Carney's got a (D) after his name

But I'm not hoping he wins.  The upside to a loss is that's one less vote in the caucus for bad leadership in the House.  50%+1 rules the day in the House, we can't forget that.  Having Carney doesn't help, it only detracts.  

The Blue America effort against for his vote to gut spying laws and give retro immunity to the telecoms (and by extension the White House) was a good move, and I'm glad I helped the effort.  For that to have contributed to his loss means that we can have a say in whether these guys stay in office.  They won't care about us until we can show that we can do that.  

---

by: PeterB @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM CDT

actively trying to beat Democrats

is stupid, especially because of his stance on one issue, that makes it even stupider. So, your going to punish yourself by trying to put a conservative Republican in who will not only vote the same way on that issue, but also more conservatively on other issues. You people truly are morons, and have no concept or respect for the moderates who try to get balanced debate and work done in this country, like Carney. I hope you continue wasting your money to see him win, he doesn't the support of the likes of you and it's things like this that make me want to not be a foaming at the mouth liberal Democrat at times. The leadership in the House is great, Pelosi has done amazing things, and made all the right decisions so bug off.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

---

by: ArkDem the Ragin Cajin @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:15:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am a raging foaming at the mouth liberal Democrat

but I agree that primarying Democrats in marginal or conservative districts for one vote is beyond stupid. The only reason to primary someone like Carney (considering it really is about one vote) is if you are sure that in 2010 he'll have a more favorable district through redistricting so that it becomes a safe Dem seat instead of a precariously marginal Dem seat.

You primary people in safe districts, not districts where it will take another 50 years and a sex scandal before you can win it back again.

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You've been my blog-soulmate over at Open Left for a while,

meaning, I've been in perfect agreement with a lot of your comments lately, but I think I'm going to back up Peter on this one.

At a certain point, the struggle between R and D becomes less relevant than the struggle between the Pelosi wing and the Hoyer wing (not that those two personalities are relevant, just the two wings of the caucus).  Especially in this upcoming Congress, control over the D caucus is a huge and still de facto (if not de jure) contested prize.  And I (and you) are in a group of people who would theoretically like to see Pelosi wipe the floor with Hoyer.

Now as to methods, there's room for disagreement.  But the original Greenwald logic is "you pass incredibly shitty legislation, in order to 'protect your vulnerables'.  Well, if you do that we will destroy your vulnerables our own damn selves, so why don't you think again?", and that is pretty interesting.

Now, in reality FISA was passed not so much to protect the vulnerables as it was to protect Rockefeller, Harman, Daschle, and maybe even Pelosi herself.  So that's a bit of a monkeywrench.  But it's important to try to figure out what leverage exactly the liberal wing holds over the conservative/corporate wing.  Beating them in primaries is one, but helping beat them in generals is another (who is going to beat Lynn Woolsey in either a primary or a general???)

They hold the leverage of being vulnerable in the general, so they get to custom-write all the legislation themselves.  That's a lot of power, and so finding ways to force them to listen to you is a good idea in the abstract at least.

Now, I'd really prefer to go for not Carney; let Carney hold on for a while, get drawn into a more Democratic district in 2011, and then start holding him to some tougher standards.   I'd have much rather seen a strong and hard attack on Boswell, who is in the opposite position: an old man, about to retire, and about to give away a district to Tom Latham when he does.  But, the calendar worked out such that there was no time to challenge Boswell properly.  So Carney it is.

Anyway, it boils down to not just Rs and Ds but also votes for Pelosi and votes for Hoyer, and eliminating a vote for Hoyer actually increases Pelosi's relative power in the (smaller) caucus.  It's hardly the only or most constructive way to do that (OPEN SEAT PRIMARIES), but it does work.

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 14:41:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well I'm pretty much in agreement there.

Maybe there's just a little bit of daylight between tactics but not much. I too think Boswell was a good person to primary. Would've been a Dem pick-up in the fall.

