That, at the heart, is what I think my reaction to the “Bush Dog” effort comes down to. This is a strategy by folks like Matt Stoller to attack Democrats with more conservative than desired voting records, and I guess challenge them in primaries. Ok, fine I guess. But to someone like myself who figures even a conservative Dem is better than a Republican, it seems kind of futile. A lot of the Democrats listed are the only kind of Democrats likely to be elected in their districts. Nick Lampson represents TX-22, which was Tom DeLay’s seat. Does anyone really think such a conservative district is going to be represented by a moderate to progressive Democrat any time soon? Not going to happen.
I certainly think these Dems should be challenged on issues like ending the Iraq war and some of their positions on social issues like abortion (they tend to be economically populist, however) but Democrats like these in those conservative districts are the best we’re likely to get. I’d much rather have a conservative Dem who’s going to vote for Pelosi for Speaker and serve under Democratic committee chairs than to have a Republican in the seat. Where I think a lot of this energy would preferably be pointed is to safely Democratic districts that need a progressive infusion. Here in Maryland Donna Edwards is mounting a strong challenge to incumbent Albert Wynn, who sides too often with corporate interests against the wishes of the state. The winner of the Wynn-Edwards primary will easily win the general election and the seat remains in the hands of the Democrats.
That seems a lot more pragmatic and useful in the long run to me. Then again, I’m clearly more moderate to conservative on a few issues (crime, economics, national security) than the “average” Democratic base voter, so your mileage may vary.
(This goes for the Senate too, where I think America is better served with Bill Nelson from Florida than his ‘06 opponent Katherine Harris, and we would be better off with Harold Ford over Bob Corker)
Well stated, OW. Ivy League grads (like Stoller) are not likely to live in those districts. Granted, I get frustrated with them on their support of funding the war without a timeline (and to me, the timeline doesn’t have to be revealed when it will be, just have one, damn it), but I’m hoping many of them will be there to help out the Dem nominee–whomever that may be. Oddly enough, many of these “Blue Dogs” support John Edwards, one that many declare to be “more to the left” these days. I think the argument could shift to what is “more left” because in general, the middle has been redefined. Universal health care is no longer a joke or just a “Michael Moore” ideal, and neither are many populist ideas for economic fairness.
The problem is Dems that run and vote Republican lite. Be proud to be a Dem, run as a Dem and vote like a Dem.
Harold Ford could not get elected since the voters could not see the difference between the Repug and Dem.
Progressive Dems got elected in the South, in conservative districts precisely because the voters saw the the difference in philosophy
Gotta add a comment about TX-22, since I lived there until I escaped in early 2005, before Lampson’s election (but after having done my first ever campaign volunteering the year before, for Richard Morrison).
I worked for NASA in Clear Lake, near Galveston Bay. What you forget is that this area was a seprate (and more Dem-leaning) district before Delay’s vile redistricting scheme (or as I like to call it, the Texas Anschluss), which annexed this area to his home district further north in the Sugarland area. Now Sugarland is about as far right Bible thumping la-la land as you could want. By his illegal actions, Delay effectively stripped me and people like me in the Bay Area of representation, by insuring that I’d be in a “permanent minority” in his new Republican Reich.
Now I remember having discussions at Bay Area New Democrats about Lampson even during the Morrison campaign. I think if it weren’t for the fact that the Bay Area has to be stuck with the Sugarland theocrats in its representation, TX-22 could be a more progressive district (maybe not San Francisco, but better).
Another thing worth remembering that the Bay Area is the home of the wretched Bob Perry, Swift-Boat funder extraordinare, apparent backer of the slimy California vote initiative going on now, and corruptor of the Texas legislature and Residential Construction Commission. I participated in a protest at his home in 2004. It was great talking to neighbors who despised him for ruining the neighborhood with his ridiculously extravagant and out-of-place McMansion. The neighbors agreed to let us protestors stand on their property if Perry or local cops hassled us for being in the street! It is pleasant to think of the vicious scumbag Perry being represented in Congress by a Democrat!
Fortunately like most tinpot dictatorships, without their Fuehrer Delay, the Sugarland Republicans are a confused and desperate lot. They’ve had constant vicious infighting as to who the Republican candidate should be for the district. The unbelivably incompetent and haughtily arrogant Shelly Sekula-Gibbs is the best campaign aide Lampson could have!
I agree in principle with Rheinhard. I also live in a district represented by a Blue Dog — Illinois 08. Melissa Bean was able to force out Phil Crane in ‘04, but this district is (I believe) trending more Dem than Bean is. So far, there hasn’t been a challenger for her, but I’d love to see one grab the seat before this district gets labeled forevermore as one that can’t do better than a Blue Dog.
Bullshit.
This labeling is over the war, and well over half of the Republicans want us to get the fuck out.
These are people who because of cowardice or stupidity are taking the course that makes them less electable.
The phrase “too stupid for congress” applies.
All depends on where you draw the line.
“Any Democrat is an improvement” may be true, but…the way things are now, it’s pretty easy for a candidate to be an improvement and still be totally unacceptable. I realize we’re talking about Congress, but I think the Presidential race is a perfect reductio ad absurdum — ANY of the Republican frontrunners would be an improvement over Bush, but they’re still totally unacceptable.
As for me, I’m in AZ5 and I am hugely disappointed in Harry Mitchell, a man I’ve voted for for some office or other in every even year since I turned 18. So far he’s voted for the war resolution AND the wiretapping law, and if he votes Bush another blank check later this month, I’m going to find it pretty damned difficult ever voting for him again. Even in the likely event that he’s running against someone worse, I think I’d rather leave the box blank than support someone who votes like Mitchell has.
Lampson was my Comgressman when Galveston County and Beaumont-Port Authur were in the same district. Now, (damn, hate to type it) my Congressman is Ron Paul. Thanks for nothing, Tom Delay.