Swing State Project

« Todd on the Senate | Main | How Badly Do Losers Lose? »

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

This Makes No Sense

Posted by DavidNYC

I understand when Dems in conservative districts feel they have to compile a more conservative voting record. That argument makes sense on certain issues. But ethics is just not one of them. Take a look at this list of Democrats who voted for the GOP's sham lobbying reform bill:

Barrow
Boren
Boswell
Cuellar
Marshall
Matheson
Melancon
Taylor (MS)

All except Cuellar and Boswell are in right-leaning districts. Several are vulnerable this year. But as Markos says, I'd really, really love to hear how on earth voting against ethics reform could possibly help any of these guys. I'm willing to put up with a lot of shit from Blue Dogs, conservative Dems, centrist Dems, New Dems, whatever they wanna call themselves. But this is utter crap. Ethics cuts across all partisan lines.

And if the argument is that these guys feared going home and getting attacked for "voting against ethics reform," then that's also crap. At some point in politics, you need to be able to fight. You vote against this shit, then go home and tell everyone how you're just champing at the bit to vote for real ethics reform. If you're afraid every vote can be used against you, then there's just no point in being in politics at all.

Of course, there's the alternate possibility that these guys just don't want to see real ethics reform take place. That thought is just so appalling, I don't even want to consider it.

Posted at 09:23 PM in 2006 Elections - House | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/2324

Comments

My litmus test - Chet Edwards. Because if Chet Edwards can still survive and get reelected despite trying to be mutilated every 2 years, and he is able to vote against this, I don't think any Democrats should be voting for this. Especially shame on Boswell and Barrow, who are in Democratic/50-50 districts.

Posted by: KainIIIC at May 3, 2006 09:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

One thing I've never "got" about Dems like these (Who I often defend, I grew up in Lincoln Davis's district (TN-04) and now reside in Bart Gordon's (TN-06) district, so I understand their predictament), is how votes for this or the bankruptcy bill gets them a single Republican/rural social conservative vote. I understand the need to waiver on social issues, but I ask how do votes for stuff like this help them?

Posted by: ben114 at May 3, 2006 10:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Agree 100%. I am willing to put up with a lot of stuff for the big tent of the Dem Party but this is just BS!

Posted by: John Mills at May 3, 2006 10:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Kain: Was thinking the exact same thought. If Chet Edwards can vote against crap like this, then only the very worst wimps could possibly vote for this.

Posted by: DavidNYC at May 3, 2006 11:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Someone should clearly call me out on this for the consequences of my proposal that I'm not yet seeing in my anger over HR 4975 but...

KICK THEM OUT OF THE CAUCUS.

I mean, really....if the Democratic Caucus cannot count on their vote for this issue...what on EARTH are they doing in our caucus, taking up our committee seats, and hearing our strategy. They willing sabotage the most coherent strategy/message we've had coming out of the Caucus yet....

What's the big downside to saying that HR 4975 will become the second party-line vote of the 109th Congress (after the election of Speaker)?
...that we might need their vote for leadership if the next election gets us a majority? (but is there anyone who trusts them for that vote if they cannot be trusted on this one?)

Posted by: JasonCNJ at May 3, 2006 11:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

But here's the other part of it... Check out THIS roll call vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll118.xml. It's the motion-to-recommit vote from right before the final passage vote, where four guys (Boucher, Capuano, Murtha, Sabo, all in safe Democratic districts, so far as I can tell) joined with the Republicans to kill the Democratic motion. If they had voted with the rest of the caucus (even the notorious 8 voted with the caucus), then NOBODY would have had to vote yea or nay on the final bill.

Posted by: Dem And Us at May 4, 2006 05:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

D&U: Yeah, I saw that little list over in the DailyKos thread, and commented there as well that it's a totally bizarre assemblage of names. Why do such a thing?

Posted by: DavidNYC at May 4, 2006 05:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment