Like so many others here at Daily Kos, I am totally disgusted with the abject collapse of Democratic opposition in the recent FISA reauthorization that passed both the Senate the House this weekend. There is no way to make a silk purse out of this one. The Democratic Party and its congressional were made into laughing stocks. I’ve included some data in map and tabular forms for those interested in a post mortem.
Here is the House FISA vote:
Follow me below the fold for the Senate.
Follow me below the fold for the Senate.
Here is the Senate FISA Vote:
First off - some numbers:
In total, 57 of 280 Democrats voted "Yes" - 20%.
In the House, 41 of 231 Democrats voted "Yes" - 18%.
In the Senate, 16 of 49 Democrats voted "Yes" - 33%.
But within these numbers are some interesting - better said - disturbing trends.
I think it is important to look at how the freshman class voted, how senators and representatives from different regions voted, and how various members of minority groups voted.
As for the House Democratic freshman class - the news is grim. Of the 31-seat pick-up last November, 11 voted "Yes" - 35% - or nearly twice the House average. Only 1 freshman that was not a pick-up voted "Yes" – 9%. I agree, those pick-up seats may be in swing districts, but if the swing on crucial votes is usually against the Democrats what good is it? Does it actually do harm since it undermines the Democratic leadership?
The Senate freshmen were worse. 4 of 8 voted "Yes" for a whopping 50% score – 17 percentage points above the overall average – just like the House. Webb, McCaskill, Casey, and Klobuchar. Klobuchar?? For gawd’s sake! When the Democrats retain a Senate seat in Minnesota and then cannot count on its vote – something is truly the matter.
House Pick-Ups – 11 of 31 – 35%
AZ – Mitchell – Yes
AZ – Giffords – No
CA – McNerney – No
CO – Perlmutter – No
CT – Courtney – No
CT – Murphy – No
FL – Mahoney – No
FL – Klein – NV
IN – Donnelly – Yes
IN – Ellsworth – Yes
IN – Hill – Yes
IA – Braley – No
IA – Loebsack – No
KS – Boyda – No
KY – Yarmuth – No
MN – Walz – Yes
NH – Shea-Porter – No
NH – Hodes – No
NY – Hall – No
NY – Gillibrand – No
NY – Arcuri – No
NC – Shuler – Yes
OH – Space – Yes
PA – Altmire – Yes
PA – Sestak – No
PA – Murphy – No
PA – Carney – Yes
TX – Lampson – Yes
TX – Rodriguez – Yes
VT – Welch – No
WI – Kagen - No
Other House Freshmen – 1 of 11 – 9%
FL – Castor – No
GA – Johnson – No
HA – Hirono – No
IL – Hare – No
MD – Sarbanes – No
MN – Ellison – No
NJ – Sires – No
NY – Clarke – NV
OH – Sutton – No
OH – Wilson – Yes
TN – Cohen – No
Frosh Senators – 4 of 8 – 50%
MD – Cardin – No
MN – Klobuchar – Yes
MO – McCaskill – Yes
MT – Tester – No
OH – Brown – No
PA – Casey – Yes
RI – Whitehouse – No
VA – Webb – Yes
Next, consider how the regions broke down. Go back up and look at the maps. The House map shows how poorly the Democrats did with Southern representatives. Representatives are fairly evenly divided, but there are only 5 Southern senators left. Although the Senate map doesn’t seem to portray the South as any worse, it is because most Southern states have two Republican senators. The fact is that EVERY Southern senator voted "Yes" – 100%.
The Northeast showed the strongest support for Democratic opposition to granting President Bush additional FISA powers. The next region was – surprisingly – the West, not the Midwest. For those who say that senators and representatives from swing states or districts have to vote more conservatively, I offer the West as a case in point. Western senators and representatives were far more likely to support the Democratic leadership. The Midwest fell somewhere in the middle – certainly not great, but not as estranged from Democratic positions as the South. What that suggests is that electing Western Democrats is far more likely to produce Democrats in the House and the Senate who support overall Democratic policies.