But Carney, there is just no way to hold that seat in a comfortable manner except for the power of incumbency. So Carney won the prize and now we keep him in there because he's got that 60% differential between his votes and the votes of the republican that would replace him. Again though, if he got a more Scrantonish-based district in 2012 that had a PVI of +5 or more, then I'd say, yeah, let's take him out. But that's such a crapshoot because we have no idea what the 2011 maps will look like.

Like I said, I'm all for primarying people to make the caucus more progressive. Hell, Steny Hoyer should be primaried considering his district. But what exactly does driving up the negatives (if that's what the ads even did, which I'm not sure they even accomplished that, which if that's the case, then that was progressive money poorly spent in the first place, not that I particularly cared about the TV ad, it wasn't as bad as I feared and this is turning into a really long parenthetical statement) of a marginal Democrat accomplish? Given the threshold it takes to win in this district (i.e. a sex scandal involving mistress choking and a national wave election) what chance was there that we could ever get another Democrat elected in this district?

I understand the logic of putting the fear of God into representatives so they'll vote the way we want, but I also believe that fear should be done with primaries in safe/safeish Democratic seats. Al Wynn was an outstanding example.

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 15:00:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

we aren't going to get a

very Democratic district here, regardless.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

---

by: ArkDem the Ragin Cajin @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 15:13:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

totally incorrect

the struggle for R vs D is never irrelevant and is in fact, the most important picture of all at all times no matter what the circumstances.  Even if we are able to get 75% of Democrats to be Pelosi wing democrats, we will still not have a veto override progessive majority.  We will still need the hoyer wing Democrats to accomplish that and we won't have any left with tactics like this one.  When it boils down to R against D.  Races where the D can win come first, no matter what.  

I agree that we do need to primary out the likes of the Steny Hoyer wing and the blug dogs, but only in districts that we have a chance to hold with progressive Dems.  Carney;s district is something like R+ 10.  Your not going to get a liberal democrat there.  Your not even likely to get a semi progressive Dem in there.  The fact is, Carney is the best we can hope for and he is certaintly better than any Republican we'll get.  

Check out http://electioninspection.word... for the latest news, election results, poll analysis, and predictions

---

by: skywrnchsr509 @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 16:09:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm with you on this, well put

The larger issue is the balance between Democrats and Repubs. The fact that we have a Blue Dog Caucus hasn't done us any serious damage. No serious damage compared to the years of having Repubs controlling every committee agenda; getting to hire hundreds of their loafer-clad, Brooks Brothers rioters as Congressional committee staffers living on the public tab while doing partisan work every election years; being able to determine what votes come to the floor to force our Members into taking embarrassing votes on abortion or gay marriage and the like; deciding who gets to serve on the committees that reconcile the House and Senate versions of bills passed by each and thereby decide which provisions will survive and which will get deleted, etc.

And there's a national effect from having more Democrats in the House. The mandate thing for one, being able to add up all the votes cast for Democratic candidates for the House vs the Repubs and saying, "We won the national vote." And the mandate from having a 30-vote majority -- or a 40- or a 50-vote majority.

There's also some cumulative effect on public opinion from having a Democrat in office in a red district. The Democrat can use the franking privilege to send out newsletters making the case for the legislation the Congresscritter supports, and that will usually be the same position supported by the Democratic leadership and majority. (The Member from a swing district is going to be averse to stirring up controversy, after all. And except for the rare instance like Joe Lieberman, even our least loyal-voting Blue Dog has not made a thing of publicly attacking other Democrats and the party's majority position.)

Often enough the local papers, weeklies and even small dailies, will carry a weekly column or report signed by the Congresscritter. And inevitably, the power of incumbency means that our Democratic Member gets invited to appear before the Lions Club or to speak at the Chamber of Commerce's annual banquet, as well as getting asked to make a comment from time to time for the local news article or TV's 10 o'clock news. Better our lukewarm guy with those platforms for propaganda than their reichtwing firebrand.

