The following news release from the Federation for Immigration Reform makes a strong case that the 2006 election did not provide a mandate for illegal immigrant amnesty and guest worker programs. Voters across the country rejected Republicans on both sides of the border security issue and in many contested races Democrats took hard-line stands on illegal immigration.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Since the polls closed last
Tuesday, advocates for illegal immigrants and open borders have been busy
spinning the results as an endorsement of their calls for a massive amnesty
and guest worker program. These pundits have selectively focused on a few
races in which pro-immigration enforcement legislators were defeated, while
ignoring overwhelming evidence -- including direct referenda in which
voters approved tough immigration enforcement measures -- of bipartisan
support for enforcement.
In Arizona, where two vocal pro-enforcement Republicans were defeated as part of a nationwide repudiation of the party's overall management of the government, voters handily approved four ballot measures aimed at curbing illegal immigration. All four of the Arizona ballot initiatives were approved with more than 70 percent of the vote, including about half of Hispanic voters in the state.
"Entirely apart from their position on immigration enforcement, many Republicans lost their seats as voters registered their dissatisfaction with the overall direction of the nation. While a few pro-enforcement Republicans were defeated, it is also true that the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats who took firm stand on immigration enforcement were sent back to Washington by the voters," observed Dan Stein, president of FAIR.
Also ignored by the open borders pundits is the fact that many of the
Democrats who were swept into office last week ran on immigration
enforcement platforms. In each race in which a strongly pro-enforcement
Republican lost, they were defeated by a Democrat who vowed to be just as
tough on illegal immigration.
"Support for enforcement of immigration laws and opposition to amnesty
and guest worker programs came from Democrats as well as Republicans in the
recent elections," noted Stein. "Among Democrats, proposals for amnesty and more guest workers were widely seen as a component of the White House's overt preference for business interests over the interests of working Americans."Many of the so-called Reagan Democrats, who returned to the party in this election, have grown increasingly convinced that the current administration is betraying their most basic interests.
If the new Democratic majority wants to keep these swing voters in their camp, they would be well advised not to sell out the jobs and security of working Americans to the far left multiculturalists who see mass immigration as a tool to institute their own radical agenda, Stein warned.
"The American public sent a clear message that they want a real change in direction on a lot of issues. When it comes to immigration policy the changes they want to see are significant reductions in the number of people coming here and living here illegally," said Stein. "Neither party has a mandate from the people to enact amnesty and guest worker policies that
would further undermine the American middle class."
SOURCE Federation for American Immigration Reform
http://fairus.org
* WHY THE SOUTH IS CRITICAL TO DEMOCRATS
Chris Kromm posted a splenid analysis of why Democrats must not write off the South on the progressive blog Facing South http://southernstudies.org/
"The Democratic and progressive South-bashers are at it again.In the wake of the 2006 mid-terms, a host of Democrats and progressives are once again saying that it’s time to write off the South. Throw out Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, they say, especially in those backwards, southwards states. The November elections prove that the North is the Democrats' base, and the Midwest and West are the Democrats’ future.Nonsense. If anything, the 2006 elections underscore just how critical the South is to Democratic hopes across the country (Virginia Senate, anyone?). They also show that the South is a highly competitive region for Democrats, and that to cut and run would spell disaster for the party’s future."
"The current guru of the “forget the South” movement is Tom Schaller, the author of Whistling Past Dixie, a book which counsels Democrats to abandon the region in search of easier political pick-ups in the North and Midwest (in contrast to other Dixie doubters, who argue Democrats should look West). It was such beliefs that drove Schaller to make this bold prediction in the pages of In These Times last month (“Where the Seats Are,” October 23, 2006):“Whatever the magnitude of the coming changes, two things are certain: The Democrats are going to gain seats in the 2006 midterms, and *those gains will come from outside the South.”
