There are 52 Blue Dog (conservative to moderate) Democrats in the United States House of Representatives out of a total of 256 Democrats.
In Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah, Blue Dogs comprise half or more of the Democratic House delegation in that state. California has the most Blue Dogs with seven, followed by Pennsylvania with five.
The following list shows the number of representatives from each state, the number of Democrats and the number of Blue Dogs:
STATE-------DELEGATION----DEMOCRATS----BLUE DOGS
Alabama-------------7--------------- 3---------------- 2
Alaska--------------- 1---------------0---------------- 0
Arizona-------------- 8---------------5---------------- 2
Arkansas------------ 4--------------- 2---------------- 2
California------------53--------------34----------------7
Colorado------------- 7--------------- 5---------------- 1
Connecticut-----------5---------------5-----------------0
Delaware-------------1-------------- 0----------------- 0
Florida-------------- 25--------------10-----------------1
Georgia--------------13-------------- 6----------------- 4
Hawaii--------------- 2-------------- 2----------------- 0
Idaho-----------------2-------------- 1----------------- 1
Illinois--------------- 19------------- 12---------------- 0
Indiana---------------9-------------- 5------------------3
Iowa-----------------5---------------3-------------------1
Kansas---------------4-------------- 1-------------------1
Kentucky------------ 6-------------- 1 ------------------1
Louisiana------------ 7-------------- 1------------------ 1
Maine----------------2-------------- 2------------------ 1
Maryland-------------8--------------7------------------ 1
Massachusetts--------10-------------10---------------- 0
Michigan------------- 15------------- 8----------------- 0
Minnesota------------ 8--------------4------------------1
Mississippi----------- 4-------------- 3----------------- 2
Missouri--------------9---------------4-----------------0
Montana------------- 1--------------- 0---------------- 0
Nebraska------------ 3--------------- 0-----------------0
Nevada-------------- 3----------------2-----------------0
New Hampshire----- 2---------------- 2----------------0
New Jersey--------- 13--------------- 8-----------------0
New Mexico--------- 3----------------3------------------0
New York----------- 29-------------- 27-----------------1
North Carolina------ 13--------------- 8-----------------2
North Dakota------- -1----------------1------------------ 1
Ohio---------------- 18---------------10----------------- 2
Oklahoma----------- 5--------------- 1------------------- 1
Oregon-------------- 5---------------4------------------- 0
Pennsylvania--------19-------------- 12------------------ 5
Rhode Island---------2----------------2------------------ 0
South Carolina------- 6--------------- 2------------------ 0
South Dakota---------1---------------1------------------- 1
Tennessee------------9-------------- 5------------------- 4
Texas--------------- 32------------- 12------------------- 1
Utah----------------- 3--------------1-------------------- 1
Vermont-------------1---------------1--------------------0
Virginia------------- 11---------------6------------------- 1
Washington----------9--------------- 6------------------- 0
West Virginia--------3---------------2-------------------- 0
Wisconsin------------8---------------5--------------------0
Wyoming------------1---------------0-------------------- 0
Showing posts with label blue dogs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blue dogs. Show all posts
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The American Parliamentary Election...Congressional Majorites Above All
I’ve had a lot of arguments with my friends about Joe Lieberman.
When the Connecticut Senator and former Al Gore running mate was defeated in the 2006 Democrat primary by Ned Lamot, many progressives were elated. Lieberman had infuriated Democrats by sticking with Bush’s Iraq war policy long after the support of most Americans had peeled away.
Unwilling to surrender his seat, Lieberman ran as an independent and won the general election by ten points over Lamot and 40 points over his Republican challenger.
Most importantly, however, after the election, Joe decided to caucus with the Democrats and provide the pivotal vote in returning the Senate to Democratic majority control, 51-49 (a 50-50 split would have maintained the Republican majority with Vice-President Cheney breaking the tie). Lieberman didn’t have to do that.
Two years later, Sen. Lieberman outraged and enraged Democrats by actively supporting John McCain for President and even received serious consideration as the Republican’s running mate.
Well, after the dust settled in ’08, Joe again petitioned to caucus as a Democrat and again was admitted back into the club (although as penance he was removed as chair of the Homeland Security Committee). But, most importantly, Lieberman is now one of 60 Senators (58 Democrats, plus Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders) who comprise the so-called “filibuster-proof" majority.
