This diary is my response to Stoller's diary on the rec'd list right now. While I agree with him that our caucus needs to be more unified, I am very hesitant to jump on his anti-Blue Dog bandwagon
Last year, the Republican's decade long reign of legislative tyranny pissed me off so much that I would have been willing to support any candidate with a D in front of his or her name. I consistently lashed out at some of our most vocal "purists" for hesitating to support some of our more conservative candidates.
The recent complaints about the Blue Dogs' lack of loyalty to Pelosi's progressive agenda highlight a contentious question about the fundamental operations of our legislative branch: Should legislators vote their conscience or defer to the views of their constituents?
I think that question is midleading in that it implies that congressmen are often at odds with their constituents. AS a general rule of thumb, members of congress are generally very much in line with their constituents' ideolgy. Those Southern Democrats that fought like hell to fight civil rights legislation were not just expedient politicans. They actually believed the crap they were pushing.
The Blue Dogs, however, are a totally different story. The misnomered "Protect America Act" that passed the House last week was such an egregious assault on the constitution that I do not honestly believe that more than less than 90-95% of our caucus would sincerely support it.
Certainly, I expect these assaults on civil liberties under the guise of national security to win the support of unabashed hawks like Joe Lieberman. The rest of the field, however, many of whom are Democrats, are in Washington because they ran campaigns that were highly critical of Republicans' record on national security.
Then why would these guys vote with the Pubbies despite popular opinion being in Pelosi/Reid's favor? My speculation is that they were trying to flex their independence by voting against party leadership on a crucial vote. The content of the "Protect America Act" had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the bill. Instead, their votes in favor of the bill were shameful exhibitions of political positioning against the republican smear machine's attacks against a member's loyalty to Pelosi.
Not all Blue Dogs are Created Equal
Progressive Blue Dogs
As most of you know, being a Blue Dog does not automatically define someone as a conservative member of congress. Mike Thompson of California, for example, has been one of our caucus' most outspoken opponents of the war since day one. Despite a smattering of conservative votes on economic issues (albeit, some very important ones) you would have to be insane to advocate a primary against this guy. In addition to Thompson, Jane Harman and Loretta Sanchez are pretty progressive by most measures.
Blue Dogs in Dangerous Seas of Red
The other class of Blue Dogs is arguably the largest. They include members who represent districts that overwhelmingly trend Republican at the state and/or national level.Matt Stoller does nothing to help out our party by calling guys like Chet Edwards and Nick Lampson "Bush Dog Democrats." This label cast upon Democrats who represent districts that were 60+% for Bush in 2004 is reminiscent of the purity trolls who called Chuck Schumer "our enemy" amidst last year's midterms.
Of any institution, pbulic service in this nation has the greatest potential to improve the welfare of this country. I respect people like Lampson and Edwards who honor this reality by delving deep into enemy territory and racking up a vote for a Democratic speaker. If Stoller sincerely thinks that we can do better than Edwards (who is pretty damn progressive for his district) I challange him to move down to Waco. After establishing himself in the area, go ahead and run as a flawless progressive.
Blue Dogs That Simply Don't Represent Their Districts Well
The first Blue Dog in this category that comes to mind is Dan Boren. Boren is arguably the most economically conservative Democrat in the House. He is notorious for his antagonism towards labor while always maintaining a cozy rapport with the oil and gas lobby.
Bear in mind that Boren represents a poor, rural district that is hungry for populism. Don't let Bush's 59% showing in this district deceive you- the district is still overwhelmingly Democratic in state and local elections. Brad Carson, despite getting whopped by Coburn 53-42%, handily won the second district.
Another more obvious member of this class of Blue Dogs includes Bill Lipinski in Illinois' progressive third district.Mike McIntyre in North Carolina's seventh is alright, but his district definitely does not warrant him to be as conservative as he is.
My Final Verdict
I think priamries are a great way to exert political pressure on candidates. After a contentious primary with Marcy Winograd, Jane Harman is no longer the wishy washy ranking member of the intelligence committee whose laid back ways infuriated Speaker Pelosi.
By the same token, I do not think "purges" are effective. A movement to primary every single one of the Democrats listed in Stoller's diary has to be a far more focused effort that encompasses more than just ideological disagreement. While I consider myself to be a progressive Democrat (-8.25, -7.54), I do not mind coexisting with mroe conservative people who believe in our party's steadfast belief in the spirit of an active government that improves the nation's welfare.
The Blue Dogs' reaction to the Petraeus publicity stunt will reveal a lot. If a majority of the Blue Dogs go back to being the agressive hawks that they were at the start of the war, then I will join in on Stoller's angry chorus. Until then, however, I will remained conflicted with this very complicated political predicament.