"Oops. That “certain” prediction, which collided with the reality of key Democratic gains in the South on November 6, may have been off-base – but not as much as Schaller’s musings about the U.S. Senate from the same article: “None of the five targets [for Democrats in the Senate] are in the South … Current *Rep. Harold Ford* (D-Tenn.) is a formidable campaigner who hopes to take the Senate seat being vacated by Majority Leader Bill Frist, and the “macaca” blunder of Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) has breathed new life into party-switcher Jim Webb’s Virginia campaign. But these two seats are considered second-tier opportunities.”
"Right. Tell that to the Democrats, who – fortunately for them -- ignored Schaller’s advice and instead made both states competitive by injecting millions of dollars and dispatching top-shelf campaigners like Bill Clinton in the final hours. Tell it also to millions of Democrats nationally, who stayed glued to TVs and blogs for over a day as the Webb race decided the fate of the U.S. Senate.But back to the predicted “no” gains in the House from the South."
"At the end of Election Day 2006, Southern Democrats had seized no less than five seats previously held by Republicans in the U.S. House, in Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina and Texas.The next morning, another *three Southern House races – Georgia’s 8th and 12th districts, and North Carolina’s 8th – were still “too close to call.” Since then, Democrat Jim Marshall has been declared the winner in Georgia-08; Democrat John Barrow leads in still-undecided Georgia-12; and Democratic candidate Larry Kissell has successfully asked for a recount in the NC-08 race, where he trails by a tiny 449 vote margin.On top of that, there were two more Southern races – Virginia’s 2nd District and Florida’s 13th – that Republicans won by less than two percentage points.* In the Florida race, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports 61> that Democrat Christine Jennings’ race with Republican Vern Buchanan was “the second closest in the country” – Jennings lost by 368 votes – and likely would have gone the other way except for voting machine problems that led to 18,000 “undervotes” in Democratic strongholds."
" A recount is in the works. In other words: out of the 19 “key races” in the South followed by political analysts, Democrats won eight; will likely win one more (GA-12); should have won FL-13; could still pick up NC-08; and narrowly missed in VA-02.Despite this 47% victory rate – and that Democrats were competitive in 63% of these key Southern races -- I have yet to see the South-naysayers express doubts about their “certain” analysis."
"Of course, any pundit can be wrong -- it's an occupational hazard of the job -- but if there’s a defining feature of the “forget the South” crowd, it’s their certainty. Pre-elections, In These Times exclaimed that “Anything that argues counter to Tom Schaller’s compelling October examination of ‘Where the Seats Are’ can be safely dismissed as non-reality based.”
Post-November 6, Chris Bowers of the popular MyDD blog giddily declared that “This is the first time in 54 years that the party without a southern majority now has the House majority … Tom Schaller utterly vindicated.”Such sentiments can be found echoing throughout the blogosphere.But whose “reality” is “vindicated” by the 2006 election results? In addition to the key House victories for Democrats in the South, consider the following:
"Out of six U.S. Senate races in the South, Democrats and Republicans split four uncompetitive races (Florida and West Virginia for the Dems; Mississippi and Texas for the GOP).* In the two competitive U.S. Senate races, Democrats won Virginia, and they narrowly missed electing the first African American Senator in the South since Reconstruction – a remarkable achievement given that by mid-October, Republican Bob Corker had outspent Ford by over $3 million, and that was before Corker dumped another $1.35 million of his own money into the race days before the election. Democrats gained 26 seats in state legislatures across the South. "
"Although no chamber switched hands (the Tennessee senate came closest, Democrats missing by one race), Democrats strengthened their position in eight Southern states. The Republicans only did that in one state, Alabama, where Democrats still control the legislature.* Out of seven governor’s races in the South, Democrats were able to flip control to their party in Arkansas, something Republicans didn’t achieve in the region. Weak candidates doomed Democratic challengers to GOP incumbents in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, and a bizarre four-way field didn’t help Democrats in Texas. But the Democrats held on to the governor’s mansion in Tennessee, and gave the well-financed campaign of Charlie Crist a run for its money in Florida.But perhaps even more importantly, exit polls in the region reveal that the South* – far from being a conservative monolith – is deeply contested political territory.
