Let's Put a Leash on the Bush Dogs

Our friends at OpenLeft.com have launched an excellent campaign to put a leash on the Bush Dog Democrats. As Matt Stoller writes,

I'm hearing more and more frequently a sense of rage with the Democratic leadership in Congress.  From failing to stop the war to expanding Bush's wiretapping authority, the swing vote of conservative Democrats in the House are forming an effective conservative majority that is enabling Bush to govern as he wishes.

OpenLeft's Chris Bowers is defining "Bush Dogs" as Democrats who voted both for the Supplemental Surrender on 5/24/07 and for Warrantless Wiretapping on 8/4/07. So the "Bush Dogs" are:

The "Bush Dog" list is similar to the broader "Bush Democrat" list we created at Democrats.com, but we add more votes and end up with a longer list that also includes:

So what will OpenLeft do with its Bush Dogs? Put a leash on them, and even threaten primary challenges.

One, many of these members feel no pressure to vote correctly or uphold progressive values.  Criticism is the signal they are relying on to let them know when they err.  Two, some of these members may need to face a primary challenge, and it's useful for potential primary challengers to know that there is criticism of these members.  Three, other members considering joining the Bush Dog caucus may be dissuaded if they know there will be criticism.  Four, candidates running for office will finally have a signal on how they should talk about being good Democrats that are willing to take tough votes. 

To get started, OpenLeft is inviting its readers to write profiles of the Bush Dogs:

When we're done doing these profiles, we can begin to track these members, engage in online advertising to let their constituents know their record, and/or help local activists in their districts.  This is going to be a completely open process, and as votes come up this fall, we won't hesitate to add new Bush Dogs or honorary Bush Dog titles based on political games played by leadership... Already, there's a contempt vote in the House that I'm going to watch closely, and of course, there's the Petraeus PR ploy.  

Of course OpenLeft is already taking flak from Democratic "leaders" like Chris Van Hollen and Artur Davis of the DCCC, but they are not deterred:

This is going to be uncomfortable for many of us.  Criticizing the people we just elected, people who may even be nice to us personally, is never easy.  And shifting away from raw partisanship, which was necessary from 2002-2006, towards the idea that we need good Democrats and not Bush Dog Democrats, is going to take some slight adjustments.  We're going to be told that we are jeopardizing candidates in swing districts, that we are hurting the possibility of retaining the majority.  We're going to be told we're bad Democrats.

None of that is true, and it is loser talk.  There is no such thing as a Republican district, and Democrats only get stronger when we stand confidently for our values.  Criticism makes us better, not weaker, and demanding that our candidates stand for ideas and not just party labels will make the Democratic Party a more vibrant and effective vessel for change.  After all, at the same time as we push against Bush Dog Democrats we are also trying to elect Democrats all over the country.  I mean, beating Lieberman in the primary in 2006 was just the spark the party needed to focus on Iraq.  Perhaps this is the spark that progressives in the House and Senate need to get some ferocity of spirit.

In other words, this is a new project for many of us, but it's part of the continuum of what the netroots is all about.  Such is how movements get stronger.

Right on, OpenLeft!

p.s. Thanks to Stoller for linking to our Warrantless Wiretapping poll, which showed 73% of Americans oppose Bush's wiretapping on Americans.