Why bring this up now?
There’s already a lot of yakking about conservative House Democrats, particularly their reluctance to support a public health insurance option. Recently, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly urged progressives to lay off the Blue Dogs. Apparently concerned that the House could be in play in 2010, Emanuel thinks it’s unwise (not his words) to do anything which could jeopardize losing the Democratic majority (and with it, of course, the speaker, committee chairs and, of course, the agenda).
I agree.
Losing the lower house of congress would be a disaster, far worse than not getting a public option into health reform legislation. An argument could be made that failure to pass a meaningful and robust health bill is what would really put swing state Democrats at risk in ’10. Maybe, but I doubt it.
The ’06, ‘08 and '10 races should be seen as our equivalent of parliamentary elections, with our principal purpose to maintain majorities. I will not support any primary challenge to any incumbent Congressional Democrat. Period.
Finally, back to Lieberman.
A lot of Democrats hate Lieberman. Although he lines up with conservatives on foreign policy, he’s moderate on most other issues. (His rating by Americans for Democratic Action - a generally accepted indicator of liberalism - is 85 percent).
In my view, our effort to punish him in 2006 nearly backfired and we were lucky to keep him on our side. Among other lessons is if you’re going to take on the king, you’d better be able to kill the king.
There’s very little upside at this point in threatening any Blue Dog Democrat with a primary challenge. The President and the nation need these congressional majorities and we shouldn’t jeopardize that prospect because the left-wing of the party wants to “teach somebody a lesson.”
When the Connecticut Senator and former Al Gore running mate was defeated in the 2006 Democrat primary by Ned Lamot, many progressives were elated. Lieberman had infuriated Democrats by sticking with Bush’s Iraq war policy long after the support of most Americans had peeled away.
Unwilling to surrender his seat, Lieberman ran as an independent and won the general election by ten points over Lamot and 40 points over his Republican challenger.
Most importantly, however, after the election, Joe decided to caucus with the Democrats and provide the pivotal vote in returning the Senate to Democratic majority control, 51-49 (a 50-50 split would have maintained the Republican majority with Vice-President Cheney breaking the tie). Lieberman didn’t have to do that.
Two years later, Sen. Lieberman outraged and enraged Democrats by actively supporting John McCain for President and even received serious consideration as the Republican’s running mate.
Well, after the dust settled in ’08, Joe again petitioned to caucus as a Democrat and again was admitted back into the club (although as penance he was removed as chair of the Homeland Security Committee). But, most importantly, Lieberman is now one of 60 Senators (58 Democrats, plus Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders) who comprise the so-called “filibuster-proof" majority.
Why bring this up now?
There’s already a lot of yakking about conservative House Democrats, particularly their reluctance to support a public health insurance option. Recently, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly urged progressives to lay off the Blue Dogs. Apparently concerned that the House could be in play in 2010, Emanuel thinks it’s unwise (not his words) to do anything which could jeopardize losing the Democratic majority (and with it, of course, the speaker, committee chairs and, of course, the agenda).
I agree.
Losing the lower house of congress would be a disaster, far worse than not getting a public option into health reform legislation. An argument could be made that failure to pass a meaningful and robust health bill is what would really put swing state Democrats at risk in ’10. Maybe, but I doubt it.
The ’06, ‘08 and '10 races should be seen as our equivalent of parliamentary elections, with our principal purpose to maintain majorities. I will not support any primary challenge to any incumbent Congressional Democrat. Period.
Finally, back to Lieberman.
A lot of Democrats hate Lieberman. Although he lines up with conservatives on foreign policy, he’s moderate on most other issues. (His rating by Americans for Democratic Action - a generally accepted indicator of liberalism - is 85 percent).
In my view, our effort to punish him in 2006 nearly backfired and we were lucky to keep him on our side. Among other lessons is if you’re going to take on the king, you’d better be able to kill the king.
There’s very little upside at this point in threatening any Blue Dog Democrat with a primary challenge. The President and the nation need these congressional majorities and we shouldn’t jeopardize that prospect because the left-wing of the party wants to “teach somebody a lesson.”