"*The race divide* -62% of Southern whites voted Republican, while 87% of African-Americans, 57% of Latinos, and 52% of “others” voted Democrat. This is ominous for Republicans, given that the four states nationally with the fastest-growing Latino population are in the South, and Georgia and Mississippi are on the brink of joining Texas as so-called “majority minority” states. *Young Southerners.* In 2006, they preferred Democrats 51% to 48%.* *Class war.* 55% of Southerners making under $50,000 a year – 40% of those polled – voted Democrat. The 13% of those polled in a union household favored Democrats 56% to 44%.* *Conflicting faiths.* Southern Protestants -- 70% of those polled – voted Republican by a 58% to 41% margin, but all other faith groups favored Democrats. More than one out of four Southern white evangelicals (27%) – perceived as the hardened core of the Republican Party – voted for Democrats in 2006.* *Gender and marriage.* Surprisingly, Southern married women were the staunchest GOP supporters in 2006, with only 40% voting for Democrats (41% of married men did). By contrast, 60% of Southern unmarried men, and 63% of unmarried women, favored Democrats in 2006."
"Two pictures emerge from this and other data. One is that the Republican Party is increasingly the party not of "the South" in general, as some pundits claim, but _older, wealthy and white Southern voters_ – a base that puts the GOP on the wrong side of all the key demographic trends unfolding in the South.The second is that the South is a deeply divided region – red, blue and purple – and the question before Democrats isn’t whether to cut and run, but how to capitalize on constituencies and trends that clearly work in their favor.There are many other reasons for the Democratic Party not to write off the South."
"For any major party to pull up stakes in the fastest-growing region in the country is clearly a bid for political suicide.It would also put Democrats at odds with their self-image and _raison d'etre._ For Democrats to turn their backs on a region that half of all African-Americans and a growing number of Latinos and Asian-Americans call home, a place devastated by Hurricane Katrina, plant closings, poverty, and other indignities – in short, for “progressives” to give up on the very place where they could argue they are needed most – would rightfully be viewed as a historic retreat from the party’s commitment to justice for all.But most of all, November 6 proved that the “forget the South” strategy is a colossal mistake – if only because the elections revealed that, if they try, Democrats in the South can win."
I strongly agree with Kromm's observations. Tom Schaller is not only Karl Rove's favorite Democratic strategist - he's also been proven dead wrong.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Friday, November 10, 2006
Pro-life Democrats help win majority and gain clout
WASHINGTON, DC – Democrats For Life of America applauded the Democratic leadership today for recruiting pro-life Democrats to run for key Congressional races in this week’s history making elections.
“Right after John Kerry’s loss in 2004, the Democratic Party finally started talking about including pro-life Democrats in the big tent of the Democratic Party. They put their money where their mouths are and assisted pro-life Democrats. Their inclusion helped pro-life Democrats win and played a significant role in handing over control of the US Senate and House. In addition to adding Bob Casey to the Senate, Democrats will see 6 new pro-life Democrats in the House,” said DFLA’s Executive Director Kristen Day.
The new pro-life faces in the US House include: Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Charlie Wilson of Ohio, Chris Carney and Jason Altmire both of Pennsylvania.“We’ve said for years that when we expand the big tent of the Democratic Party, Democrats win. Tuesday night is proof. Now Democrats need to continue to allow pro-life Democrats to help set the agenda in the 110th Congress,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America. “We look forward to working with Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi and the new leaders of the House to promote an agenda that will dramatically reduce the abortion rate in America. We applaud Congresswoman Pelosi understanding that Democrats need to govern from the center and that we must put our words into action by promoting common ground as a way to solve the problems we face.”
Democrats For Life of America’s top priorities for the 110th Congress are: passing the Pregnant Women Support Act, introduced by Congressman Lincoln Davis and received bipartisan support, fully funding the National Cord Blood Inventory Act which will save lives and passing the Child Custody Protection Act.
Several pro-life democrats will assume leadership positions in the new Democratic majority in the House. Rep. Jim Oberstar will chair the Transportation Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson will chair the Agriculture Committee and Rep Ike Skelton will head the Armed Services Committee. Several other pro-life democrats will chair House subcommittees.