Yes, I was thrilled to see Donna Edwards defeat Al Wynn in the Maryland primary, tilting that solidly Democratic seat from at best business-as-usual to a very progressive one. The effect of her election may be felt most immediately within the Congressional Black Caucus, such a disappointingly conservative body that maybe we should be worrying about Black Dog Democrats instead of Blue Dog Democrats in districts like Carney's!

That said, I'm not sending even a piddling contribution to Carney this time. IIRC, I got excited last cycle and sent $25 to help win a Repub-held district. If I had the $2,300 max to give, I'd give it to someone else this time. Let him get the money he needs for his campaign from the lobbyists buying "access."

But hey, I'm not intending to send another $25 to Obama either. He'll just have to make it without my money. I'm gonna help him -- and help to push him in a more progressive direction -- by throwing my pennies toward the efforts of more progressive candidates for the House and Senate. There's plenty of them out there. But I don't need to attack Obama or any Blue Dogs any more than I want them attacking other Democrats.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 17:18:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just a caveat PeterB.

A (D) after Carney's name means something here. This site is about horse-race politics. If a Democrat is running against a Republican, we support the Democrat. Sometimes, where a shitty Democrat is running against a good Democrat we (typically) go with the good one. And even sometimes when a shitty Republican is running against a "good" Republican, we support the shitty one (go Don Young!).

This is not a philosophical blog. We usually don't get into the nitty gritty of policy issues. The posts are focused on polls and money. Other big name blogs like DailyKos and MyDD get into all the policy wrangling.

Now, don't get the impression I don't want you to comment on this site. But don't expect a lot of people here to have the same view of Carney and other Blue Dogs.

---

by: nrimmer @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:48:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you nrimmer!

I was going to start doing some of this splainin' but apparently three of y'all have already done it for PeterB here.

Yeah, for some reason I myself also enjoy this "horse race" more than issue-wanking I've seen on other websites.  Sure, I have a certain set of issues that I care about, but for some reason I like this more.  Maybe because there's less philosophical arguing, maybe because people don't have as strong opinions (and are thus not as hard to convince), maybe because I'm not quite as liberal as some hardcore activists.  But I'm all for the Democrats (okay, except Bill Jefferson) winning greater control of Congress, because on those issues that I do care about, I tend to agree more with Democrats, and additionally, I feel quite a good bit of loathing toward  the Republican Party for their recent spate of extremely dirty tactics--from voter fraud to late-night phone-spamming to gerrymandering to racist advertising to exploiting flamebait issues to derailing the budget to forcing an Iraq War to occur to various abuses of power all over the place (Valerie Plame and the U.S. attorneys are only two of them).  Oh, and Al Gore won Florida.

So yeah.  Simply put.  I don't like the Republican Party.  I have nothing intrinsically against individual Republican voters (some of my very close friends are Republicans); I just object to what many of the party's elected officials have been doing.

Funny thing is that one of my friends pointed out to me that my "talking politics" is significantly different from what other people mean when they "talk politics"--that I talk about individual House and Senate races, and candidates' viability, and what stuff has been happening in the races (e.g. scandals), rather than discussing issues.  As a result, I've started to say that I'm interested in "electoral politics" rather than just "politics".

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 13:02:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah. Most of us would laugh

at this, because those two votes that are ruffling your feathers are two votes you can take to the bank that the GOP are going to keep and embrace.  So by not wanting him in office, you want a 50%+ voting record with Democrats to go down to less than 10% voting with us?  That doesn't make much sense at all.  

Your whole 50%+1 in the house thing forgoes any other measure of logic.  Want me to list a few?

1. Having 50%+1 in the house, means that if we lose one seat the next election, the house would flip control, Republicans would take the handle and start pumping out more wildlife drilling bills, etc.  We wouldn't have Nancy Pelosi to stop them anymore.  

2. You aren't going to elect a "Massachussets liberal" or whatever the term is nowadays to every district.  Sometimes you need someone who fits the district.  Cazayoux and Childers aren't perfect Democrats, but I'll take the ~70% or so voting with D's than 10% or less.  

