Well, I seem to have found a nice niche here saying things that few want to hear, and I find I rather like it.  Nobody sane would question my status as a Democrat, but given the fact that we've been a bit monolithic of late, I'll stir the pot a bit more.

We need the Blue Dogs!  Or, well, at least some Blue Dogs.  Frankly, the netroots has behaved like a pack of children, most of the time anyway, on this issue.

Feeling mashochistic?

What happens in Podunk shouldn't stay there.  Or at least if it does, the Democratic Party Establishment, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, the Blue Dogs among us, will have won one more unrecorded battle against those of us who want real change.

What's happening most immediately in the IL-14 corner of Podunk (a term I use here to describe anything not directly inside the DC Beltway) is a primary and a special primary on Tuesday, between the DC insider "pick" for our district, an attorney who is a relative newcomer to both politics and our area, and John Laesch, the nominee against Denny Hastert last time out, and the only progressive in the race.

At this point, I'd call it a significant bellwether for the upcoming Congressional elections that virtually no one outside of IL-14 is paying much attention to in the glare of the presidential race, as well as a bellwether event in the battle for control of the party.  So while I don't expect this diary to get much attention, I want to leave a record of what has happened in this primary.  Bellwethers, however unobserved at the time, sometimes have a way of becoming useful history for those who follow.  

Jonathan's shmooze with Nancy drew suggestions that she should have cut off Iraq funding, countered by a suggestion that she didn't have 218 votes to swing it.

It's counterfactual - grotesquely so, one might say - but I can't resist:

Suppose Nancy had said, No FY07 Iraq supplemental. Could a coalition of Blue Dogs and GOP have forced her hand?

The discharge petition would have been available: if 218 reps had signed up, they could have got a funding bill to the floor (strictly speaking, they'd have been discharging the rule related to the funding bill which, we assume, Pelosi has had deep-sixed in committee).

What if the rule discharged had been a closed rule - the doer done! - that would mean that Pelosi and her henchmen couldn't introduce any sneaky poison pills or the like into it.

If the bill had passed, I'm thinking, it would (politically speaking) have been over Pelosi's dead body: how could she possibly have carried on as Speaker if thus thwarted? (Step forward Speaker Steny!)

Point is, if the Dem House leadership had had the cojones to tell Bush no more Iraq funding, it would probably have been up to holding the party together against a funding bill rebellion.

Since said leadership is - not exactly caponized, but certainly careful - neither course of action was ever on the cards.

I've looked at tthe voting records in Congress (taken from Progressive Punch), the voting nature of the congressional district (from the 2008 race tracker wiki) and the results of the 2006 congressional elections for the fifty most conservative Democratic House members.  The results revealed a number of facts about this group as well as a number of myths.  So, here we go.

Fact.  Conservative Democrats represent Republican leaning districts (at least on the national level).  An amazing 24 of the 25 most conservative House members represented districts carried by George W. Bush in 2004, with the lone exception being John Murtha's district (carried by Kerry, 51.4% to 48.5%).

Myth.  Democrats from these districts are in a precarious electoral position.  Only three of the top 25 districts and six of the top 50 were tight elections in 2006.  That would be GA-8 (Jim Marshall with 50.5%), GA-12 (John Barrow with 50.3%), IA-3 (Leonard Boswell with 51.8%), IN-9 (Baron Hill with 50.01% vs. 41% for the Republican), IL-8 (Melissa Bean with 51.18%), and TX-22 (Nick Lampson with 51.79%).  Boswell has health problems and is hardly dynamic on the stump and Lampson and Bean barely make the list at 47 and 48.

The reason often given for why the Democratic leadership is so reluctant to try to whip more aggressive Iraq war withdrawal legislation is a concern over hurting Democrats in "Marginal" districts. The logic is that a vote for such legislation could be used against a those representatives, resulting in lost seats, a lost majority, and another generation of meaningless debates over gay marriage and flag burning. While the majority of the American population wants to end the war, gerrymandering causes these "marginal" districts to be more conservative and less opposed to the war than the nation in general.

The natural assumption is that many of the 43 members of the Blue Dog Coalition would be from these "marginal" districts and constantly legislating in fear of whisker-close elections. However, most of these legislators had large margins of victory in 2006 (including three that ran unopposed) and many have been members of the house for significant periods of time (allowing them the almost insurmountable advantage of incumbency).

Ok, I'm going to concede that I was probably not as charitable as I should have been with Joe Sestak.  He has a withdrawal plan, he has strongly advocated against the war and he speaks against Bush on prominent platforms (like Meet the Press).  Based on this quote from a Washington Post article, along with a source telling me what was going on, I thought that he stepped on Murtha's plan when it was launched.

Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is "a bit wary" of a proposal that would influence military operations.

"I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience," Sestak said.

This article is not clear enough, and I'm no longer convinced that this is anything but a slip-up on Sestak's part.  Sestak is considering voting on the Iraq supplemental, but if he opposes it his opposition is coming from the progressive side.  That is, the bill might not go far enough to satisfy him, and though I disagree with it I can live with that explanation.  Still, I think he's going to vote for the bill.  This is from Congress Daily.

Democratic sources who are keeping track of votes said all but two or three conservative Blue Dog Democrats appear likely to vote for the measure, despite initial opposition to language aimed at getting U.S. troops out of Iraq next year. The sources also said about a dozen anti-war progressives were likely to vote against the package because it leaves too many potential escape routes for President Bush to avoid the limits on his handling of the war. Aides said the support of anti-war groups and increased pressure from leaders on lawmakers on the fence have limited liberal defections and have converted some former opponents, particularly anti-war freshmen.

I don't know if Sestak came around or if he was always going to go for the bill, but the situation seemed very different a few weeks ago.  Now that the bill is branded as an antiwar bill, Sestak seems to be on board.  And so I should not have included him on that list of supplemental saboteurs who didn't want a withdrawal date.

As for the supplemental, the votes aren't there yet, but it's looking better.  And there's a lot of great organizing being done all over the country with military vets and generals standing out as particularly important and effective.

So I've kept Joe Sestak on my list of possible saboteurs of the supplemental, which has frustrated many Sestak partisans.  As far as I'm concerned, passing this legislation is an important part of disengaging the Democratic party from the pro-war brand, so a vote against it is a problem.  That said, I'm more charitable to progressives who vote against it as a mechanism for creating left-wing pressure, though I have serious reservations about the progressive caucus as an (dis) organized group.

Sestak appears like he's in the liberal camp.  Here's his statement about the legislation.

"Although I am dissapointed there is not one fixed date certain by the end of the year to redeploy out of Iraq, as my legislation proposes, in order to permit a change in strategy to where the Iraqis as well as Iranians and Syrians have an incentive to work for stablity, I am pleased we are moving in the right direction for an end date to this War, so we can enhance our security around the world."

He has also proposed his own legislation which would fix a withdrawal date.  Still, here's why I'm keeping Sestak on the list.  In late February, he stabbed Murtha in the back in the Washington Post with a right-wing frame.

Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is "a bit wary" of a proposal that would influence military operations.

"I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience," Sestak said.

Ratifying the idea that Congress has no place in military affairs and that the Murtha legislation meddles in military strategy is not appropriate for a progressive, so he's not really in that camp.  I don't think his legislation on withdrawal is particularly useful as anything but a communications strategy, and while communications is not unimportant, undercutting the Murtha plan the way he did destroys any PR credibility his plan might have had.

Sestak is currently undecided on the supplemental, but like many of us, he's moving to embrace the progressive parts of the current bill.  Still, because of his earlier right-wing foul, I'm going to judge him on his vote, because that's where the rubber now meets the road.  I'm sure this won't satisfy the ardent Sestak partisans, but hopefully it is an explanation of this somewhat unique case.

UPDATE: As I somewhat expected, there are a whole bunch of people accusing me of making up an accusation of Sestak, despite it being pretty cut-and-dried in an important newspaper article that Sestak actually undermined Murtha's plan from the right. I still haven't heard anyone actually address that problem, which is the source of my criticism of Sestak. Also, I'm not against Sestak, I think he's great. He just screwed this one up, and has a chance to remedy his error. It's good he has his own plan, but that's not remotely an issue, because everyone including Sestak knows that no one is voting on his plan.

Once again, here's the list of the Blue Dogs (plus Sestak) who are against the supplemental because of the conditions it imposes. I removed Kirsten Gillibrand, because she signaled she'd vote for the bill after internal deliberations and public pressure from her supporters.

Here's the list, with three new members (Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), and Bob Ethridge (NC-02)). Lots of Indiana reps on the list, which is nice because it's Evan Bayh whose wavering in the Senate (along with the Nelsons, of course).

Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Melissa Bean (IL-08)
Dan Boren (OK-02)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Bud Cramer (AL-02)
Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Bob Ethridge (NC-02)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20) ???
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
John Salazar (CO-03)
Joe Sestak (PA-07)
Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Gene Taylor (MS-04)

Today's big win in the Appropriations Committee is good for momentum. Win or lose, Pelosi is an amazing Speaker.