Who Are the 59 Democrats Who Voted Against the McGovern Bill?
Thursday the House voted on a slightly revised version of the McGovern bill. It would have mandated the beginning of withdrawal (”redeployment”) of U.S. forces from Iraq within 90 days and completion of the withdrawal (”redeployment”) of most U.S. forces from Iraq within 180 days after thatThe bill was defeated 171-255. 59 Democrats joined almost all Republicans in voting no.
The roll call is here:http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll330.xml
Who are these 59 Democrats?
One striking fact is that 13 of them represent districts that were carried by John Kerry in 2004. Here they are:
| State | District | Rep. | 04Bush | 04Kerry |
| California | 28 | Howard Berman | 28% | 71% |
| Colorado | 2 | Mark Udall | 30% | 67% |
| Georgia | 13 | David Scott | 37% | 62% |
| Illinois | 3 | Daniel Lipinski | 41% | 59% |
| Nevada | 1 | Shelley Berkley | 42% | 57% |
| Maryland | 5 | Steny Hoyer | 42% | 57% |
| Pennsylvania | 13 | Allyson Schwartz | 43% | 56% |
| Texas | 29 | Gene Green | 44% | 55% |
| Maryland | 2 | Dutch Ruppersberger | 45% | 54% |
| Georgia | 12 | John Barrow | 46% | 53% |
| Tennessee | 5 | Jim Cooper | 47% | 52% |
| California | 20 | Jim Costa | 48% | 51% |
| Wisconsin | 3 | Ron Kind | 48% | 51% |
A reasonable guess is that support for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in these districts is even greater than in the country as a whole.
If there is any reason why these thirteen Democrats (at least) shouldn’t have a primary challenge in 2008, I’d like to know what it is. If these were thirteen Republicans who defied the President, there would be talk among Republicans of primary challenges, regardless of the prospect of defeating these candidates in a primary. I make this last assertion with confidence because this is exactly what happened after 17 House Republicans voted for the resolution against the surge: they were threatened with primary challenges. Result: since then, only 2-3 House Republicans have voted against the President on the war. At least in some of these cases, they backed down not because they feared defeat, but simply because they wanted to avoid a primary challenge that they knew they could easily crush, but which would still have been an annoying drain of time and resources.
A serious peace movement would ensure that these 13 renegade Democrats pay a price for their vote.
Are you represented by one of these Democrats? Are you a U.S. citizen over the age of 25? Then perhaps it’s time to start circulating some petitions.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy.
I was in a grocery store awhile back, and was privy to a wonderful exchange.
A young mother was pushing a cart stacked high with groceries, and she also had a toddler who was obviously teething and not in a happy mood. The child was crying and screaming and the young mother seemed very embarrassed, when an elderly woman walked by and patted the baby on the leg, then looking up at the mother and said, “Don’t take too much of this very seriously. All the other people around here who have been through this know what you are going through and we sympathize. If it’s any consolation, think good thoughts about this beautiful baby , and ya know she just may grow up to be the Doctor or Scientist that discovers a cure for stupidity”. The others standing around all laughed and the elderly lady looked around at them and said ” well, just think how many people in Washington would benefit from such a development”
Oh the wisdom of age.
Yellow Horse
What a laugh these people are. I have written several times to my representative, and guess what? Each time I wrote, I was sent a polite form email that told me that my representative, a Democrat, did not have time to respond to me. Well, I no longer have time to vote for him.
People don’t have a voice in this government anymore. The only ones with the government’s ear are the corporations. In America, money moves the government, people just ratify.
Hoa Binh
gsemsel: I typically get form-letter replies.
I went to tour the Minnesota State Capitol building in the past year or so, and have always been impressed with the architecture. But there’s one point to highlight — in the century or so they’ve used the building, the chamber for the legislature has remained the same size. I don’t have the numbers of in front of me, but I’m guessing that our population is at least 10 times as large.
Ponder the concept of a senate. Two representatives per district or state, regardless of population. When states or districts had under 100,000 people, the odds of having your voice heard was higher than — for instance — a state like California with like 33 million people. Representation today has become increasingly abstract, illusory, diluted, etc. Our system does not scale.