Democrats For Life of America was founded in 1999 to mobilize Democrats at the local, state, and national levels. Their primary mission has been to elect pro-life Democrats, support pro-life elected officials, promote a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party platform and achieve legislation that fosters respect for human life. Democrats For Life of America currently has 41 state chapters with plans to expand the group into additional states by the end of the year. In addition to the grassroots support across America, the group has several Members of Congress who are actively promoting the group’s mission.
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
* BAYH CALLS FOR DEMOCRATS TO TAKE MODERATE APPROACH
U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, who also served 10 years as Governor of Indiana, has emerged a leading possibility for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. Bayh recently received a major boost to his campaign with the withdrawal of former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Many political observers expect that Bayh will pick up much of Warner's support base among moderate to conservative Democrats.
USA Today www.usatoday.com reported on Bayh's likely Presidential campaign and his strategy suggestions for the new Democratic majority in their November 9 edition:
"It's up to us to prove that we're something better than just a mirror image of the people they voted against," Bayh said. "And if we serve up a highly partisan, ideologically extreme, Democratic version of what they just voted against, we're not going to do very well."
"Bayh said Democrats must focus on middle-class concerns, including affordability of health care and college, as well as pension and job security. But they also have to prove Democrats can be trusted with national security and should implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission."
"He singled out reducing the nation's dependence on imported oil as an area where Democrats could immediately prove their willingness to work with Republicans. Bayh is part of a bipartisan coalition of senators backing a bill to promote energy independence through the increased use of alternative fuels and technologies."
Bayh served as Governor of Indiana from 1988 (elected as George Bush I carried the state by a wide margin) to 1998 and left office with a record approval rating. He won election to the U.S. Senate in 1998 with 64% of the vote and was re-elected in 2004 receiving 62% support despite a landslide victory by George Bush II who led the state by 20 percentage points.
Evan Bayh is a former Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council but is not really the typical DLC type. For one thing, he far more pro-labor than many DLC pols with a 93 percent rating (and a 91 percent lifetime score) from the AFL-CIO in 2005. Like many Democrats during the Clinton era, Bayh was conned by the free traders and is now taking a more worker friendly approach to trade issues. Bayh stood up to the big business interests and voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. See link to an informative article on Bayh and labor. http://tinyurl.com/pjqfl Bayh looks like a strong candidate who can uphold the traditions of Democrats while expanding the party's base.
www.allamericapac.com
“Right after John Kerry’s loss in 2004, the Democratic Party finally started talking about including pro-life Democrats in the big tent of the Democratic Party. They put their money where their mouths are and assisted pro-life Democrats. Their inclusion helped pro-life Democrats win and played a significant role in handing over control of the US Senate and House. In addition to adding Bob Casey to the Senate, Democrats will see 6 new pro-life Democrats in the House,” said DFLA’s Executive Director Kristen Day.
The new pro-life faces in the US House include: Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Charlie Wilson of Ohio, Chris Carney and Jason Altmire both of Pennsylvania.“We’ve said for years that when we expand the big tent of the Democratic Party, Democrats win. Tuesday night is proof. Now Democrats need to continue to allow pro-life Democrats to help set the agenda in the 110th Congress,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America. “We look forward to working with Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi and the new leaders of the House to promote an agenda that will dramatically reduce the abortion rate in America. We applaud Congresswoman Pelosi understanding that Democrats need to govern from the center and that we must put our words into action by promoting common ground as a way to solve the problems we face.”
Democrats For Life of America’s top priorities for the 110th Congress are: passing the Pregnant Women Support Act, introduced by Congressman Lincoln Davis and received bipartisan support, fully funding the National Cord Blood Inventory Act which will save lives and passing the Child Custody Protection Act.
Several pro-life democrats will assume leadership positions in the new Democratic majority in the House. Rep. Jim Oberstar will chair the Transportation Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson will chair the Agriculture Committee and Rep Ike Skelton will head the Armed Services Committee. Several other pro-life democrats will chair House subcommittees.
