Once again, here's the list of the Blue Dogs (plus Sestak) who are against the supplemental because of the conditions it imposes. I removed Kirsten Gillibrand, because she signaled she'd vote for the bill after internal deliberations and public pressure from her supporters.

Here's the list, with three new members (Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), and Bob Ethridge (NC-02)). Lots of Indiana reps on the list, which is nice because it's Evan Bayh whose wavering in the Senate (along with the Nelsons, of course).

Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Melissa Bean (IL-08)
Dan Boren (OK-02)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Bud Cramer (AL-02)
Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Bob Ethridge (NC-02)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20) ???
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
John Salazar (CO-03)
Joe Sestak (PA-07)
Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Gene Taylor (MS-04)

Today's big win in the Appropriations Committee is good for momentum. Win or lose, Pelosi is an amazing Speaker.

From a source close to the House Democratic caucus, here's a list of Blue Dogs that don't want to vote for this bill because it has a certain date for withdrawal.  

Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Melissa Bean (IL-08)
Dan Boren (OK-02)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Bud Cramer (AL-02)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
John Salazar (CO-03)
Joe Sestak (PA-07)
Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Gene Taylor (MS-04)

It's sad to see some freshmen we supported on the list.  Joe Sestak, Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Arcuri had some online support from the progressive netroots.  Tim Mahoney, Heath Shuler, Brad Ellsworth, and Baron Hill were mostly to nearly all Rahm recruits.

These people are the Democrats that held Pelosi and the progressive hostage on the language for a firm withdrawal.  They are keeping the war going.  They need to be brought over.

UPDATE: Sestak isn't a Blue Dog, and I'm told that Kirsten Gillibrand just wants to see the bill first. Mmmkay. Color me skeptical. A simple public statement would do wonders.

UPDATE AGAIN: Kirsten Gillibrand has publicly stated she will vote for the supplemental.

There's more...

Statement   April 20,2006

Like any family, the family of Labor and Democratic politics sometimes has disagreements.  Last year, the Northeastern Illinois Federation of Labor and Congresswoman Bean had a disagreement about CAFTA.  Some gleefully predicted that without Labor's support Bean would be easy pickings.  Several candidates couldn't wait to "out conservative" each other.

What the anti-worker ultra-conservatives forgot was, LABOR NEVER ABANDONED CONGRESSWOMAN BEAN.  Some prodigal sons of Labor walk a different path, some always have.  But the men and women of Labor will come together and give their continued support to Congresswoman Bean.  Men and women who work for a living know that in Congresswoman Bean we have someone who will listen to our voice even if she does not always agree with it.

Congresswoman Bean and other Democratic officials in Lake County have already been targeted by ideologues who have launched unscrupulous, negative attacks. What they forgot was for every nasty robo-phone call, we will have hundreds walking the street, knocking on doors, and answering people's questions.  

There's more...

Here's my response to the major tag team Chris Bowers and Kos smackdown yesterday, where they sort of used me as a pinata.  Kos called my post on Melissa Bean 'extraordinarily stupid'.  And Chris isn't such a fan either of this way of thinking.  I did some more research on Bean, and so I'll just admit that I was wrong here.  Challenging Bean in the primary while supporting her in the general is the right strategy.  She isn't my favorite Democrat, but she's a D in a tough district.

Still, let me ask a question, given that turnout for Ciro and Busby was really low.  Is there a conflict between us Democrats having 'to give people a reason to vote' and us supporting most Democrats no matter what?  Should we support Democrats who don't 'give people a reason to vote' and undercut the brand?  Or should we hinge support on whether candidates 'give people a reason to vote', and create incentives for good Democrats (they'll gain our support) and bad Democrats (they'll be attacked until they move towards us, and then they'll gain our support)?  There's a fair amount of agreement on the idea that yes, attacking Democrats who undercut the brand is a good idea.  None of us on the blogs spared Lieberman any grief.  Markos and Jerome argue in CTG that single issue groups owe loyalty to a larger progressive movement, and that candidates in turn owe loyalty back to this movement.  So where should this line be drawn?  One way of settling it is to look at turnout in the Connecticut primary, though that won't be high because it's August and there really aren't comparables.  I guess one could answer that we need to settle these fights in the primaries; ok, then we need to do a much better job in 2007-2008 of fielding challengers.

To be very clear, I do think Kos and Chris are right on Bean. I think they are right on Casey. I didn't initially support him, but now I do. They have convinced me that you get behind the Democrat in the general. I'm still making a list, and checking it twice...

There's more...

Apparently unions are backing an independent challenger to right-wing Democrat Melissa Bean.  Her her vote for CAFTA is one of the key drivers.

Key unions in the district--UNITE HERE, SEIU, the Teamsters and the Machinists (to point out the obvious, reps from both labor federations)--are actually lending a hand to Bill Scheurer, the independent who is running for the seat. Says one labor insider: "Scheurer could get at least 4 percent, maybe even ten percent, which would mean Bean is toast."

Good for them.  I know there are arguments about a House majority, but it's extraordinarily rare for one seat to really matter in the House.  The Democratic Party is the party of working people.  Sometimes it's just that simple.

Regardless, Bean's been putting on notice, as have the CAFTA 15.

Update: Ok, so there's a typical 'Don't Nader!' cry from the comments. But realize, a union is not the Democratic party, and its first duty is to its members. Now there are strategic points at which supporting someone like Bean makes sense, but only in exceptional circumstances. It's just a cardinal rule of politics - if someone goes after you, you have to beat them and/or create a disincentive for them to do it again. Bean's record is bad on working family issues, and that merits a response from unions. At the end of the day, unions have to look out for their members, and the simplest way for Democrats to ensure party loyalty is to look out for union members as well. Bean didn't do that.

There's more...