As difficult as it is to believe, there are even varying degrees of loyalty to Bush within the 41 Bush Dogs. The following six Democrats not only voted for a blank check on Iraq, not only voted to continue warrant-less government spying on American citizens through FISA, but also voted against S-Chip… At this point, if you favor an endless Iraq war, warrant-less spying on American citizens, and denying poor kids health care, why on earth is someone a Democrat? Let me rephrase that, since this goes beyond partisan self-identification: how can you do those three things and sleep at night? Funding an open-ended occupation of a foreign country that has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, while spying on those within your own country who oppose that war, and then denying health care to poor children seems like a pretty good definition of not only a bad Democrat, but simply a bad person. I don’t typically utilize moralistic language of this sort, but that is a pretty heinous combination of votes for anyone to take, Republican or Democrat. Oh, and all three of those positions run contrary to the constituents of these districts, too. If primary challenges were to appear against any of these Democrats, I would support them…
All six of the representatives that Bowers identifies represent Republican districts. One has a Republican edge of 16 percentage points! While few are regarded as top-tier races in 2008, that’s only because the members are viewed as fitting their conservative districts quite well. For a Democrat to encourage a primary from the left is to say–as Bowers essentially does–that it doesn’t matter whether the district is held by a Republican or a Democrat. That is a perfectly legitimate point of view–one mirrored at times on the right. But while it’s understandable, it’s a shortcut to minority status. I’m reminded of one of Professor Larry Sabato’s signs that a party was about to lose majority status:
Democrats seemed capable of just about one thing in 1994: hemorrhaging seats in Congress. Powerful Illinois Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D) blew it in a district typically safe for his party after his indictment in a check kiting scandal, Nevada Rep. James Bilbray (D) was felled after it was revealed days before the election that his aide stood to profit millions from lands legislation he had sponsored, and Democrats frittered away more open seats than we care to count by clumsily nominating the weaker (and typically the more liberal) of two candidates in primaries. After all the wreckage had been surveyed, Democrats had lost a grand total of 54 seats, more than enough to forfeit their House majority. From the perspective of one month out from Election Day, it’s difficult to imagine how Republicans could suffer losses in a range anywhere near what Democrats suffered twelve years ago. But it’s still a familiar picture: this year, the GOP has been giving away seats in Congress as if they were extra pairs of upper-deck Washington Nationals tickets.
If Bowers and other activists are serious about trying to knock off conservative Democrats in conservative districts, and replacing them with sure-fire losers in the general election, they’ll get no argument from here. Right now many Democrats think that they have seats to burn in 2008. But in politics, trends can turn on a dime. The seats that activists give away today, they may wish they had back tomorrow.
