I appreciate what you are doing and I think holding all dems accountable is a good thing.  However, this list is an unintended consequence of the 'elect dems at all cost' strategy that was pushed by this blog and others in 2006.

Nearly all of them are in largely Republican districts.  I'd rather have a pro-war Democrat who votes with us on 80% of the issues than a pro-war Republican who votes with us on 10% of the issues.

Of course an anti-war Democrat with us on 100% of the issues would be best, but can that person get elected in Oklahoma or Southern Indiana?

The Democratic majority in the House is greater than 17.

did you mean to say Chris Carney or Tim Holden..those are the only "conservative" Dems in PA that I can think of as Blue Dogs. Can't imagine Sestak being one, or Gillibrand for that matter..but it is what it is

To me, the worst offends here are Sestak, Gillibrand, and Acuri.  Although all are freshman, their districts are not in the heart of dixie and -- while I believe all retain nominal republican registration advantages -- represent districts that are trending blue, not the opposite.  

I keep looking at Boren and thinking of Brad Carson who he replaced. These two seem like complete opposites. Can we possibly do anything to replace Boren with someone who holds the line a little better? Especially on environmental issues, Boren was the only Democrat on LCV's dirty Dozen list

Very interesting and useful.  Following up on David Sirota's piece from the weekend, these are the members that activists should be targeting, not the Dave Obey's (not that I condone his behavior) and Jim McDermott's of the world who have consistently opposed the war.  

By my count, there are 17 members on this list and 232 Dems in the House which means you need to flip 3 (ideally more) to pass the withdrawal language.

October 14-15, 2006
How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress
Election 2006: The Fix is Already In
By JOHN WALSH

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh1014200 6.html

October 24, 2006
Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats
The Book of Rahm By JOHN WALSH

"Last week in CounterPunch (1), I wrote that the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Congressman Rahm Emanuel, had worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House races were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these districts are pro-war. So the fix is in for the coming elections.

In 2006, no matter which party controls the House, a majority will be committed to pursuing the war on Iraq--despite the fact that the Democratic rank and file and the general voting public oppose the war by large margins. (I hasten to add that this state of affairs can be reversed even after the sham election between the two War Parties.)..."
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh1024200 6.html

And Rahm is working for Hillary 2008!

Wow, compare this result with the 12 years of locked-down, air-tight control under the Repubs.  Without a unified caucus, the Democratic Party is a bloated, fetid corpse.  I am beginning to see what my friends mean when they claim there's no practical difference between being governed under a Democratic majority and being governed under a Republican majority.

Matt-
Which bill is Sestak opposing and why?
Sestak has repeatedly and forcefully called for an end to the 'tragic misadventure' in Iraq. He has called for a date certain repeatedly. There must be some language in the bill that causes a problem for him.  He wants us out, for a plethora of reasons.

Also, I checked the Blue Dog site - Congressman Sestak is not a member of this "Conservative Democrats" group.

Thanks in advance for clarifying.

To all the people who kept trying to argue in 2006 that we can't win elections unless we go "moderate". This is the end result. This is why so many of us "aggressive progressives" were throwing a fit at the choice of candidates.

This is why we should stop supporting fake Democrats in the primaries because we're scared me might lose if we support a real progressive.

This is why.

What good is having a majority , if this is what we get out of it?

I gave Sestak $50 and I don't even live in his state.  Not in 2008.  

That one hurts, she certainly seemed like one of the darlings this last time around.

Sestak was on NPR yesterday afternoon saying the date certain was the most important thing an Democratic Congress could do to make progress on Iraq.

Unfortunately my IE has suddenly taken leave of its senses and I can't seem to load npr.org to provide a link.

A lot of these guys should be given a break, especially the freshmen who are in the red districts, and others like Barrow and Marshall who are highly vulnerable.  Some like Taylor and Boren are probably never getting defeated in their districts, and they don't have that excuse.

Sestak has called for withdrawal, I am sure of it.  He must have some issue with this particular bill.

I would rather have a conservative democrat who votes with us 70- 80%  of the time representing a district that would otherwise likely be represented by an ironclad right-winger.  It's better than nothing.

There is this possibility.  If the war can be prolonged until 2008 it will still be a campaign issue for the Democrats. However, if they stop the war now it would no longer be an issue.  Therefore, it is important to create the impression that Democrats are trying to stop the war, but at the same time failing in doing so.

It is immoral.  But could be a useful tactic for winning elections.

Maybe they are not the ones being political. Maybe they are being realistic. Maybe they understand that while the war is misguided and Bush's surge is a bad idea, we have 140,000 Americans over there and picking withdrawal targets to meet the 2008 election calendar may not be the best thing for them or the country. The Democratic leadership is setting themselves up to be blamed when things get worse. We got the political benefit of the war in the 2006 elections. Now is time to figure out a way out of this mess. Dates are not a plan. The country agrees that Bush screwed up, but the country does not agree on how to get out.

"we have 140,000 Americans over there and picking withdrawal targets to meet the 2008 election calendar may not be the best thing for them or the country"

I'm not even going to touch on the motive behind this comment because what I have to say , is not nice , but I will say this:

That's not what's taking place here. We have been calling for troop withdrawl since 2005 so, this accusation doesn't even fly. Not even on this Blog.

We can't beat a fillibuster/Bush Veto anyway.

Until and unless we have the votes in both houses there will be no way to stop the war until another president is sworn in.

I see that they've also gotten the language restricting Bush from attacking Iran removed from the bill. What is the advantage of caving in to these folks? Why is it better to pass a neutered bill than to put a real one up for a vote, even if it doesn't pass?

Please, don't blame the Blue Dogs as saboteurs.

Our problem is not one element among our fellow Democrats, our problem is that we are too damn timid.

Until the Senate Democrats eliminate the SuperMajority Rule or the filibuster, we will continue to play by the Republican Rule.  Any legislation passed by Congress regarding the Invasion of the Wrong Country, would require both Chambers of Congress to override a presidential veto.  It's not going to happen during the next eighteen months.  The Senate has gotten soft with their Safety Net.

However, the more important alternative is to get all Democratic presidential aspirants to offer out a commitment to us that their first official act will be to deliver to the Pentagon, an Executive Order directing it to commence withdrawal immediately.  

And in doing so, such a commitment sends the 'signal' that the Invasion is officially over, and the voters can take it to the ballot box in 2008 and by their affirming action, reinforces the 'commitment' which poses a considerable risk to the Republicans.  Of course, any Democratic candidate seeking the Party's nomination and who fails to provide the Commitment, is toast.  And a Candidate that does tender a "Commitment" makes it into the first tier, and automatically.

In closing, Clinton is off the tender-hooks for her Invasion vote and Obama is off the tender-hooks too for sucking up/campaigning for Lieberman.  As such, we sweep the table clean and move forward to addressing the important issues/concerns important to all of us.  Party cohesion, and etcetera.

Maybe it is time to take this beyond Congress, maybe it is time for a little direct action.

Joe Sestak is a Vice Admiral and knows more about military affairs than every reader of this blog combined. He campaigned on ending the war. If he is not supporting this bill, he sees a serious problem with the specific proposals or language contained in it. The reality of governing in such a large and diverse government is that the idealism of the "marketplace of ideas" is tempered by nuts-and-bolts procedural maneuvering.

I'm surprise Nancy Boyda is not on the list?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/05/cong ress-escalation/

Didn't see Zack Space on there either, and I would have expected to see him there.

Et tu, Arcuri?

I used Jim Cooper's House form last week to complain about his public comment decrying the micromanagement of the Iraq War.  Here's his response:

March 12, 2007

Ms. XXXXX XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Nashville, Tennessee

Dear Ms. XXXXXXXXX:

Thanks for getting in touch with me to share your views on the war in Iraq.  The recent elections in November demonstrated Americans want a new direction.  We must change course in Iraq if we want ensure the security of our country and the safety of our citizens and soldiers.  The United States House of Representatives voted on February 16th to express our unwavering support for U.S. service members in harms way.  We also voted to express our disapproval of President Bush's plan to surge 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.  It was a difficult vote because no one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than me.  I will do everything in my power to make sure our troops have the funding and equipment they need, but, after speaking with
and hearing testimony from our top generals and military experts, it became clear that this particular strategy does not serve the needs of our troops or the national security of this country.  

We have sacrificed the lives of many brave American soldiers, and we appear to have less to show than we should after years of occupation.  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have been sharply critical of the Pentagon's management of this war. I am not convinced that the Administration has developed a workable strategy for winning the peace.  The plan to surge 20,000 additional troops is more of the same strategy.  The additional soldiers and marines would bring the total number of personnel to the same level it was at in December of 2005 as violence began to escalate.  More of the same is just not good enough, either for our soldiers or for the good people of the region.  At this point in time, it is not unreasonable for Congress to say enough is enough. Voters
certainly said so clearly in the last election.

The current strategy relies upon the Maliki government to provide support to our troops in Baghdad.  I have concerns about placing the safety of our troops in the hands of a government that has proven unwilling to confront some of the most violent elements in the country.  The Iraqi units our forces would depend on for re-enforcement are currently arriving at between 55% and 70% strength before the hard work has even started.  I would have been more inclined to support the President if he had asked for a much larger number of troops or for a sacrifice on the part of all Americans who do not have a loved one in our military. Such proposals would have led me to believe that the President was considering a serious change
in strategy, but the President has not recommended either. Instead, he has insisted on waging war without overwhelming military force, a clear objective, or a defined exit strategy. From the beginning of this conflict, we have skimped on the number of troops, the equipment for our soldiers, the commitment of our allies. It is simply too late to add on a few thousand more troops now.

I made similar comments on the floor of the House when I spoke in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 63.  I encourage you to read the full text of my statement at www.cooper.house.gov and feel free to write me if you have any further questions or comments on my beliefs about the war in Iraq.  I appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Jim Cooper
Member of Congress

   Not to be an English nerd, but when you say "color me untrustworthy," it means that you, Matt Stoller, are not worthy of trust.  Heh.

Since the Blue Dog Caucus has 44 members but I only see 17 people on this list, what was the purpose of your including "Blue Dog" in the title?  Is it to attack the Blue Dog "brand" and if so, why?

Um, why isn't Allen Boyd's name on the list?  Isn't he the leader behind the whole thing?

Sestak is not a member of the Blue Dogs caucas.

He is working hard to end the war in Iraq and has introduced legislation that goes further than the current bill being proposed by the Democrats.  

Sestak's Bill calls for a date-certain to have the troops re-deploy out of Iraq by this December 31,2007 and calls for cutting off most of the funding for the war by that date.  The Legislation is called "Enhancing America's Security Through Redeployment from Iraq Act."

See these articles:

(1) "Former Admiral Says All American Troops Should Pull Out by Year's End";
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity /news/nation/16742343.htm

(2)'Congressman Joe Sestak's Bill Would Pull Troops From Iraq";
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsi d=17854136&BRD=1679&PAG=461& dept_id=86218&rfi=6

well that pisses me off.  I made dozens of election eve calls via MoveOn to get Gillibrand some voters.

My Congressman, Collin Peterson, is a Blue Dog but not on this list. I've emailed him three times and he's never answered, but I doubt I'm the only one.

I for one am going to be watching every bill these "Blue Dogs" sponsor in the future and I will fight  every bill they sponsor.  No hostages here!

I put in a lot of time organizing for Kirsten and managed to raise some modest money too.  I had no illusions about her stance on Iraq. Yet her stance on the war now is more than I can take.  What she and Hillary don't seem to realize is that this is a paramount moral issue.  I can't work for her again.

    Shuler and Hill should not be on this list.  Don't tell me that their districts support continuing this war.  Ellsworth doesn't surprise me.  It's easy to win in Indiana when you run to the right of the Republican.

Cross post this to all liberal blogs--this is important.  

If Congress does not vote for this--we have also us to blame.

Congressmen need us to hold their hand and remind them who they are working for.

i'm confused.

what exactly does this bill say?  tmp is reporting that moveon is telling pelosi that they are not happy :

...the bill lacks tough enough enforcement language -- meaning that the bill doesn't contain strong enough provisions to compel withdrawal after the deadlines set forth in the legislation.

Such language was removed from earlier drafts, frustrating some liberal House Dems, and the current version merely declares the war illegal after the deadlines, rather than stopping funding, which could mean Congress would have to take the White House to court to stop the war.

"We've communicated to the Speaker's office that we want tougher enforceability in the bill," Matzzie tells me. "We want something that's got teeth."

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/ electioncentral/2007/mar/14/move_on

i don't see why this bill should be supported?  what am i missing?