Blue Dog Circular Firing Squad

Bumpersticker? (0.00 / 0)

We need one with a Blue Dog and diagonal slash through it.  

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 18:04:30 PM CDT

Some of our Representatives may just be reluctant to (0.00 / 0)

take responsibility for such a significant program.  

We assume that lobbyists for the defense industry win Congressional support with favors.  What if one of the biggest favors is making it easier for Reps to come to a decision?  If they judge on the basis of who's nice to them and courts them and does their homework, the job is a lot easier.  Maybe Blue Dogs are just lazy.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:46:40 AM CDT

"Blue Dog Democrats" (4.00 / 1)

I've never been convinced that "Blue Dog Democrats" aren't poll watchers in their own states trying to preserve their position or run for Senate.  The stories I've read show that many of them just seem to put their fingers up to the wind, and have little idealogical content.

It can be debated, but I do think that if you you're in elected office, you should have some idealogy in mind.  Otherwise you just float around waiting for the easiest position to take -- or you open yourself up to the highest bidder on an issue.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:23:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not Entirely Fair -- Or Accurate (4.00 / 1)

A few points:

1. I have little ideological sympathy with Blue Dogs (other than on the occasional fiscal discipline reminder), but it's worth noting that, in almost every case, their seats would be held by Republicans if they retired or moved to the left.

Am I pleased by Ben Nelson's opposition to health care reform?  No.  But he's the only Nebraska Democrat in any position of authority -- or that has even come close to winning that state in the past 15 years -- and he's a hell of a lot better than any Nebraska Republican.  He also votes for folks like Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer to run committees and set reform agendas, and I like that, too.

2. Burt's call for an anti-Blue Dog bumper sticker is, in most cases, a call for far more right-wing replacements.  And that's not productive.  And, if you don't believe me, name one progressive elected from non-minority-majority districts in the past 15 years from Nebraska, Oklahoma, Idaho, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, or other Blue Dog home states.

There are 52 Blue Dogs in the House today, including most of our newly elected freshmen.  Almost all defeated Republican incumbents.  Any guesses on the size of our majority -- or our ability to pass any significant legislation -- without them?

3. I don't think it's fair to say that all Blue Dogs are "fingers to the wind" politicians.  Over the years, many, like Gary Condit, have made "moderation" synonymous with "vacuity", but there are many more who contribute to progressive solutions in one form or another -- folks like Loretta Sanchez, Patrick Murphy, etc.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:54:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fingers In The Wind (4.00 / 1)

DD, I think I said much the same as you -- our interpretation might be slightly different.  I don't dislike Blue Dogs, I just think they're much more about politics and positioning, rather than idealogy.  A tough way to live in politics -- taking positions based on the next election.

As you say, "their seats would be held by Republicans if they retired or moved to the left."  I recognize that, but that's where they are putting their fingers in the wind.  Kind of sad.  Do the poll, then vote the poll?  Where's the leadership?  

There are almost always ways to be elected to an office and yet live up to your ideals and still be re-elected.  You might have to work harder on the campaign trail.  You might have to explain your position better, and more intelligently.  And from time to time you might have to compromise a bit on the edges and on some "throwaway issues."

In the recent debate on marriage equality, I talked with a number of Democrats in the House and Senate who said they had the difficulty of having to decide whether to support the bill, or support their perceived position of their constituents, who in some cases they thought were against it.  It was a dilemma for them.

I took the position, which I explained here on www.BlueHampshire.com and in other forums, that I think it's perfectly fine to "compromise" on something like a tax, or to vote "no" on building a bridge in your district if the majority of your constiutents are against it, but that on matters of basic human rights you have an obligation to look at the bigger picture -- the greater good.  Otherwise, we might still have separate water fountains in part of this country.  

Blue Dog Democrats shouldn't be standing in the way of health care to satisfy the insurance companies in their district.  Just because there might be campaign contributions at stake for some Democrat in a southern state doesn't mean he or she should vote against a good health care bill that will provide benefit for us in New Hampshire.  Unless, of course, they sincerely take that position and believe in it.

Otherwise, they're only putting their finger in the wind.  Some issues are too important for that.  I do think that polls and focus groups have made politics kind of slushy.  So many candidates nowadays are scared of saying something they really believe -- unless it's been thoroughly polled.  Where is the leadership in that?  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:25:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK (4.00 / 2)

But how far can compromise go before it's not worth it? The current healthcare debate is probably the ultimate example. The stakes are life and death, literally. If they're not helping us, they're helping the GOP. If there is middle ground, I don't see it, and they aren't occupying it.

---

by: JimC @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:15:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We'll find out (4.00 / 1)

As far as I'm concerned. . . If the Blue Dogs negotiate in good faith, but then work to pass comprehensive reform that covers tens of millions more Americans and cuts costs, then it's worth it -- even if that reform doesn't include all of the progress we would like.  

