ACTION: Tell 'New Dems' to Stop Paying Former Bank Lobbyists With Your Tax Dollars
CQ Politics says that "Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona have joined a quiet revolt in the House that could slow some of President Obama's fast-moving priorities." This, we are told, is because "The two are among 49 Democrats from congressional districts that backed Republican Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential race and whose support for the Democratic majority's progressive agenda is increasingly not assured."
But is that true? Is this an honest attempt to represent their districts? Or does it have anything to do with the fact that Matheson is a Blue Dog, Giffords is a member of the New Democrat Coalition, and lobbyist money is flowing into their coffers now that they control what legislation gets passsed? Giffords' district is among the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. Are they truly representing "conservative" interests, or just open for business?
There's a PR campaign afoot to cast "New Dems" as "centrists," in contrast to more conservative "Blue Dogs." Kagro offers some further clarification to the assertion that there is a big difference between the two on cramdown legislation: