprints from the White House Political Office on General Petraeus's comments.
Just a few weeks ago, the White House claimed they would author the report by Petraeus, casting his credibility into question. Just today, the administration pushed the GAO into changing its pessimistic report on Iraq. Why would Altmire grant the White House this kind of credibilty by building up Patraeus as an unassailable spokesman? Petraeus is going to say the surge is working. We know that now.
Altmire will vote for timelines, and says he wants a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But he's going to vote for any and all money Bush wants, and he will stand up for surrogates of the surge like Patraeus.
I used Howie Klein's profile of Bush Dog Jason Almire to write this post. It was really useful to have that content handy. If you have a bit of time, pick a Bush Dog Democrat who hasn't been profiled and profile him.
Jonathan Weisman's account of Democratic approach to national security issues in the Washington Post today is worth reading in its entirety, because it shows the mindset on Capitol Hill and why we aren't making progress. The biggest problem are the Bush Dog Democrats like Allen Boyd (the only Democrat to support Social Security privatization in 2005) and Lincoln Davis, who both believe in warrantless wiretapping and use fear of Republican attacks on the issue to justify their authoritarian impulses.
But conservative Democrats and some party leaders continue to worry that taking on those issues would expose them to Republican charges that they are weak on terrorism...
Conservative Democrats, including Rep. Allen Boyd (Fla.), argued just as vociferously that Democrats dare not leave on vacation without passing the White House bill.
"The most controversial matters are the ones that people use to form their opinions on their members of Congress," said Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), who voted for the administration's bill. "I do know within our caucus, and justifiably so, there are members who have a real distaste for some of the things the president has done. But to let that be the driving force for our actions to block the surveillance of someone and perhaps stop another attack like 9/11 would be unwise."
Davis, in this quote, slips and slides between two different explanations. He argues that voters form their opinions based on controversial votes, and then says that the FISA vote was necessary to block another 9/11. The mixture of fear and reactionary instincts is quite revealing. The political evidence for Davis's position is thin. Bush has net negatives on his handling of terrorism, and the public is overwhelmingly opposed to warrantless wiretapping according to recent polling data. In fact, Rove and Bush made terrorism the centerpiece of their 2006 election strategy, and not one single Democratic incumbent lost.
Remember this ad against Chris Murphy, a so-called 'devastating' ad arguing that Murphy's stance against warrantless wiretapping would enable terrorists? The ad moved numbersagainst his opponent, and Murphy crushed his opponent by 12 points. It is simply ridiculous to think at this point that Republicans have an advantage on this issue. It's empirically untrue. But even if you believe the Republicans do have an advantage here, to assume that the Republicans won't run on this issue simply because you threw away civil liberties entirely ignores modern media. The GOP will run on whatever they want to run on, you can't stop them by voting for their proposals. Did Max Cleland's example mean nothing to these people? Apparently.
But it's not just Bush Dog Democrats that are the problem, it's much more pervasive than that. Here's Ben Cardin, a 'liberal' Senator from Maryland.
"If you just say you're standing up for civil liberties, the American people are with you, but if you say terrorism suspects should have civil liberties, it stretches Americans' tolerance," said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), who along with Hastings represents Congress on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a human rights monitor. "It's a tough issue for us."
Among Bush Dogs, the problem is fear and slavishness to Bush. But among liberals like Cardin, it's a poll-driven adherence to conventional wisdom.
If anything, the habeas corpus and Guantanamo Bay issues will be tougher. In June, nearly 150 House Democrats signed a letter by Moran urging the shuttering of the prison. But Moran said last week that he no longer thinks he could muster the votes to pass the measure, even though the move is supported by former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Republicans appear to have won the argument with their accusation that Democrats want to import terrorists....
"We can do this, but you have to keep in mind Republicans care more about catching Democrats than catching terrorists," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "They have spent years taking Roosevelt's notion that we have nothing to fear but fear itself and given us nothing but fear."
The slavishness to fear and conventional wisdom, the misreading of polls and politics, and the unwillingness to lead are remarkable, among liberals like Cardin, strategists like Emanuel, and Bush Dogs like Davis and Boyd. But there's there's also this.