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Election Anniversary Stirs Democrat's Anxiety
Instead of celebrating next month’s anniversary of Obama’s victory, many Democrats will be nervously facing the prospect of the 2010 Congressional midterm election.
You can already hear the moaning and groaning about losing the House and our “filibuster-proof” Senate majority.
We’ve got to hand it to the Republicans. They’ve energized their base, driven down Obama’s polls and exposed weaknesses in the White House, the Administration and the President himself.
Democrats are split and confused on who to blame. One impulse is to blast Obama for a failure of courage, for not “taking on” his opponents. Another explanation is that Americans are pretty conservative and reform-resistant.
Of course, within that simple dichotomy is considerable nuance. Some progressives tend to believe that elite institutions - corporate, media, financial, military - control the levers of power, the debate and ultimately the public mind.
Fair enough.
Others who roam the American left - like me - can’t shake the idea that there’s a conservative temperament that runs deep in the American character.
We can’t settle that argument here.
But this is what we know and can agree on:
The Republicans are depending on a strategy of constantly chipping away at Obama’s stature, credibility, competence and integrity. Their goal is to fracture the President’s governing consensus. (See RNC chair Michael Steele’s remarks on the Nobel Peace Prize).
Nothing is more important than for Democrats - progressive, liberal, centrist, whatever - to prevent another Republican takeover.
If you need a fresh reminder, pay attention to former Sen. Max Cleland’s account of his reelection defeat in 2002. A Vietnam vet and triple amputee, Cleland was savaged as unpatriotic in the Karl Rove-engineered campaign.
When we won nearly a year ago, I was certain that my friends and colleagues on the left would become disappointed, disillusioned and frustrated with the inevitable concessions, compromises, stumbles and setbacks.
My approach to the Obama-era has been to advocate closing ranks and holding our ground. I admit that I operate out of fear.
I can’t forget how dangerously and frighteningly close our nation came to authoritarianism in the Bush years.
So however health care legislation comes out, I will support it. Whatever financial reform looks like, I’ll back it. And, a year from now, I will cheer on any and every Democratic Congressional candidate including - and especially - the Blue Dogs.
The Republicans hope to win back the House in 2010. We’d better not let them.
You can already hear the moaning and groaning about losing the House and our “filibuster-proof” Senate majority.
We’ve got to hand it to the Republicans. They’ve energized their base, driven down Obama’s polls and exposed weaknesses in the White House, the Administration and the President himself.
Democrats are split and confused on who to blame. One impulse is to blast Obama for a failure of courage, for not “taking on” his opponents. Another explanation is that Americans are pretty conservative and reform-resistant.
Of course, within that simple dichotomy is considerable nuance. Some progressives tend to believe that elite institutions - corporate, media, financial, military - control the levers of power, the debate and ultimately the public mind.
Fair enough.
Others who roam the American left - like me - can’t shake the idea that there’s a conservative temperament that runs deep in the American character.
We can’t settle that argument here.
But this is what we know and can agree on:
The Republicans are depending on a strategy of constantly chipping away at Obama’s stature, credibility, competence and integrity. Their goal is to fracture the President’s governing consensus. (See RNC chair Michael Steele’s remarks on the Nobel Peace Prize).
Nothing is more important than for Democrats - progressive, liberal, centrist, whatever - to prevent another Republican takeover.
If you need a fresh reminder, pay attention to former Sen. Max Cleland’s account of his reelection defeat in 2002. A Vietnam vet and triple amputee, Cleland was savaged as unpatriotic in the Karl Rove-engineered campaign.
When we won nearly a year ago, I was certain that my friends and colleagues on the left would become disappointed, disillusioned and frustrated with the inevitable concessions, compromises, stumbles and setbacks.
My approach to the Obama-era has been to advocate closing ranks and holding our ground. I admit that I operate out of fear.
I can’t forget how dangerously and frighteningly close our nation came to authoritarianism in the Bush years.
So however health care legislation comes out, I will support it. Whatever financial reform looks like, I’ll back it. And, a year from now, I will cheer on any and every Democratic Congressional candidate including - and especially - the Blue Dogs.
The Republicans hope to win back the House in 2010. We’d better not let them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