Democrats For Life of America was founded in 1999 to mobilize Democrats at the local, state, and national levels. Their primary mission has been to elect pro-life Democrats, support pro-life elected officials, promote a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party platform and achieve legislation that fosters respect for human life. Democrats For Life of America currently has 41 state chapters with plans to expand the group into additional states by the end of the year. In addition to the grassroots support across America, the group has several Members of Congress who are actively promoting the group’s mission.
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
* BAYH CALLS FOR DEMOCRATS TO TAKE MODERATE APPROACH
U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, who also served 10 years as Governor of Indiana, has emerged a leading possibility for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. Bayh recently received a major boost to his campaign with the withdrawal of former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Many political observers expect that Bayh will pick up much of Warner's support base among moderate to conservative Democrats.
USA Today www.usatoday.com reported on Bayh's likely Presidential campaign and his strategy suggestions for the new Democratic majority in their November 9 edition:
"It's up to us to prove that we're something better than just a mirror image of the people they voted against," Bayh said. "And if we serve up a highly partisan, ideologically extreme, Democratic version of what they just voted against, we're not going to do very well."
"Bayh said Democrats must focus on middle-class concerns, including affordability of health care and college, as well as pension and job security. But they also have to prove Democrats can be trusted with national security and should implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission."
"He singled out reducing the nation's dependence on imported oil as an area where Democrats could immediately prove their willingness to work with Republicans. Bayh is part of a bipartisan coalition of senators backing a bill to promote energy independence through the increased use of alternative fuels and technologies."
Bayh served as Governor of Indiana from 1988 (elected as George Bush I carried the state by a wide margin) to 1998 and left office with a record approval rating. He won election to the U.S. Senate in 1998 with 64% of the vote and was re-elected in 2004 receiving 62% support despite a landslide victory by George Bush II who led the state by 20 percentage points.
Evan Bayh is a former Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council but is not really the typical DLC type. For one thing, he far more pro-labor than many DLC pols with a 93 percent rating (and a 91 percent lifetime score) from the AFL-CIO in 2005. Like many Democrats during the Clinton era, Bayh was conned by the free traders and is now taking a more worker friendly approach to trade issues. Bayh stood up to the big business interests and voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. See link to an informative article on Bayh and labor. http://tinyurl.com/pjqfl Bayh looks like a strong candidate who can uphold the traditions of Democrats while expanding the party's base.
www.allamericapac.com
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Blue Dog Democrats take 9 U.S. House seats
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Blue Dogs Howl in Victory: Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Stro ng in 110th Congress
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Contact: Eric Wortman 202-226-4571
BLUE DOGS HOWL IN VICTORY
Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Strong in 110th Congress
WASHINGTON, DC – Nine new members-elect are set to join the Blue Dog Coalition, including FL-16 Tim Mahoney, IN-02 Joe Donnelly, IN-08 Brad Ellsworth, IN-09 Baron Hill, NC-11 Heath Shuler, NY-20 Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-24 Michael Arcuri, OH-06 Charlie Wilson, and PA-08 Patrick Murphy.
By electing Blue Dogs to Congress, the country has sent a strong message to Washington in support of fiscal responsibility and the bipartisan ideals that the Blue Dogs were founded upon. The Blue Dog Coalition is dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics with a particular focus on the financial stability and national security of the United States. Blue Dogs represent the center of the House of Representatives and appeal to the mainstream values of the American public.
In the 110th Congress, the members-elect will join the Blue Dogs in their fight for fiscal responsibility and greater government accountability. As moderates and fiscal hawks, the Blue Dogs have made a determined effort to reach across the aisle to engage in a real debate on fiscal responsibility – including the adoption of pay-as-you-go, a core Blue Dog value that government should not spend more than it has.
All 35 Blue Dogs who ran for re-election to the House will return to the Coalition in the 110th Congress. Those members include: Joe Baca (CA-43), John Barrow (GA-12), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Marion Berry (AR-01), Sanford Bishop (GA-02), Dan Boren (OK-02), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Jim Cooper (TN-05), Jim Costa (CA-20), Robert E. “Bud Cramer (AL-05), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Jane Harman (CA-36), Stephanie Herseth (SD), Tim Holden (PA-17), Steve Israel (NY-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jim Marshall (GA-08), Jim Matheson (UT-02), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Mike Ross (AR-04), John Salazar (CO-03), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), Adam Schiff (CA-29), David Scott (GA-13), John Tanner (TN-08), Ellen Tauscher (CA-10), Gene Taylor (MS-04), and Mike Thompson (CA-01).
