Tim Holden is a self-described Blue Dog Conservative Democrat. If you go to his website you’ll see the logo for Blue Dog Conservative Democrats. It consists of a Blue Dog surrounded by a red ring with the words Blue Dog Conservative Democrat written in the ring. We searched the home page in vain for the word liberal or progressive. It’s not there. Apparently Congressman Holden is only proud of his conservative achievements. We think to ourselves that as a liberals we have always voted for Tim Holden. We suspect that 95 to 100 percent of the liberals in the 17th Congressional District of Pennsylvania voted for him. We’ll bet that most conservatives voted for the Republican candidate. Yet his website makes the conservatives welcome and the liberals feel estranged.

[ View Congressman Tim Holden’s website ]

We decided to look at Tim’s voting record from 2005 to the present to see how a Blue Dog Democrat differs from a Progressive Democrat. Here are the highlights from 2005 through this year:

1. HR2956: a bill that would require the President to begin reducing U.S. troops in Iraq 120 days after its enactment. Tim sided with Bush and voted no.
2. HR2206: This bill funded the war without setting any deadlines for troops and was opposed by anti-war Democrats. Tim sided with Bush and business as usual for the Iraq War. The majority of democrats voted against this bill but not the Blue Dogs.
3. HR5: Instituted a tightening of the ethics rules governing the conduct of House members. Tim voted no.
4. S686: Gave courts (rather than the family) jurisdiction in the Terry Schiavo case. Tim voted yes. A no vote would have left the decision with the family where it belongs.
5. HR810: would have repealed federal spending restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Tim voted no. A yes vote would have given scientists this tool in the fight against deadly diseases.
6. HR10: This bill approves the proposal of a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American Flag. Tim voted yes. The Constitution should not be amended for trivial politically-motivated reasons.
7. HR6: Offered tax breaks and incentives to oil companies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Tim voted yes. (We guess the Blue Dogs thought the oil companies needed financial assistance.)
8. HR653: Cut 40 billion from the federal budget in the areas of welfare, child support and student lending. The Democratic Party opposed this. Tim sided with Bush.
9. HR861: Pledged support for the war in Iraq and rejected a timetable for withdrawal. Dems opposed. Tim voted with Bush.

We’ve highlighted 9 votes where we believe progressives have a serious problem with Tim Holden. Some involve war and peace, one involves our concern for the less fortunate, and one involves our relationship with big oil. We do this out of no personnel animus towards Tim Holden. In fact many of his votes we applaud. He has a strong pro-labor voting record and, of course, that is a must for any progressive. Not much worthwhile has ever been accomplished without the support of labor. So we salute Tim for his commitment to labor. We also know from personal experience that Tim’s office has excellent constituent service. We also concede that these may be strictly philosophical differences and cast no aspersions to his character or honor (except for the flag-desecration amendment-C’mon Tim that’s strictly pandering).

Our problem is that when we progressives vote for Blue Dog Democrats we concede too much. We don’t stop and examine the effects of this. The Democrats have control but can’t really prosecute a progressive agenda because progressives don’t have control. You can’t count on the Blue Dogs to stop the war, regulate runaway corporations-(especially the oil companies, Tim). You can’t count on the Blue Dogs to oppose tax cuts for the wealthy. You can’t count on the Blue Dogs to stand up to the insurance companies and pass single-payer national health insurance.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, does not have this problem. When they had a one seat majority in the Senate before the Jim Jeffords defection, they had no problems pushing their agenda through.

The bottom line is this: Because of the Blue Dogs this insane, unconstitutional, illegal and immoral war continues. Because of the Blue Dogs, the Democratic Congress can’t pass anything and is thus the laughing stock of the country with a 23% approval rating. That’s 5% below the worst administration of all time. We should all be so proud!

For the last 40 years Democrats have voted for conservative Blue Dogs. This has aided and abetted the rightward drift of the country during this period. Our progressive agenda is in shambles. But there is a ray of bright sunlight. A golden opportunity presents itself. The country is fed up with the right-wing loons that have run this administration. They’re ready for a change. Democrats will win in 2008. The question is: Which Democrats?

Do we go status quo and stick with the Blue Dogs and then weep when nothing gets accomplished in a Democratic Administration? Or do we seize the moment and field progressive primary challenges to every conservative incumbent? With a message of economic populism, single-payer health insurance, stopping the war and making the rich pay their fair share we’d win the day. We’d have a mandate. We’d remember how great it feels to fight for what you believe. We’d shed the image of the hand-wringing, tap dancing, non-binding resolution Democrat, and replace it with progressives who have the courage of their convictions. The time is now. We don’t do it because we hate the Blue Dogs. We do it because we think they’re wrong.

Print This Article
Email (and more) with