you just don't get it do you? My idea is that every democrat could essentially be a Maurice Hinchey or Barney Frank but would only show it on occasion. It doesn't matter if you have 230 or 290 democratic members. All that matters is that the legislation passes. The idea is to only propose one major controversial bill each session so the democrats from conservative districts can vote for them but also vote conservative on other issues so it can obscure your voting record.
My idea is not to have a bunch of Larry McDonalds or John Raricks on the house floor but rather to have a lot more Bart Gordons or John Spratts. By that I mean guys who were probably unabashed liberals but were able to conceal it for the most part and stay entrenched for decades on end.
IMHO - both "yes" and "no". More precisely: "dependent on district". Spratt's district (now, in slightly modified form - Mulvaney's) gave Obama about 44% of vote. For
such districts your strategy will work: people there will tend to forgive a "liberal apostasy" on part of their congressman if it will happen infrequently. But for some districts, which Democratic "Blue dogs"even managed to win in 2007-08 (Minnick's, Childers's, Cazayoux's Bright's) - unlikely. Uning your own words - they need Larry McDonald's and John Rarick's, not Spratt's and Gordon's. And
such democrats are extremely rare now (i really temped to have something like "census" and find - which
really conservative Democrats and
really liberal Republicans still exist in elective offices)..
