The NRCC’s foolish claims about Perriello.

Seeing the NRCC trying to paint Rep. Tom Perriello as Nancy Pelosi’s lapdog is pretty funny. Given Perriello’s voting record, I’m guessing Pelosi’s name doesn’t appear at the top of his fan club stationary. The NRCC’s most foolish claim is that “Perriello votes with Pelosi 91 percent of the time,” therefore he exhibits “unwavering support for Nancy Pelosi’s agenda.” Ninety one percent? That’s it? Morgan Griffith voted with Brian Moran 86% of the time. Shall we conclude that Griffith shows “unwavering support for Brian Moran’s agenda”? Because if that’s how we’re playing, I can definitely work with that.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

7 replies on “The NRCC’s foolish claims about Perriello.”

  1. TARP, stimulus, and the budget have created major problems for moderate and “Blue Dog” Democrats. The climate change bill has also, for those who had to vote for it in committee and will have to on the floor. Bear in mind that almost all the freshmen in this class beat incumbent Republicans in either red or purple districts. To the extent the Speaker continues to push a very progressive agenda, it will hurt the Democrats in the mid-terms. As they say where I grew up, chickens always come home to roost.

    As much as I celebrate the President’s election, there was a significant number of independents who voted for him as a life line in a desperate time. They’re not as progressive as he is, which means they’re not nearly as progressive as the Speaker is. Unless the Democrats moderate their agenda, and protect the Blue Dogs, New Dems and freshmen in centrist districts, this ad is only the beginning and I for one believe it will prove to be a very successful tactic.

  2. Curious… people in our party have been shouting to be moderate and protect the Blue Dog and whatnot for years now and by shoving those people aside we seem to be doing just fine lately. Voters hold more respect for those that stand up for their principles than those that try to please everyone and run to the middle.

  3. Technically Waldo, Pelosi doesn’t vote, so no one can vote with her any percent of the time. That’s how absurd the NRCC’s claim is. The Washington Post vote score is based on loyalty to the majority of the caucus, not Pelosi.

  4. Aside from Parliamentary Police’s excellent point, wouldn’t “unwavering” be 100%? Tom’s at 91%, so isn’t he wavering 9% of the time?

  5. All these statistics are dubious as hell. I ‘memba Waldo’s piece about how there were an amazing # of votes merely to commend things (like the Boy Scouts for instance) in the VA legislature. Almost all are unanimous which renders % of voting with/against in the aggregate meaningless.

    It’s like saying man & ape have 98% (or whatever the # is) identical DNA. Sure, but it’s that last 2% that counts.

  6. Dan, if you’re good with a couple years as “just lately,” and you don’t mind losing the House of Representatives or Senate in the mid-terms, then that’s OK. I just don’t think that’s the definition of sustainable majority for many other folks.

Comments are closed.