Our system is a model T — an early design for a democratic government. The mechanics in Washington have made small improvements to the engine on many occasions, but it was never designed for a nation so large, so populous, and so powerful. And it seems the democratic features in the design have pretty much worn out their usefulness.
When the US undergoes an economic collapse in the next few years, progressives need to take the initiative and push the debate towards advocating a new constitutional convention. If the US of the future is going to be anything other than an impoverished, backwards nation governed by a small elite, we will have to completely rewrite the constitution and alter our governmental institutions.
Kivals: A new convention? Good idea. Check out www.foavc.org. That is their goal. Also, see Gravel’s program for change at http://www.ni4d.us/. And Tony Simpson’s very credible plan: http://www.initiativesamendment.org/
New Zealand created a multiparty democracy in the 1990s. We can too.
Earthian,
We can, but we need our own catalyst (just as the neocons did to implement their grand PNAC plans) in order to break the inertia of the current system. And for us I think it would be an economic collapse, and that appears more likely by the year.
Here is a link to the text of the McGovern bill H.R. 2237:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2237:
It isn’t long.
kivals:
Agree with your hope on economic collapse as kick-starter. 16 years ago economic and ideological collapse in Soviet Union transfered power away from bogus Communists to bogus oligarchs. To whom power will be transformed from our bogus “Free Market” Capitalists? To bogus Communitarians? That is a big question mark. Do you have any hint?
There can be no more campaign finance reforms anymore. They always end up being no more than the old game of shuffling walnut shells to try to hide where the money comes from. Once this is made public then both sides cry foul and claim the new “rules” are being abused by the others. The reality is that when they work on such bills in the Congress, the staff lawyers for both parties have already spent thousands of hours researching legal loopholes and work arounds before the bill is ever voted on. This is how the 503c companies were all lined up and ready to go right as the last bill was passed. Remember McCain-Feingold? The money has to be removed entirely from the process if we are to have any real representation of the people that cannot be bought and sold vote by vote. until this is done we will continue to have government for sale to the highest bidder.
We need (among other things) more than two parties.
observer,
If the inertia of the system is broken by an economic collapse, there will likely be an extreme transformation of some form. I think it is unknown and unknowable how that would play out. Progressives need to do what they can to influence that outcome, however, and should prepare for that opportunity, in part by making international connections as the world is coming together to form one community, one way or another.
I plan to check these 13 a-holes links with AIPAC and how much money they have received. Hoyer is known to be well in their pocket, and I can guess at some of the others (duh).
When will this country wake the fuck up?
I’m not in Joe Costa’s district, I reside in a solidly red gerrymandered congressional district (21st, Devin Nunes, Republican). Jim is trying to be a “blue dog” moderate or whatever lame excuse that is for a REP in DEM disguise. He also missed out the other important vote due to having dinner with friends, more likely lobbyists. Check his website, a hack for the status quo. Yeah, it’s a red county in a blue state, but Mr. Costa can’t have it both ways and he’s trying. Vote to end the war Jim, or we’ll vote to end your congressional career soon. Your GOP collegues such as Nunes and Radanovich are rubber stamping hacks, you’re becoming one them.
kivals:
Re :If the US of the future is going to be anything other than an impoverished, backwards nation governed by a small elite, we will have to completely rewrite the constitution and alter our governmental institutions.
If you want to see what kind of society we’re headed for, look to our covert activities in Central and South America, Africa, and the Middle East. Guatemala, Brazil, Ghana, Chile, the Congo, Iran, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Uruguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador,… The list goes on and on. The only thing that has stood between Americans and the Jack Boot is their “good behavior”. Kent State is an example of what awaits those who don’t get with the program.
The fact is, we already are an impoverished backwards nation ruled by a small elite. We haven’t realized it yet, because we still have our credit cards and all those assets that our parents and grandparents bequeathed us. But the tide is inexorable and accelerating. At this point, it’s only a matter of time.
