Blue dogs in the House of Representatives are well-defined, because they self-identify. But what about the Senate?

There are a number of ways to identify Senatorial Blue Dogs, since they don’t self-identify. My rough definition is that they tend to vote with Republicans on most issues, especially the important issues.

There are many ways to score their voting patterns. For example, Progressive Punch scores Senators and Representatives on the basis of their voting records:

“We show the performance of members within 160 different issue categories, and detailed vote descriptions, thereby empowering you to zero in on what matters to you.”

Their scoring method is described here.

Suffice it to say that for senators, they have chosen seven “hard core progressive United States Senators” as their yard stick. Thus, on each issue, "The Progressive Position" by definition, is the position of the majority of the Progressives.” For Senators, their definitional list consists of Barbara Boxer (CA), Richard Durbin (IL), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Edward Kennedy (MA), Jack Reed (RI), Bernard Sanders (VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).

Now, you might disagree with this list. For example, why isn’t Sen. Feingold one of the Sacrosanct Seven?

As an alternative, I have developed a different yardstick—one provided by Glenn Greenwald in an important post dated January 30, 2008, What "bipartisanship" in Washington means.

In this post, Greenwald identified 12 bills passed over the last couple years “on the most significant and contentious pieces of legislation, particularly (though not only) in the area of national security.” I call these the “dirty dozen,” passed with “bipartisan” support. Each of these bills included provisions that should have earned the scorn of every Democrat.

Greenwald lists the dirty dozen, with links to the roll call votes. Here’s a list of the 12 measures:

1.       To support the new Bush-supported FISA law (GOP – 48-0; Dems – 12-36)

2.       To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq (GOP – 0-49; Dems – 24-21)

3.       To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General (GOP – 46-0; Dems – 7-40)

4.       To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge (GOP – 49-0; Dems – 8-38)

5.       Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran (GOP – 46-2; Dems – 30-20)

6.       To condemn MoveOn.org (GOP – 49-0 ; Dems – 23-25)

7.       The Protect America Act (GOP – 44-0; Dems – 20-28)

8.       Declaring English to be the Government’s official language (GOP – 48-1; Dems – 16-33)

9.       The Military Commissions Act (GOP – 53-0; Dems – 12-34)

10.   To renew the Patriot Act (GOP – 54-0; Dems – 34-10)

11.   Cloture Vote on Sam Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court (GOP – 54-0; Dems – 18-25)

12.   Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq (GOP – 48-1; Dems – 29-22)

Note that in all of these except the second, the GOP block voted Yes. Greenwald described the passage of these bills in this way:

“In almost every case, the proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants.”

Greenwald thinks this kind of bipartisanship is bad. However, I don’t view bipartisanship as inherently a bad idea, and I think Greenwald would agree. Our point, I believe, is that this kind of bipartisanship is phony baloney, and has led to some really bad results.

Using Greenwald’s Dozen votes, I asked this question: How often did each Democrat vote with the Republican block? Which of them voted more often with the Republican block, than with the Democratic progressives? Using this yardstick, the Senatorial Blue Dogs are those who voted with Republicans as often, or more often, on these votes. I included Democratic convert Arlen Specter, and Independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders for comparison.

I suggest that the first two of these, Ben Nelson and Arlen Specter, are truly "Democrats in Name Only" (DINOs). The next six, Carper, Landrieu, Lieberman, Pryor, Bill Nelson, and Johnson, can surely be regarded as hard core senatorial Blue Dogs.  Most politically aware observers will not be surprised to see converted Republican Arlen Specter, “Independent” Joe Lieberman, the Nelsons, and Landrieu on this short list. Good primary opponents are needed for each of them! The second 9 also probably merit the designation of Blue Dogs, because they voted more often with the Republican block than against them in Greenwald’s Dozen votes.

A number of the candidates for president were senators for most or all of this period. Most of them are listed as “not voting” on at least two of the votes: Barack Obama (5-1-5), Hilary Clinton (6-3-3), Joe Biden (7-2-3), and Chris Dodd (6-2-4) [The three numbers are “voted with Republicans”—“voted against Republicans”—“not voting”). All of these voted against the Republican block more often than they voted with it.

On the other end of the scale, the only Democrat with a perfect record on Greenwald’s Dozen votes was Sen. Russ Feingold, who voted against the Republican block on every one of the 12 votes! He deserves some acclaim for this record. Sen. Bernie Sanders was not in Congress for all of these twelve votes, but he was 8-0 with the Democrats on the votes that he participated in. Others who voted with the Republican block only once on these twelve votes, and voted against the block on at least 9 of the votes, were Ron Wyden (D-OR), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA). These are the Senators who knew what these votes reprented, and had the sense and the courage to vote against these bad bills.

But what of Progressive Punch? How do they rate these Senators?

Progressive Punch breaks votes down four ways: “Lifetime,” “2009-2010,” Crucial Votes %, and Overall %. Here, I’ll focus on their Crucial Votes over their Lifetime (see table above). The two “DINOs” have scores of less than 50. The rest of the Senatorial Blue Dogs, as defined by Greenwald’s Dozen votes, mostly have scores of less than 80. However, Mikulski and Rockefeller have scores above 80, suggesting that on legislation other than Greenwald’s Dozen, they have a more progressive record.

The Progressive Punch’s Sacrosanct Seven voted with Republicans on Greenwald’s Dozen no more than 3 times each (of these, Reed and Lautenberg voted with Republicans the most), and voted against the Republican block at least 7 times (Whitehouse voted against the Republicans 7 times). Those atop both lists as most progressive include Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, and Edward Kennedy.

Finally, one point needs emphasis: While my rating is based on a partisan reading of Greenwald’s dirty dozen legislative acts of the Bush administration, this should not be interpreted merely as a rating that glorifies partisanship per se. That is, the legislative yardstick is based on a set of particularly odious bills that did not deserve bipartisan support, and that all senators should have opposed. Other legislation may well have deserved and received bipartisan support (such as Senate votes 58-40 to end Production of F-22 Fighter -Bipartisan).

In conclusion, I nominate Sens. Arlen Specter and Ben Nelson as true DINOs, based on their voting records. In addition, Carper (D-DE), Landrieu (D-LA), Pryor (D-AR), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Lieberman (I-CT) and Johnson (D-SD) certainly merit the designation Senatorial Blue Dogs. Salazar of course is no longer in the Senate, and although Lieberman is now a so-called “Independent,” he is caucusing with the Democrats.  Additional Senatorial Blue Dogs should probably include Dorgan (D-ND), Bayh (D-IN), Conrad (D-ND), Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), and Baucus (D-MT).

Bob in HI