What if Obama didn't support Blue Dogs?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/5/863794/-A-Question-For-The-Daily-Kos-Community-

MUST read!

Here is an excerpt: "What would happen if the President stopped protecting egregious incumbents like Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Ben Nelson, and Senator Max Baucus and the Blue Dogs in the House?

What if the protection stopped because these incumbents opposed him on most of his policy initiatives, such as working to water down vital legislation, killing the public option, and creating loopholes?

If such protection stopped, then the message would be sent that these incumbents did not hold up the Democratic Party platform. And the incumbent protection racket would end.

It'd have the galvanizing effect of stopping the rightward shift of the Democratic Party and restoring the values and principles of the Democratic Party by supporting progressives, and upholding progressive ideas."

good question. And given the states they come from, that'd be a distinct possibility.

I don't like any of them, but would a rethug be better?

Is there any difference between a rethug and a Blue Dog? Both are obstructionists and corrupt a-holes.

Count seats.

So they are over-valued seatwarmers -- that helps? Really? When they obstruct as much as a thug?

That's not working for the voters -- that's an elitist form of job security for the Dem Party. It.doesn't.work.and.needs.to.change.

Remember CHANGE -- that was promised too... :eyes:

I've seen that movie.

Jesus Christ -- the party needs to fight to get REAL dems in those seats. I don't believe the country wants bonehead in charge. And this fearmongering knee jerk reaction to changing the Dem party smacks of the same sort of nonsense the thugs use on their party.

Open your mind to the possibility of CHANGE -- remember THAT promise that is evidently included in the long list of toss aways from the campaign?

Some of us are still willing to fight for that, rather than sit back and allow corrupt Dinos to stay in office as benchwarmers for corporate control.

:eyes:

Tell us how the 'possibility of change' and your 'willingess to fight it out' worked out for your junior Senate seat. Did he get replaced by a 'real Dem'? He didn't get replaced by a Dem at all.

You're out of touch.

Look up cognitive dissonance dude -- your photo is next to the definition.

The word 'change' has no meaning in conservative states that Obama didn't even carry.

when you have pieces of shit like Lincoln/Lieberman/Landrieu/Nelson/Baucus/etc who are incapable of voting as Democrats?

We now have the "health care bill" written by the Heritage foundation, and will soon have the "financial reform" bill written by the "federal" (like Hell it is) reserve. What's next? The BP "environmental protection" act?

This is what happens when you allow these frauds in our party. And there should be NO interference at all from the national party in primaries, and certainly not in obvious bias towards the least Democratic candidates.

I suspect that more than few of the ones who defend them actually support what these blue dog turds are doing to our party, and our country.

The rightward march is very much in evidence here.

can keep the majority from accomplishing anything?

I have a very simple view of it - I want to know who my enemies are, and I don't want people claiming to be my friends who are secretly (or not so secretly) working against me.

Did it really hurt the party when Joe Fucking Lieberman bailed? No. Nothing changed, because he kept on doing what he had been doing, only without the imprimatur of the party. It, in fact, relieved the party from his taint.

I'd rather we had fewer seats which we could count on than more seats which are of dubious loyalty.

Bluedogs still allow us to have majority leaders, instead of minority leaders.

Here's a thought -- the Dems need to grow a spine, stop worrying about their retirement packages and fight to get REAL Dems in those seats. Same old same old gets nothing done.

party.

:wow:

But they're our assholes?!

Get rid of them and back some REAL Dems.

:thumbsup: Seems difficult to find real Dems though-maybe because of the conservative states?

I live in Georgia, and for the longest time thought progressive Dems were banned from the area. But they ARE here. And more are coming out every week.

The Dem chairman should be doing that. If Howard Dean was still involved we'd have that happening. But the one in office now is a non-starter, obviously.

You get a Republican.

...and who's this "we" you call for to get rid of them? Unless you're in a House District or State represented by a Blue Dog, you have no say in the matter.

Cutting off the blood to your brain.