3. The benefits of having a Democratic representative:
-Coattails
-Better fundraisers than challengers 90% of the time
-Takes a 'would be' hot race and puts it in the likely/safe column most of the time
Another vote to hold DLeadership, and a vote on bread and butter issues for Democrats.

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:36:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

50%+1 huh?

Hmmm...seems 2/3rds + 1 would have been a bit more useful these past two years. But whatever dude. Keep up with the excellent political strategy!

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:49:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When should we care?

There are flaws in the system but every Democrat in the House has a figher Progressive Punch score than every Republican.  The lowest ranked D has a score of 66 (Nick Lampson); the highest ranked R has a 39 (Wayne Gilchrest, primaried out by the Club for Growth).  Within that framework, Chris Carney ranks 224th out of 236 Democrats with a score of 79.  He's significantly worse than neighboring conserevative Democrat Tim Holden (196th with a score just over 90).  Carney votes with progressives just 40% of the time in the clutch.

Each piece of legislation has its own constituency.  Cobbling together 218 progressive votes may get a core set of Democrats nearly every time but those last 30 or 40 voters are in no way uniform.  We need a safety margin.

Is Carney as good a vote as possible for the district?  Probably not.  Holden, I might add, voted more xonservatively under the Republican regime and Carney probably would be more conservative also.  Still, the gap shows we could do a lot better here.  

Is Carney a heck of a lot better than any R, in particular the conservative robot likely to be chosen?  Heck yes.

Two other factors are also at play.  Does Carney "hurt the brand" by frequent criticisms of democrats, liberals, Nancy Pelosi, and invoking of Republican talking points?  Steny Hoyer does not vote badly but he does more harm to the progressive agenda through his big mouth than any other Demorat.

Second, is he a constant money drain.  We simply won't know for a few terms.  Leonard Boswell and the Georgia pair of Marshall and Barrow fit this to a T as does Melissa Bean.

Part of the reason that congress and the Democrats suffer dismal approval ratings is the obstruction of Republicans.  But a lot of it is due to the sniping of the Hoyers and the Beans and a few others.  I don't think Carney is in this crew.

My suggestion would be to primary those who torpedo our branding efforts or who represent substantially safer districts.  Otherwise, if you want to advance the progressive cause in DC actively support a progressive alternative in open Democratic seats like NY-21, support candidates running for Republican held seats who are more likely to uphold your views (Mary Jo Kilroy, Dan Maffri, Linda Stender) rather than conservative Democrats aining for Republican seats, pressure Democrats in more progressive districts to vote more liberally.  It works.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:48:28 AM CDT

Here Here!

Well said.

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:51:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yawn.

  I don't think we should primary Carney - that would be folly.  Carney decided he did not need our help to win reelection, so he won't get it.  Now that this race looks to be close, he's on his own with no base to speak of.  Who will come to Carney's rescue?  Only the DCCC will be there with him, and no one else.  
 Pennsylvania is Obama's.  The Philly suburbs are making up for Democratic slippage in other areas of the state, and then some.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 16:39:58 PM CDT

Reaction

Post a quick comment, go to work, come back and see all this.  My goodness!  Glad to have the reaction, which for the most part didn't get personal.  Rather than respond individually, I'll just put it all in this comment.

First, if you support Carney's politics, great, support him.  I support progressive Democrats, and since we have growing majority in the House, having a Democrat in the caucus who is anything but progressive is actually worse than having a Republican from that perspective.  When he votes with the caucus, his vote is never needed, and when he votes against it, it can help our caucus fail.  And he gets a voice in leadership, which rules the roost in the House.  That's what the 50+1 comment was about -- what the leadership wants in the House, it gets.  The Senate is a different story of course.  But in the House it's all about who the leaders are, so the balance of the different caucus wings (Blue Dog, progressive) that choose that leadership of the caucus makes all the difference.

For me, what matters is about affecting changes in policy, not upping Democratic numbers in the caucus.  If y'all want to focus on that, have at it, but don't expect anything to change no matter how numerous the Dem caucus gets.  If you're not willing to differentiate, then that's what you'll get.  And the fake Democrats will LOVE you for it as they dilute the standing and principles of the party until we lose the majority for not accomplishing anything.  