And advocates of a strong push on the terrorism issues are increasingly skeptical that they can prevail.
"I don't think it's that we're reluctant to take on Bush," said Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), a senior member of the House intelligence committee. "I think it's we are reluctant to take on each other. . . . If I can fast-forward to September, October, November, December and see where we'll be, we'll be nowhere."
Congress is pretty small, with a little over 500 people. They get along with each other, they are 'office-mates' in some sense, they play basketball together, and they are in many cases friends. Public criticism from a Democrat to another Democrat is quite rare, because it ruins these relationships and makes it personally harder and more lonely to be in Congress. That's actually how you can tell that Brian Baird's 'the surge is working' is quite costly to him, because a fellow House member, Ellen Taucsher, is openly scornful of Baird's judgment.
Building a different set of incentives for decision-makers is going to take a lot of work. The problem is a mixture of conventional wisdom, poor judgment, bad values, a lack of coordination with activists by progressive members, and inertia. Fortunately, the ACLU is now getting very aggressive against Democrats, Nancy Pelosi is showing a harder line, Moveon is cracking down on people like Baird, local activists are becoming much less tolerant of flouting our values, and we're starting the criticism necessary to identify and fix the problem.
To be a part of the Bush Dog Democrat campaign, sign up here.
First let me say that I live in Brian's district and am active in my county's Democratic Party chapter. Secondly, let me say that I have commented previously on this matter to the effect that we will have a primary opponent for Mr. Baird next August.
local activist Paul Spencer, commenting on Open Left
"It could well cost me the next election," Baird said at the end of the meeting. "That's alright."
The campaign was covered in USA Today, on Fox News, the Politico, and in the New York Observer. Anonymous Democratic strategists are attacking me with the straw man argument that criticism will jeopardize Democratic seats, wingnuts are flipping out, and some local Democrats are very very angry. I've heard of possible primary challenges in several districts where Bush Dog Democrats are in power.
It's really amazing what a little criticism from a few of us can do.
Bush Dog Democrat Dan Lipinski, one of the worst Democrats in the House who oddly enough is in a very blue district in Illinois (IL-03), is facing a primary challenger named Mark Pera.
It's a race involving the Chicago machine. I'm doing research on it, and I'm wondering if you know anything about Pera.
After becoming a sudden star on CNN touting the success of the surge, Bush Dog Democrat Brian Baird got incredible pushback from his constituents at a townhall meeting. First, there was a robocall in the district advertising his town hall. Then there was Jon Soltz from VoteVets, who showed up and made his presence known.
He spoke in a high school auditorium that was packed with at least 500 people who were overwhelmingly vocal in their opposition to Baird's new stance. There were also protesters outside calling for Baird to resign.
He was hammered by Jon Soltz, the young, good looking, charismatic chairman and co-founder of political action committee VoteVets.org. Soltz is also an Iraq war veteran, having served in 2003. Speaking calmly and to raucous applause, he said Baird (who recently returned from a visit to Iraq) was fooled "by a dog and pony show" and is unfortunately providing cover for President Bush.
Afterwards, Soltz told me that his goal is to bring Baird back into the Democratic fold.
Another speaker who brought down the house was Zanne Joi, a Vancouver activist with Code Pink Women for Peace. Joi called Baird "arrogant" for trying to dictate how Iraqis should govern themselves and said the war was only about "American oil profit."
A third speaker, who also spoke to tremendous applause, was Jane Lustig from Vancouver, whose main complain was that Baird was not representing his constituents' point of view.
I also talked to several people as they left the auditorium and asked them if they found Baird-who was there to explain his new position-to be persuasive. To a person, everyone shook their head "no way," including Doris Holmes, active member of the 18th district Democrats, who said, "He lied. He's towing the Bush party line. I can't believe he's a Democrat."
This kind of Bush Dog behavior is not new for Baird, despite his vote against the authorization (which is tempered by a bunch of votes he has taken that are actually pretty right-wing on Iraq since that time). And lest we forget, Baird was a TV star on CNN a few years ago because of his behavior during the Schiavo affair.