Southerners – 22 of 41 "Yes" Votes
Cramer – Alabama
Davis – Alabama
Ross – Arkansas
Snyder – Arkansas
Boyd – Florida
Barrow – Georgia
Marshall – Georgia
Chandler – Kentucky
Melancon – Louisiana
Taylor – Mississippi
Ethridge – North Carolina
McIntyre – North Carolina
Shuler – North Carolina
Boren – Oklahoma
Cooper – Tennessee
Davis – Tennessee
Gordon – Tennessee
Tanner – Tennessee
Cuellar – Texas
Edwards – Texas
Lampson – Texas
Rodriguez – Texas
Everybody Else – 19 of 41 "Yes" Votes
Altmire – Pennsylvania
Bean – Illinois
Boswell – Iowa
Carney – Pennsylvania
Costa – California
Donnelly – Indiana
Ellsworth – Indiana
Herseth – South Dakota
Higgins – New York
Hill – Indiana
Lipinski – Illinois
Matheson – Utah
Mitchell – Arizona
Peterson – Minnesota
Pomeroy – North Dakota
Salazar – Colorado
Space – Ohio
Walz – Minnesota
Wilson – Ohio
Finally, consider how African American, Hispanic, and Jewish senators and representatives voted. The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are entirely Democratic. Although there is no Congressional Jewish Caucus, there are lists of Jewish members of Congress. Nearly all are Democrats. A good number of Hispanic members of Congress, especially Cuban Americans, are Republican, but do not participate in the CHC.
African Americans and Jews have been victimized by repressive governments and are, not surprisingly, extremely reluctant to give secret extraconstitutional powers of surveillance to the government. Only one member, Artur Davis of Alabama, of the CBC’s 41 members voted "Yes" – 2%. Similarly, only one Jewish Democrat of 38, Dianne Feinstein of California, voted "Yes" – 3%. Feinstein’s "Yes" voted defies logic, party, and heritage. There is plenty of opportunity for a good reporter, here.
The Hispanic vote is more in line with Democratic voting patterns overall. Of the 23 CHC members, 4 representatives voted "Yes" – 17%. This is almost the same percentage as for all Democrats in the House. The voting patterns of members of Congress from minority groups confirm that African American and Jews remain some of the strongest supporters of core Democratic values. Hispanic members of Congress parallel overall Democratic patterns, but are clearly not at odds with Democratic goals.
Congressional Black Caucus – 1 of 41 – 2%
41 voting members – 40 House, 1 Senate – All Democrats
Senator Obama voted "No"
Only one member of the CBC voted "Yes" – Artur Davis, AL
Two "Not Voting" – Yvette Clarke, NY and Lacy Clay, Jr., MO
Congressional Hispanic Caucus – 4 of 23 – 17%
23 members – 22 House, 1 Senate – All Democrats
Senator Robert Menendez voted "No"
Four voted "Yes" – Jim Costa, CA, Henry Cuellar, TX, Ciro Rodriguez, TX, John Salazar. CO
"Not Voting" – Xavier Becerra, CA and Ruben Hinojosa, TX
Jewish Members of Congress – Dem. 1 of 38 – 3%; All 5 of 43 – 12%
43 members – 30 House (29D, 1R), 13 Senate (9D, 2R, 2I)
Of the Democrats
Only one senator voted "Yes" – Dianne Feinstein, CA
(Both Republicans and Lieberman, CFL voted "Yes")
No Dem Representative voted "Yes"
Two "Not Voting" – Ronald Klein, FL and Tom Lantos, CA
(Cantor, R-VA voted "Yes")
Conclusion
I am, at best, circumspect about the prospects for the 2006 class of Democrats. Rather than a great electoral victory for the Democratic Party, I fear that many of these new Democratic members of Congress will work at odds with larger Democratic goals and, in actuality, weaken the party in the long run. I am forced to conclude from this vote and from other critical votes in the past half-dozen years that the South remains a region that is extremely problematic for the Democratic Party. If the Democrats wish to win in the South, they end up electing Blue Dog Democrats who scuttle party policy at the national level. The West and, to a lesser degree, the Midwest offer greater opportunities for creating a Democratic majority that supports overall Democratic goals. Lastly, Democratic support for the aspirations of minority groups in American society remains an essential component of our message. If we listen to them - we receive their support.