The returning members have built the Coalition into a serious player in the policy arena, promoting positions which bridge the gap between ideological extremes. Many of the group’s proposals have been praised as fair, responsible, and positive additions to a Congressional environment too often marked as partisan and antagonistic.
The Blue Dog Coalition was formed following the 1994 election debacle for Democrats. The founding members chose the name Blue Dog Coalition because they literally felt “choked blue by the extremes in both parties”. Over the past 12 years, the Blue Dog Coalition has grown from a small organizing group to a 44 strong member organization when the 110th Congress convenes.
* DEMOCRATS MAKE PROGRESS IN CLOSING THE "GOD GAP"
Steven Waldman has an interesting column on the faith-based website Beliefnet.com about how Democratic gains with religious voters in this year's election. Waldman points out that Democrats fielded several strongly pro-life Congressional candidates and increased support among those who attend church on a weekly basis. A majority of Roman Catholics voted Democratic this year in U.S. House elections and the party attracted greater support from evangelical Christians as well. See link to full article at http://tinyurl.com/ykxydd Waldman describes the increase in support for Democrats among the faithful especailly Catholics and evangelical Christians.
"The "God Gap" -- One of the most important factors in recent years has been the development of a religiosity gap in which the most church-going Americans voted Republican and the least devout voted Democratic. This gap closed a bit in this election.""People who attended church weekly voted 58 percent to 41 percent for Bush in 2004. This year, they voted 51 percent for Republicans to 48 percentfor Democrats."
"Catholics -- With all the attention on evangelicals, we shouldn't lose sight of another significant result: In this election, Democrats won back the Catholic vote. In 2004, President Bush beat John Kerry among Catholics 52 percent-47 percent. The exit polls for the House races show Catholics going 57 percent-42 percent for the Democrats. Democrats gained ground among white Catholics and Hispanics.""Pro-Life Democrats – Several seats were snatched away from Republicans by pro-life Democrats. Several incumbent Republicans in the House and the Senate were unseated by pro-life Democrats. Robert Casey, Jr., who is anti-abortion, defeated Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania. Brad Ellsworth, who defeated Indiana incumbent Congressman John Hostettler, also opposes abortion, as does former pro-football quarterback Heath Shuler, who defeated North Carolina Republican Congressman Charles Taylor."
"Evangelical Democrats – While it wasn't exactly an evangelical stampede, Democrats did make noticeable improvements among white evangelical Christians. In 2004, John Kerry got 21 percent of "white evangelical/born-again" Christians. This year, the Democrats got 29 percent.""In all likelihood, these were not conservative "religious right" voters but more moderate evangelical voters who had trended Republican in recent years but supported Democratic approaches to the environment and poverty."
http://www.beliefnet.com/
If the Democratic Party can recruit more candidates with a commitment to economic fairness and traditional values, our party will have a strong appeal to people of faith.
Subject: Blue Dogs Howl in Victory: Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Stro ng in 110th Congress
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Contact: Eric Wortman 202-226-4571
BLUE DOGS HOWL IN VICTORY
Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Strong in 110th Congress
WASHINGTON, DC – Nine new members-elect are set to join the Blue Dog Coalition, including FL-16 Tim Mahoney, IN-02 Joe Donnelly, IN-08 Brad Ellsworth, IN-09 Baron Hill, NC-11 Heath Shuler, NY-20 Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-24 Michael Arcuri, OH-06 Charlie Wilson, and PA-08 Patrick Murphy.
By electing Blue Dogs to Congress, the country has sent a strong message to Washington in support of fiscal responsibility and the bipartisan ideals that the Blue Dogs were founded upon. The Blue Dog Coalition is dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics with a particular focus on the financial stability and national security of the United States. Blue Dogs represent the center of the House of Representatives and appeal to the mainstream values of the American public.