Second, who ever said anything about primarying Carney?  Not me.  If it was a choice of dumping in $2 million to save his seat or do nothing and let him lose, I'd let him lose.  Against a Republican.  We don't have unlimited resources.  At the DCCC or among small donors.  And encouraging a donation to him means doing it at the expense of other Dems liek Himes, or Taddeo, or a bunch of other Democrats who will do a lot more for us in the House.  The DCCC and the members of the House are more into the incumbent protection racket, rather than considering what the member has actually done for the caucus, but that's not we should be about imo.  

We don't need more Democrats, we need ones who will allow the party to achieve things in Congress so that it gets a reputation of doing what it says it's going to.  Failure to do that will mean us losing our majority.  

I'll bug off from commenting if the official opinion of this site is that it doesn't differentiate between Democrats.  Is it?  

---

by: PeterB @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 23:15:13 PM CDT

To be honest, I'm quite sure it does

At least the vast majority of the members, if not the site officially, supported Donna Edwards over Al Wynn.

(As for myself, I'm somewhat more moderate, but probably more importantly, as I stated above, I'm not an issue-monkey.)

As for the rest of what people say, I'm inclined to agree with them that I'd rather have a Blue Dog that sometimes votes against progressive legislation than a wingnut that always votes against progressive legislation.  Even from the perspective of a hardcore progressive and/or liberal activist, it's just more useful to have a 50% voting record than a 0% voting record (or, more realistically, something like 55% to 3%).  And I don't know much about Senate and House procedural rules, but I do know that one more vote means one more vote toward things like overriding presidential vetoes and filibusters.

Now, if you can get me a very progressive legislator elected to Congress from an R+10 district, I'd love to see that.  Heck, there was that guy from Wyoming who ran for Senate twice and lost both times, though he came heartbreakingly close each time, and he was way more progressive than his state, from what I read.  So...it's definitely possible.

As for the "Black Dog Caucus" people mentioned above, I'm curious: What percentage of them are from Southern districts, or other districts that could be described as "conservative" in some way despite being extremely yellow-dog in their support of the D ticket?

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:15:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also

I don't know much about Congressional procedural/law-debating dynamics, but I'm pretty sure that, especially in critical times like these when dealing with a really shitty president of the opposite party, getting half-assed version of progressive legislation passed is often better than getting nothing progressive done.

For the record, I consider myself not "liberal", but somewhat "progressive".  Whatever those words mean, heh.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:19:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In agreement to some degree

But I don't think Carney does have that much influence over the Democratic leadership. Hoyer may bring him up as somebody they need to protect by writing conservative legislation, but that's Hoyer.

Carney's a freshman who runs against the Democratic brand, and that doesn't win him brownie points.

I agree that funding in his defence shouldn't be a high priority, but unless he gets a leadership position he shouldn't be primaried or anything more than ignored (although if he does ascend the ranks, then he should be primaried with speed and we should take the hit of losing a district).

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:53:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I appreciate your perspective.

I've just got to say that a Democratic majority is the key to the house of Representatives. We would all like our Dem reps to be progressive but if that were the case (say Blue Dogs and other pro-business Dems) switched sides, the Democrats would be left as a minority party for a long time. Remember what happened last time we were in the minority? Terry Schavio, freedom fries, flag burning amendments. And don't say that our Dem majority hasn't accomplished anything. Government oversight and the college tuition bills stick out to me as proof that no matter who runs the caucus, we are better off if their Democrats..

While you may think that your support of only progressive candidates furthers progressive values in government, I would strongly disagree. Never has our country been helped when progressives undermine the Democratic Party. Ralph Nader in 2000 is the perfect example of that. I can't even begin to imagine what our country would be like today if Al Gore had served as president.

---

by: nrimmer @ Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you accusing me of trying to undermine the Democratic

party?  How you get from what I'm advocating with supporting Nader is very strange, or that I don't want a majority Dem caucus.  We don't need to keep Chris Carney to maintain our strong majority; the threat to our majority is if we don't accomplish what we are expected to, and Blue Dogs and conservative Dems who torpedo Democratic initiatives are part of the problem.  