Or is it that getting real Dems is too much like work? :sarcasm:

This guy.



Reality is your jackbooted thug here, not me. Show us how easy it is to elect 'real Dems' in Georgia and I'll happily apply that model to Texas.


On edit: And who was it that replaced 'real Dem' Max Cleland? That 'real Republican' Saxby Chambliss. You guys are definitely going in the wrong direction.

And has continued to be stolen in every election since. The electro-fraud machines MUST go, and its very telling that the DLC doesn't seem all that concerned about them. Given the suspicious results in the New Hampshire primaries in both 2004 and 2008, they might well be taking advantage of the fraudulent technology themselves.

It is an experiment that the lily-livered Dems have NEVER tried. They look at the demographics instead of at the candidates and decide to give their party money and support to the guy who won't make waves, who has no populist undertones, who is most maleable to the party structure, leaving some very good, very progressive candidates begging for scraps.

You know as well as I that EVERY state - no matter how red - has some very good liberal democratic politicians - but they don't get the funding needed to push to the next level because the 'conventional wisdom' is they CANNOT win.

If there is one thing I've learned over the years, conventional wisdom is ALL conventional and NO wisdom.

People back strong ideas, conviction, and fight. A good liberal Dem exhibiting those qualities will beat a wishy-washy Republican, often in even the most conservative districts - look at Dennis Kucinich.

If the party apparatus were to throw all its resources for just ONE election cycle behind the most liberal candidates they can find in ALL districts, you'd be amazed at the sea change that would ensue. That's why I only donate to liberal organizations, not to the DSCC or DCCC - I want my money to go to candidates who will beat not only the republicans but the blue dogs as well.

YOU DON'T DEFEAT THE ENEMY BY BECOMING THE ENEMY.

The thing about 'wishy-washy Republicans' is: there aren't any. They get winnowed out in THEIR primaries and the red states and districts run the stalwart standard bearers.

And if Dennis Kucinich could carry any suburban or rural district south of the 10th district in Ohio, I'd be mighty surprised.

The first Blue Dog named in the OP is Blanche Lincoln. Polls show that her more progressive challenger, Bill Halter, would do better in the general election than she would.

So, take all those arguments in this thread about how bad it is to elect a Republican -- those arguments just became criticisms of Obama (and Bill Clinton) for endorsing Lincoln.

We're talking policy here, not on votes to name a Post Office. When it comes to Democratic policy, the blue dogs might just as well be republicans.

You saw what Nelson (D-Insurance Industry) did to health care reform. I don't give a whoop if he votes with the party on highway appropriations or to give NASA an extra 1.5 billion over the next 5 years - LOOK at what happened to health care reform.

When blue dogs block primary legislation who gives a fuck how often they vote with the party on inconsequential shit?

They ALL need to go. If they can't support us, then either put someone in who CAN support us, or let someone take the seat who we can work against.

republicans are NOT my concern.

But when a Democrat votes against Democratic and national interests I don't want to be constrained in criticism of the Dem simply because he's a Dem.

If a Republican votes 'yes' on X issue, I'll fight it. But you are saying what then a Democrat votes 'yes' on the SAME issue we are supposed to let it slide because he's a Democrat.

Fuck that. A wrong vote is a wrong vote. If a Democrat continually votes against the party, he should be thrown out of office - even if he is replaced by a Republican, because then the party machinery will gear up to fight against the known enemy, rather then be torn and twisted in making apologies for the fifth columnist in our own ranks.

It is the blue dogs who are making the party ineffective, not the solid liberals. When the Dixiecrats abandoned the party it kicked off the greatest resurgence of the party since the days of FDR. Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Medicare all came about after the party was purged of the weasels in our midst.