In the 110th Congress, the members-elect will join the Blue Dogs in their fight for fiscal responsibility and greater government accountability. As moderates and fiscal hawks, the Blue Dogs have made a determined effort to reach across the aisle to engage in a real debate on fiscal responsibility – including the adoption of pay-as-you-go, a core Blue Dog value that government should not spend more than it has.
All 35 Blue Dogs who ran for re-election to the House will return to the Coalition in the 110th Congress. Those members include: Joe Baca (CA-43), John Barrow (GA-12), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Marion Berry (AR-01), Sanford Bishop (GA-02), Dan Boren (OK-02), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Jim Cooper (TN-05), Jim Costa (CA-20), Robert E. “Bud Cramer (AL-05), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Jane Harman (CA-36), Stephanie Herseth (SD), Tim Holden (PA-17), Steve Israel (NY-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jim Marshall (GA-08), Jim Matheson (UT-02), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Mike Ross (AR-04), John Salazar (CO-03), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), Adam Schiff (CA-29), David Scott (GA-13), John Tanner (TN-08), Ellen Tauscher (CA-10), Gene Taylor (MS-04), and Mike Thompson (CA-01).
The returning members have built the Coalition into a serious player in the policy arena, promoting positions which bridge the gap between ideological extremes. Many of the group’s proposals have been praised as fair, responsible, and positive additions to a Congressional environment too often marked as partisan and antagonistic.
The Blue Dog Coalition was formed following the 1994 election debacle for Democrats. The founding members chose the name Blue Dog Coalition because they literally felt “choked blue by the extremes in both parties”. Over the past 12 years, the Blue Dog Coalition has grown from a small organizing group to a 44 strong member organization when the 110th Congress convenes.
* DEMOCRATS MAKE PROGRESS IN CLOSING THE "GOD GAP"
Steven Waldman has an interesting column on the faith-based website Beliefnet.com about how Democratic gains with religious voters in this year's election. Waldman points out that Democrats fielded several strongly pro-life Congressional candidates and increased support among those who attend church on a weekly basis. A majority of Roman Catholics voted Democratic this year in U.S. House elections and the party attracted greater support from evangelical Christians as well. See link to full article at http://tinyurl.com/ykxydd Waldman describes the increase in support for Democrats among the faithful especailly Catholics and evangelical Christians.
"The "God Gap" -- One of the most important factors in recent years has been the development of a religiosity gap in which the most church-going Americans voted Republican and the least devout voted Democratic. This gap closed a bit in this election.""People who attended church weekly voted 58 percent to 41 percent for Bush in 2004. This year, they voted 51 percent for Republicans to 48 percentfor Democrats."
"Catholics -- With all the attention on evangelicals, we shouldn't lose sight of another significant result: In this election, Democrats won back the Catholic vote. In 2004, President Bush beat John Kerry among Catholics 52 percent-47 percent. The exit polls for the House races show Catholics going 57 percent-42 percent for the Democrats. Democrats gained ground among white Catholics and Hispanics.""Pro-Life Democrats – Several seats were snatched away from Republicans by pro-life Democrats. Several incumbent Republicans in the House and the Senate were unseated by pro-life Democrats. Robert Casey, Jr., who is anti-abortion, defeated Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania. Brad Ellsworth, who defeated Indiana incumbent Congressman John Hostettler, also opposes abortion, as does former pro-football quarterback Heath Shuler, who defeated North Carolina Republican Congressman Charles Taylor."
"Evangelical Democrats – While it wasn't exactly an evangelical stampede, Democrats did make noticeable improvements among white evangelical Christians. In 2004, John Kerry got 21 percent of "white evangelical/born-again" Christians. This year, the Democrats got 29 percent.""In all likelihood, these were not conservative "religious right" voters but more moderate evangelical voters who had trended Republican in recent years but supported Democratic approaches to the environment and poverty."
http://www.beliefnet.com/
If the Democratic Party can recruit more candidates with a commitment to economic fairness and traditional values, our party will have a strong appeal to people of faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