I'm trying to help bolster the party by keeping it about its core principles.  We have an essential role in keeping it accountable to its members.  Unless we follow through to ensure that we support those that help enact Democratic priorities and protect Democratic values, and punish those that don't, then we're just playing into the hands of the DC establishment Democrats, who all too easily become more concerned with protecting their seats and those of their fellow Dem's (and even sometimes Republicans, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz protecting Ros Lehtinen).  

We can't let them get away mouthing the right words and then helping the other side defeat us.  

I don't think that we can be impressed with the results of this congress.  Sad to say, but true.  Government oversight?  Are you referring to that vaunted subpeona power that we were going to yield once we took over?  What did we get when the administration gave us the finger?  Bupkus.  

Endless funding for the war without even symbolic restrictions.  Pretty embarrassing.  A House leadership that will go to great lengths to protect Blue Dogs from being put on the spot, and always structuring votes so we get watered down bills that never forces them to choose a real Democratic bill or voting with Republicans.  Quite sad.  

They work for us, we're not just supposed to root for them because of the D behind their name.   When they get the sense we're doing the latter, then they can whatever the heck they want and know that we'll still stick with them.  That's the problem as I see it.  

---

by: PeterB @ Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 00:51:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He's saying you undermine the party when you push candidates that can't win

Nader was the most progressive, but what did voting for him do?  He undermined the majority of the Democratic party.  

THE BEST Taddeo can do in FL-18 is keep Ros-Lehtinen's money in FL-18 instead of going to the NRCC.  Taddeo can't win.  Ros-Lehtinen is too popular, and Taddeo joined late to even be financially competitive.  So when you complain about DWS "snubbing" Taddeo, how is she snubbing her?  By not wasting time on a hopeless cause she's hurting the party?  Again, doesn't make sense at all.  

You keep making ridiculous assertions.  

1. Blue dogs voting for funding without a timetable hurts Democrats.  
-We couldn't get a similar bill to pass the US Senate
-Bush would have vetoed a bill even IF we got one to pass the US Senate
-We wouldn't be able to muster a 2/3rds vote to override Bush in the Senate
-We wouldn't be able to muster a 2/3rds vote to override Bush in the House, EVEN WITH the Blue dogs all voting with us.  

What do you prefer?  Democrats making useless votes only to fail anyways and hurt their re-election chances?  Or make calculated votes so they can become a safe/likely Dem seats, and be a part of a future working majority?  A majority that DOES pass these kinds of bills.  They can't help us if they lose their seat, and their votes don't help us now anyways for the votes that you are complaining about.  It doesn't make sense.  You are complaining to complain, because even if you got your way and they were to vote with us here, the bill would fail and you would have a new batch of people to complain about.  

Under your leadership, Democrats would be doomed to a constant minority and nothing would get done, contrary to the successes of this congress, which has had to work with a joke of a senate.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:51:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And God forbid Congressmen/women REPRESENT their district.

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:54:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hard to argue with you when you're arguing with yourself.

First, if you support Carney's politics, great, support him.  I support progressive Democrats, and since we have growing majority in the House, having a Democrat in the caucus who is anything but progressive is actually worse than having a Republican from that perspective.  When he votes with the caucus, his vote is never needed, and when he votes against it, it can help our caucus fail.  

If we never need his vote, then how does him voting against us hurt us?  Your phrase is contradicting and makes no sense.  

Another point you fail to aknowledge, is since Carney has a D next to his name and manages to hold an R+8 district, his head will be near the top of Republicans attack lists.  Money spent against him will be money, and then some that doesn't get spent against your "progressive Democrats".

Yes, that growing house majority is actually a minority.  There are 49 self-proclaimed "Blue Dog Democrats" 236-49 = 187 Democrats.  What policy are you going to change with a 187 House minority?  Like you said, their votes aren't necessary to help us succeed.

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:38:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]