This is a Bush Dog through and through. And what this town hall shows is that Bush Dog Democrats are not representing their constituents, despite the nonsense of 'oh those are bloggers who don't like that I'm voting my district'. It turns out that their constituents are also pretty angry.
Brian Higgins, who is not a Bush Dog but does come close (FISA), got some coverage in the New York insider political blog the Politicker because of this post. The article by Steve Kornacki, who I like very much, was fairly good, but ignored the fact that we are not calling for primary challenges, just criticism. That said, I found the first comment on the post quite instructive.
With a close relationship with Erie Dem Chair Len Lenihan, Mayor Byron Brown, and likely the next Erie County Executive, Jim Keane, any primary challenge to Higgins is DOA.
Down here, we know the machine is dead. Up in Erie, Democrats are poised to sweep the Republicans out of office, solidify their hold on the county legislature, and target Tom Reynolds and perhaps a GOP state senator or two in 2008.
Brian Higgins is the most popular politician in Western New York, his approval numbers are in Clinton-Schumer range.
Stoller, who is not from Erie County, and probably has never been there, would probably be better served in supporting Captain Jon Powers against Reynolds than in leading a vain and silly fight against a politically powerful and very popular incumbent Democrat.
I don't know why there's so much bitterness that we are simply offering up criticism, but it's kind of funny that the arguments from the other side are never 'Bush should have more wiretapping authority' or 'The Bankruptcy Bill was a good bill', but always seem to boil down to 'We're the machine and you're a dirty hippy'.
I wonder why 80% of Democrats are unhappy with Congress.
Ah, the Bush Dog Democrats. So far, the reception has been pretty great. Clearly, you all are hungry for a way to tell Democratic leaders and Bush Dogs to stop enabling the Bush administration. And of course, the wingnuts are freaking out, it's always a nice bonus to hear them squeal and defend conservative Democrats. It's probably the only time they do defend Democrats.
Anyway, for a background on the project, go here. We think that there's a group of conservative Democrats who are screwing up Pelosi's ability to lead the House in a progressive direction, and so we're doing research on them.
Here is a list of the Bush Dogs who you have profiled so far. If you have a profile written, email me at stoller at gmail.com or leave the link in the comments. It doesn't matter if you profile someone who has already been profiled, that's fine, the more talk the better. And it doesn't matter if your profile is positive. This is a research project so far, not an attempt to primary these people. (By the way, Left in Ohio and Buckeyestate Blog, there's nothing stopping you from writing a positive profile of Charlie Wilson and Zach Space putting their Bush Dog votes in context.). Sam L has created a nice spreadsheet to help you get started with district information for every Bush Dog, and there are more resources on voting patterns at Open Congress's individual representative pages. Open Secrets has a nice profile of their top donors, and you can even find out whose sponsoring their travel at this neat little part of the Open Secrets site.
Two years, a $12 million campaign and a 7-point victory later, her sophomore greeting was decidedly different: a line of newly elected Democrats from GOP-leaning districts, eager to learn Bean's secrets of electoral success.
Bean, a self-styled pro-business Democrat from a slice of Chicago's north and northwest suburbs long dominated by the GOP, has become an archetype for many of the congressional rookies whose victories delivered control of the House to Democrats last fall -- and whose fortunes in 2008 will determine whether the new majority lasts another two years....
In Congress, Bean preached fiscal discipline and courted business leaders for support and campaign cash. She bucked the Democratic line and angered organized labor leaders by voting for free-trade deals...
When the victors arrived to form the new Democratic majority in Congress, several turned to Bean again.
Giffords said Bean emphasized the importance of "voting your district" over the party line, which for Giffords meant voting with Republicans on several get-tough-on-illegal-immigrants measures. (The NRCC has criticized her on other immigration votes.)...
Bean's approach has won fans among business groups that traditionally lean Republican -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce co-hosted a fundraiser for her in Chicago last month -- and the respect of several elected Republicans in her district.
Hard right racist on immigration, pro-business, anti-labor, strong neoliberal, I wouldn't mind this so much, except that she's contagious. Congresscritters are following her lead.
There's your problem, right there. We have to kill that conventional wisdom that being a right-wing Democrat is the correct model for getting elected.