To quote Warren Buffet: “There’s class warfare, all right. It’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
I’m very much interested in the subject of proportional representation that gsemsel brought up.
Could anyone out there say when the last time the number of seats in the US Congress was expanded to factor in population growth?
Surely we haven’t always been a country of 300 million. In the mid-60’s, I think we passed 200 million.
Did we still have only 435 +/- representatives in the House at that time?
With 300 million people, and only 435 +/- representatives (correct me if I’m off the mark on that figure), that comes out to one representative representing +/- 650,000 citizens.
I remember mentioning this once to someone and their reflexive response was “Can you imagine the amount of infighting that would result; nothing would get done.”
Perhaps with, say, one representative per 20,000 citizens, there would be more room for more political parties, more plurality, a wider spectrum of “allowed” thought.
I know we’d have to fund the construction of a new chamber but certainly any price would be justified to ensure some semblance of democratic procedure, no?
Any comments anybody?
Question to Dali Lama on a visit to America. “What do you think of western civilization.” He answered “I think it would be a very good idea,”
What’s with Allyson Schwartz? I thought she was a progressive, and I even sent her some money a year or so ago. Has she given an explanation for her vote? She’s now off my list.
I live in Ron Kind’s district. Why did he vote to continue the war? Because he voted for the war in the first place and has always supported the war. The war is supported by the Democratic Party, remember? Only after some Republicans were replaced by some Democrats in the last election did the Democrat Party start “talking” about being against the war. The Democrats are not anti-war. They are just using the war to gain political advantage. Their strategy is to let the war drag on to gain vistory in 2008. Does anyone remember Pelosi’s 100 Days? None of that legislation has become law! The Democratic House passed some bills and the Democratic Senate killed it. Bush never saw any of it get to this desk. If you want to end the war, stop voting for the War Party (Democrats and Republicans, Jeez!
koalaburger May 11th, 2007 9:56 pm
Question to Dali Lama on a visit to America. “What do you think of western civilization.” He answered “I think it would be a very good idea,”
I love his sense of humor. If he had more “theatrical” presence, he’d be a great stand-up comic.
If you want to see who is funding the campaigns of these Democrats, go to: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=E&cycle=2006
Mark Udall, who is number two on the list above, is running for the U.S. Senate in Colorado next year. For the last couple of years, since he has made his ambitions known, he has been moving steadily to the right — even though Colorado is becoming more moderate and progressive (we now have both the legislature and the governorship controlled by Democrats).
So, Udall must be willing to sell out progressives in this state in the hopes that he can convince a few Republicans in November 2008 that he is conservative enough for them to vote for.
Sadly, in contrast to his late, great father, Mo Udall, Mark has become a captive of the insider culture of Washington, D.C. He said last year that had he been in the Senate, he would have voted to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because Roberts had a good sense of humor.
It is likely that there will be an alternative to Udall in the general election from a third party peace candidate.
I have a question though, did any of these Dems vote against the timetable because they want a total cutoff of funding now? That would be a good thing.
I think the McGovern bill still allows for some troops for “training” Iraqi soldiers and other back doors, correct?
Steny Hoyer… how embarrassing. Steny Hoyer is the Democratic House Majority Leader!
Not only does Mr. Hoyer deserve a primary challenger, the Dems might want to consider handing their leadership position to someone willing to put the will of the party - and of course, the will of American voters - ahead of whatever kickbacks he is getting from U.S. contractors in Iraq.
This smells.
I hate to bring it up but if the “Dali Lama” said the above quote he was only quoting Gandhi who said it long ago. And as far as the “Dali Lama” goes, that is not his title. Dali Lama is actually a Mongolian title and I can’t really understand why he continues to let people use it, his real title is Rinpoche. But, then, he claims to be a reincarnation of the Buddha. The Buddha being perhaps the greatest exponent of the idea of the futility of organized religion there ever was.
But, I digress.
What we need is a 21st Century democracy, not a “Representitive” form of gov’t based on Senators and Representitives. Which is just a way to keep the people from exercising power and keeping the wealthy in power, it dates back to Rome and has nothing to do with democracy.
