Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
There has been a lot of discussion on this site and other sites about whether and how much to question or criticize fellow Dems who are in office. My feeling is policy is okay, but to not get too personal, such as who is a "real Dem" or whatever. For me, if someone identifies with the Democratic Party and is a registered Democrat, then that's what he or she is. I can't get into any thought policing.
That being said, there was an interesting diary (link above) on Daily Kos from a liberal's perspective. Follow below the fold for more.
Apparently Chris Van Hollen, the leader of the DCCC, is concerned that so-called Blue Dog Democrats will be targeted by liberal/progressive groups and on sites like Daily Kos. To his mind, it's better to have a Democrat in the seat than a Republican. But what if that Democrat is voting with the Republicans anyway, and against President Obama's agenda?
Chris Bowers makes some good points in trying to discourage small, online donations for Blue Dogs. Voting for them is one thing, but working and raising money for them, another.
From Bowers
The Blue Dog coalition has made it clear that they believe they have veto power over the entire agenda of the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership. After a meeting with President Obama three weeks before the election, the Blue Dogs declared:
"He also recognized that we had the numbers to block or clear" legislation coming from the White House if he is elected."
If they are coasting that they can block or clear whatever legislation they want, the Blue Dogs consider themselves to be in charge of D.C., not Speaker Pelosi or President Obama. Some highlight of their past behavior include being the driving force in the Democratic Party behind the 2005 bankruptcy bill (they voted 32-4 in favor), the 2006 ending of habeus corpus, the 2007 Iraq War blank check, and the 2008 FISA re-write (see here for both). So far in 2009, they only allowed the stimulus package to go through after extracting a pay-go promise from the Obama administration. Last month, they joined with the New Democrats to block foreclosure relief legislation, which Evan Bayh's Blue Dogs in the Senate seem to have killed. And most of them will vote against the budget, too.
Now, according to the diary by pplcanfly,(linked above the fold) the DCCC is warning one side not to start the "circular firing squad". His/her response is
I know, you think you can take my vote for granted. You think you can pander to me at election time and ignore me later, because I have no one else to vote for. You think that I will vote for Democrats no matter what, because I have always voted for you in the past. You're wrong about that.
If the Democratic Party leadership continues to follow this policy of completely ignoring the left wing of the party, if they continue to shy away from making substantive change, if they continue to let Republicans dominate and bully them, then they have nothing to offer me, and I'll be forced to vote for a primary challenger or stay home in 2010. If they want my vote, they need to give me a good reason to vote for them. Being just a bit better than the Republicans is not enough.
This discussion is to highlight some of the challenges we face as a party going forward. We are governing now, and the strong vote last November was for change, at least to my mind. I don't believe that any Dems in our NH Congressional delegation belongs to this Blue Dog category, either. Not from the voting record, which is what counts in the end.
Still, I'm feeling some of the back and forth here could be more objective, and we need to step back in order to gain perspective. We need to keep our tent big enough, but at the same time, recognize that there are many who have felt they've been wandering in the desert for too long.