For the reasons that measures discussed above -- namely, shared political welfare -- we are far more likely to get Democratic/moderate than Republican/conservative votes.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:41:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

Sanchez, Murphy, and etc.? Not many, eh? That's what I thought.

I think it's an assumption to think that if Blue Dog Dems "run to the left" they'll be defeated by Repugs. There are several polls over I've seen that shows Americans across the country are more progressive on the issues that we give them credit for.  A primary reason that Blue Dog Dems remain in power is money and corporate elite interests. This is a problem throughout America and the Democratic Party as a whole, but even more so in the, as Janane Garafalo accurately calls them, "cracker-ass Dixiecrat states." It would be great it the Dems and other Democratic Party activists groups invest time and money in these areas, but the odds are already stacked against them. If the DFA and the PDA has the resources to set up there and plant the roots to get good Dems elected, I think there's potential.  But those with money and power don't want that to happen. I think there's a valid argument to be made there.

Unfortunately those with money, influence, and power have such a strong hold on Dems that want to stand up on the right side of the issues in Blue Dog districts. We'd be remiss if we didn't stare at the elephant in the room and acknowledge how much money and elite interests get in the way of representing  the middle and lower classes.  But talking honestly about how corporate power gets in the way is like touching the third rail. The Democratic Party, as a whole, doesn't want to go there. That's a shame, because I think it would make the Dems a better party if they did.  

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:29:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bad habits (0.00 / 0)

You should start making a habit about bringing you polls with you.


www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:36:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In response (4.00 / 2)

Sanchez, Murphy, and etc.? Not many, eh? That's what I thought.

Examples are examples, Ex-Pat.  I didn't pretend to give you a comprehensive list of accomplishments. . . . Here's a couple more:  Bill Clinton headed the DLC.  Steny Hoyer was Blue Dog.  Both have helped to achieve progressive gains.

I think it's an assumption to think that if Blue Dog Dems "run to the left" they'll be defeated by Repugs. There are several polls over I've seen that shows Americans across the country are more progressive on the issues that we give them credit for.

Agreed.  Unfotunately, those people don't live in rural Idaho, western North Carolina, northern Alabama, and lily white portions of Mississippi.  Most (admittedly, not all) Blue Dogs are from districts like that -- ones that voted heavily for Bush and McCain, and have shown no willingness to vote for progressives.  Blue Dogs are the best we can hope for there.

If you'd like district-by-district analysis, I'd be glad to get into the weeds.

A primary reason that Blue Dog Dems remain in power is money and corporate elite interests.

I think that's the reasons REPUBLICANS remained in power.  Most Blue Dogs toppled incumbent Republicans in heavily GOP districts.  They get elected by appearing more conservative than their votes (especially those to place progressive leaders in charge of Congress).

We'd be remiss if we didn't stare at the elephant in the room and acknowledge how much money and elite interests get in the way of representing  the middle and lower classes.  But talking honestly about how corporate power gets in the way is like touching the third rail.

Funny.  I managed to piss off a lot of people on this blog by going after those who lobby for corporate interests, such as PHrMA.  Many BHers who think they're more progressive than I am were extremely uncomfortable when I criticized Democratic leaders for this type of scum-sucking behavior. . . . I don't recall you engaging in any of those debates.

You don't need to convince me.  But, unless people like you (and millions of others) are willing to place campaign finance reform at the top of your personal agendas, we won't change the system.  And we certainly won't do it in the month before Congress votes on health care.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:52:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Get over it (4.00 / 2)

These people are not Democrats. They want the label to put them with the majority but don't want to do the hard work. The camel of the right doesn't just have their nose in our tent, they have set up a mobile home and are building another embassy. I listened with chagrin to Dodd on the News Hour tout the 216 Republicanic ammendments included in his bill and his claim that this made it bi-partison. Then the Republicanic on with him said that it didn't get one Republicanic vote. We are giving away the store and getting nothing for our efforts. Name one Republicanic whose vote has been changed by compromise. That is the failed plan - we might just as well have gone for single payer from the start. The results will be the same.

---

by: xteeth @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:34:25 AM CDT

Speak the truth xteeth! Tell the Dems what they don't want to hear. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:32:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Blue Dogs will rollover n/t (4.00 / 2)

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:38:46 AM CDT

Blue? No, pink. (0.00 / 0)

"Yellow Dog Democrats." That was a term I understood. It meant, and was always explained as, "somebody who would vote for a yellow dog over another candidate, so long as he was a Democrat."

The term was used by Republicans to mock these partisans.

The Yellow Dogs were Southerners. Northerners were under more cultural pressure to say, "I always support the best candidate - so far they have always been Dems, but who knows?"

Somebody tried to borrow from this august history and name a group of weak-spined politicians who ran under a Democratic ticket "Blue Dogs." The whole point of the group is, they are not Blue: they emphasize that their votes are not reliably on the Dem side.

Let's call them the Pink Dogs, please.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 17:48:15 PM CDT