What we need in this age of High Tech and Satelites, TV, etc. is a government where the individual takes direct power.
Let me illustrate my idea. If we had a system where we had one or two TV channels called government and gave everybody a handheld device wherein through Satelite technology the individual would assign himself or herself a number, known only to himself or herself and the computer. Into this the person would put all personal information such as work skills, education and personal needs, etc. Then the computer would(and the government)would be set up to further all individuals by matching individuals with resources and others. Then if the individual felt there was a need in society that would need addressing they could propose a “bill”. This would be placed on the Government channel and then debated by others for, say, 90 days. The computer would be programed to eliminate redundancy but otherwise leave the arguments in tact. Then after a period of time(90 days?)the people would vote through their handheld device. There would be a clause that would eliminate the Tyranny of the Majority, such as such people abusive laws like drug laws. Then the results would be handed over to the administration, which would be on a city manager type model, incapable of setting policy, but, would be able to make recommendations.
This needs to be fleshed out further in a futher constitutional convention. Hopefully, we would retain what is usefull and our rights in said new constitution, but, we would eliminate “representitive” government and get beyond the horse and buggy for which it was created. And since everyone would have equal say it would put everyone on the same playing field whether you were rich enough to afford a lobyist or not.
Dems are doing an excellent job of making progress towards ending the war. With razor thin margin in the House, and insufficient margin in the Senate, they are playing their cards exactly right. This talk of defeating democratic leadership is playing only into hands of the right wing and will lead to a longer war and more deaths and casualties.
If you want to empower and embolden the democratic leadership to end the war more quickly, work for a larger democratic majority, not for reducing it. Ending the war is about saving lives; its about putting our resources into ending poverty and into education, not about proving who has the purest radical credentials.
Cypooka: Re 21st Century Democracy
This might be fine for use by intelligent, informed people. Too many Americans, however, are taken in by every Swiftboat attack or warm-and-fuzzy TV commercial and reluctant to spend any time actually researching and thinking about how others may be affected by any particular vote.
I vote No.
I live in Hoyer’s district. He carried it with 81% in the last election! No thanks to me, I saw through his BS and fawning to AIPAC and voted Green. The Repugs didn’t even bother to run someone against him. Hoyer is part of the PROBLEM, not the solution. With leadership like his, our democracy is going to be over. I wrote to him two weeks ago to ask him to support Rep. Kucinich’s articles of impeachment against Cheney (HR 333), asked for a response, and have yet to hear back anything.
“If you want to empower and embolden the democratic leadership to end the war more quickly, work for a larger democratic majority, not for reducing it.”
I don’t think we’re talking - at all - about reducing the Democratic majority.
We are talking about primary challengers (Democrat vs. Democrat) to clear out the dead wood; the Democrats that consistently vote against their party, the wishes of their constituents, and enjoy a kind of corporate communion with Big Business and the GOP.
This is all about representation, and about getting Democrats to work together. Its about holding our representatives accountable.
If these particular Democrats aren’t representing the voters in their districts, they should be replaced with Democrats who do - and who will vote for bills like the McGovern legislation, introduced by the Democrats as a way to facilitate getting us out of Iraq. We want more of the Democrats who listen to us, and who have the courage to stand up to lobbyists.
The Democrats introduced this legislation. Steny can vote for it, or stop pretending to represent the party.
Hoyer is an important element in the Dems ability to communicate with the majority of Americans. As frustrating as it may be, as painful as it may be, to have representatives who are not as pure as we wish, it is critically important that the democratic party learn to communicate more broadly. If you want purity, refuse to pay your federal income taxes until the war is over; sit in at the white house, or something. And if you want to put a little pressure on Hoyer by threatening to challenge him with a really strong, articulate, electable candidate, ok. But the history of these challenges is that nobody competent wants to run against a guy like Hoyer, because they know they can’t win, and so we wind up running an inarticulate ideologically pure stiff, who can’t win, but can make it easier for the republicans to take over the district. Glorious, but pure, defeat.