When Democrats are really Republicans
For some reason the Democratic Party thinks that only a conservative Democrat can win here. We believe that this idea is not only wrong but (for us) painfully wrong. It would appear that Hoosiers want to keep our Constitution intact, and that our vote for a Democrat came with expectations that campaign promises (out of Iraq, etc) would be honored. So far, they have only been obstructed.
Considering how progressive the 'liberal pockets' of Indiana really are... a better question might be why anyone would even vote for a Democrat in a 'conservative state' if they didn't actually want a real Democrat? I mean -- if people wanted conservative... wouldn't they just vote for the Republican?
Seems we need a little truth in advertising both from the Democratic Party and from the candidates.
If we vote Democrat... for God's sake, give us a Democrat. If we wanted a Bush-enabler, we could have kept the Republican incumbent we already had before the election.
Here is an excellent graph of Blue Dog voting records (and future tendencies) from Chris Bowers, over on Open Left:
Vital Statistics On The "Bush Dogs"
by: Chris Bowers Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 15:18:29 PM EDT
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.
Here are some vital statistics on the 38 Democrats, the “Bush Dogs,” who voted in favor of both bills, and thus are the most likely to capitulate on important fights in the future:
Vital Stats on “Bush Dogs”
Member District PVI Term # 2006 win % New Dem Blue Dog Altimire PA-04 R +2.6 1st 52% Yes No Barrow GA-12 R +2 2nd 50% Yes Yes Bean IL-18 R +5.2 2nd 51% Yes Yes Boren OK-02 R +4.9 2nd 73% No Yes Boswell IA-03 D +1.4 6th 52% No Yes Boyd FL-02 R +2.2 6th 100% No Yes Carney** PA-10 R +8.0 1st 53% Yes Yes Chandler** KY-06 R +6.6 3rd 85% Yes Yes Cooper TN-05 D +6.2 3rd / 9th* 69% No Yes Costa CA-20 D +4.6 2nd 100% No Yes Cramer AL-05 R +6.4 9th 100% No Yes Cuellar TX-28 R +1 2nd 68% Yes No Davis, L TN-04 R +3.2 3rd 66% No Yes Donnelly IN-02 R +4.3 1st 54% No Yes Edwards TX-17 R +17.7 9th 58% No No Ellsworth IN-08 R +8.5 1st 61% No Yes Ethridge NC-02 R +2.7 6th 66% Yes No Gordon TN-06 R +3.8 12th 69% No Yes Herseth** SD-AL R +10.0 3rd 69% Yes Yes Hill IN-09 R +7.1 1st / 4th* 50% Yes Yes Lampson TX-22 R +14.5 1st / 5th* 52% Yes Yes Lipinski IL-03 D +10.3 2nd 77% No No Marshall GA-08 R +8 3rd 51% No Yes Matheson UT-02 R +16.9 4th 59% No Yes McIntyre NC-07 R +2.8 6th 73% Yes Yes Melancon LA-03 R +4.8 2nd 55% Yes Yes Peterson MN-07 R +5.6 9th 70% No Yes Pomeroy ND-AL R +13.1 8th 66% No Yes Rodriguez** TX-23 R +4 1st / 5th* 54% No No Ross AR-04 D +0.5 4th 75% No Yes Salazar CO-03 R +5.6 2nd 61% No Yes Shuler NC-11 R +7.1 1st 54% No Yes Snyder AR-02 R +0.1 6th 61% Yes No Space OH-18 R +6.1 1st 62% No Yes Tanner TN-08 D +0.1 10th 73% No Yes Taylor MS-04 R +16.3 10th 80% No Yes Walz** MN-01 R +0.9 1st 53% No No Wilson OH-06 D +0.4 1st 62% No Yes Medians / Totals -- R +4 3rd 62% 13 30
Notes
PVI = Partisan Voting Index, produced by Cook Political Report
* = Non-consecutive terms in Congress
** = Received significant national blogosphere support
Also, Tim Walz did vote in favor of the McGovern amendment. All others voted nay on that amendment, and are clearly ideologically opposed to progressives in this area.
Labels: Blue Dogs, Democratic Party
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home