Last night we heard that the Graham-Lieberman detainee photo suppression amendment was pulled out of the supplemental. The situation is still in flux, but the bottom line is that it really sucks that progressive members of Congress are being forced by Rahm to vote against their principles in order to give the Blue Dogs political cover.
The supplemental appropriations bill (which I thought we were not going to have any more of, BTW) could easily pass with the votes of Blue Dogs and Republicans. But the 55 Blue Dogs would have trouble voting for a $100 billion bailout of European banks in conservative districts, so the administration bundled them together.
Howie Klein wanted to know how they were going to sell that vote to their constituents, and got this email from one of them:
Howie,
Thanks for the message. Interesting thought. The Democratic leadership made a big push in a whip meeting last week for IMF support. Said it would humiliate the president if it didn’t go through, since he made a commitment at the G20. Your point is a good one, but as you may know, the IMF funds would be guarantees on loans to the poorest nations, not bailouts for banks. I suppose that might create a few ads, but on the other hand, it’s hard to imagine the Repubs attacking one for a vote on a troop bill.
Hope you are well.Hope you are well.
So despite the fact that many progressive members of Congress were among the 70 who signed the July 2007 letter committing to vote for no war funding that didn’t contain troop withdrawal, they’re all being threatened and beaten by Rahm to abandon that commitment and vote for this bill — all so the Blue Dogs can hide their supplemental vote behind "we voted for the war."
And it’s working. Only 51 Dems voted against the supplemental the first time, and since only 38 Democrats can defect without the bill failing, more will be forced to heel.
I recognize that the progressives have little power, and it’s hard to oppose a popular President. But with many of the progressive groups who usually step up on anti-war stuff sitting this one out, they have little support. These members of congress were there for us for years. So if you are a member of an organization that is usually vocal about this stuff, please think about writing to them and telling them you support these people and you hope they will too.
16 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Advanced search
I am SO tired of the constant rationalization that we must “give the Blue Dogs cover.”
The Blue Dogs don’t give us shit! They vote against Real Dems on issue after issue, and the label “Democrat” gets attached to their bleating.
I think the phrase “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link” could be modified in this situation to “a party is only as progressive as its most conservative member(s).” Currently the entire Dem party is being pulled further and further to the right to protect these folks. Rahm never talks about protecting “liberal” members.
And I think there are enough real Democrats around now that we can afford to lose a few by throwing some of these beasties under the bus. It’s only Rahm’s continued funding of and support for them that keeps them in power [and shoots down primary opponents before they can get started].
Personally, I say even if we have to lose a few of these Blue Dog seats, I’d bet we can win them back after a cycle or two with GOOD candidates. Just because Rahm enjoys being mired in mediocrity, with folks who are beholden to him [and thus presumably will support him for Speaker when he returns to the House], doesn’t mean the entire party has to sink into this mudhole.
Throwing the anti-war members under the bus like this is bs.
– with what ?!?
I accept this is pretty much an arcane world with machinations that are lost on me without the likes of Jane and Kagro, but seriously what could he threaten them with ?!?
prolonging the occupation ? healthcare reform ? EFCA ? face time with POTUS ? just what is it Rahm/WH haven’t pissed on yet ?
Members of Congress need to run for reelection every two years, and they need a lot of help to do that. Without the support of the President, the DCCC and the DNC, not to mention funders and PACS, that becomes difficult.
It’s always something, be it blue dogs or red herrings, putting a chink in the drive to sanity in government over greed and avarice.
I checked on MoveOn.org and sawr bugger all about this topic. It really does come down to a failure on the part of not properly job-motivated progressives, at the end of the day, who comprise the base of the party. Thanks for trying to stir them from their stupor.
So what is Obama going to do, find blue dog primary challengers for these incumbents or support the GOP in the general?
The anti-war dems are more secure than they think, as their districts would be difficult to turn to blue dog.
Boxturtle (Bet we find earmarks for any Dem that chooses to support the WH in the next budget)
And to think that Obama was elected on an anti war platform.
from left field – where is Pelosi on this? they’re peeping their “cowed her” dry.
thanks. yeah I knew that but was thinking along the lines of Boxturtle’s comment above – they are all fairly safe (the biggies seem to have Labor at their back) and supplanting them or attempting to supplant them with Blue Dogs would set off a full metal Heathers conflagration
Hi all, village idiot here. I don’t understand why real dems have to vote like repukes to give DINOs cover. Why don’t the DINOs just go all the way and change parties, like snarlin’ arlen did?
These pols would do well to remember they were voted in by their constituents, not Rahm. If Blue Dogs have to vote like Blue Dogs, aren’t their constituents going to like it anyway, if that’s what they voted for them to do?
Primary every son-of-a-bitch that votes for the supplemental. Or doesn’t support single payer. Or “just wants to move forward” instead of investigating the past 8 torture-filled years. Oh, and the DCCC and DSCC can kiss my ass in the county square at high noon.
that would be the same Pelosi who (no doubt with Rahm) employed The Devil’s Arithmetic allowing more US Military Personnel to be killed or wounded just so they could have their groovy hopey-changey election
Is Rahm Cheney’s replacement in the fourth branch of government?
We should be supporting members of Congress who are willing to run the risk of not being reelected rather than sacrifice their principles. Rahm isn’t forcing anyone to do anything.
Yep. What a huge disappointment. Not totally unexpected, but so very disappointing.
I have gone along with the “better-than-the-alternative” and “sausage-making” arguments for tolerating turncoat Democrats all of my adult life, and I am tired of it. If the result is always the same, the alternatives are the same too, not worse.
Our caucuses were angry and liberal. Our county convention was heavily diluted, lukewarm moderate. Our Governor, Senators, and my local Congresswoman are all among the worst of the corporate bluedog set. All for war, banks, and guns.
I have stopped giving money to the party and haven’t renewed my membership. Protest votes and third parties are next. My take on sausage-making? When you discover that the sausage has been made with a dirty grinder, the only thing to do is to throw out the meat, sterilize and start over with fresh.
And I suspect I am not alone.
If it keeps up as it has been, the party may soon find that the size of its majority and the death of the Republican party have both been greatly exaggerated. Does anyone else remember when Jimmy Carter’s brand of faith-based, Southern-oriented realpolitik was the safe way to beat the Repubs? And how surprised the establishment was when union members and working folks voted for Reagan?
The only plus is that I sincerely hope that people will stay disgusted with the Republicans even as dump the Democrats.