There is no 'prove it', because the proof is in the doing, and the only way to prove that liberals can win in red states is to fund them, back them, give them full congressional and administrative support to get their message out, and match up their message with that of the administration, so that the voters there will not see the candidates as aberrations, but as standard bearers of the party. Dean did what he could of that when he was DNC chair - and the result was a wave of Democratic successes in areas that had been written off for years. Of course, the DLC/New Dems repudiated those successes and followed that up with pushing blue dogs who of course won, because ANYBODY would have won against the republicans in the last go round - but notably, the DNC refused to back LIBERAL candidates at all, so there's your proof - the 'proof' is if we don't back liberals we don't elect liberals.

A vote for blue dogs is a vote for corporatism, corruption, and diminishment of our democracy.

Just what I'd expect.

If you can't say it on twitter, it's not worth saying.

if they were the majority leaders. Congressional investigations into "socialized medicine", hot-button social issue votes that distract rather than deal with the countries fundamental problems. As little use as I have for Blue Dogs (and wish each would be replaced by a progressive), if (a big, but real, IF) a Blue Dog is all that can get elected in a state or district and will keep me from enduring McConnell/Boehner congressional control I can hold my nose.

don't seem to grasp how badly different things would be under McConnell. This, along with the fact that the small state overrepresentation in the Senate will always favor conservatives, is why we have to swallow blue dogs.

where the blue dogs come from?

You'll always find isolated aberrations (see: Brown, Scott; Rockefeller, Jay), and some are always quick to say that if it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. Which is true, but can it happen in enough places at the same time to ever form a majority? No, I don't think there's any evidence of that.

And they would much rather see nothing of substance done, just so they can keep the *majority* that does NOTHING because of the DINOs.
The repukes haven't got the market on blind allegiance - the Dem party has a unit of lemmings as well.

like minded conservative Democrats. As hearlded by Rahm Emmanuel, the Obama administration considers progressives to be "F---ing retarded".

... sounds like the viewpoint of some DUers, too

What if us "Blue Dogs" didn't support him in 08?
- He would not be President.

What if us "Blue Dogs" do not support him in 12?
- He will not be President.

Moderate Dems make up the majority of the Democratic Party and making progressive values and principles the ONLY values and principles of the Democratic Party will only have the "galvanizing effect" of forcing ALOT of those moderate Dems out of the party. Do you really believe the Democratic Party would be relevant in any way if half of its majority voted Republican?

Democrats are NOT a lockstep party and those who think it should be would be very wise to listen to the words of Babylonsister and others up above.

HALF OF ITS MAJORITY ALREADY DO VOTE REPUBLICAN - AND IT IS THE HALF THE FUCKING BLUE DOGS PUT THERE.

Disconnect much?

30 Democratic Senators vote Republican? Don't think so.

And the Blue Dog Coalition Members in the House of Representatives number 54. Out of 254. That's one in five, not 'half'.

I was simply throwing the "half" that tim ignorantly cited back in his face.

Like all conservatives, he has an overblown opinion of his side's power. The blue dogs are not so numerous that we couldn't lose every fucking one of them and still retain power, if even half their number was replaced by real Democrats.

"Blue Dog" Dem reps vote that way because the people who put them in that position (the voters) expect them to. We would elect progressive reps IF we wanted to represented by progressives.

Moderates who do not vote for a progressive solution are NOT automatically voting Republican. They are wanting a more moderate solution and screaming for them to shut up and take it because you know better than they do, is NOT going to work.

We can work together to better the country or we can bitch about the job the next GW is doing. You're choice.

Unless you are so far to the fucking right that you don't recognise what 'liberal' and 'progressive' mean, like the teabaggers.

Voting against progressive interests IS voting republican. Surrendering only PART of our liberties is not a 'moderate' response. Bettering the country has ALWAYS been the progressive platform, and voting against the progressive platform is voting against 'bettering the country'.

The voters are not who put the blue dogs in office - the blue dogs are corrupt pieces of shit wholly owned by a plethora of corporate interests, and their offices were bought and paid for by said interests. They got elected because they got the funding.

And the idea that you are willing to work together with progressives is outright laughable. That is the Republican way of doing things - let's work together, be bi-partisan - all you have to do is everything we say.

IF the liberal solution is the moderate solution as you say, then why do only 25-30% of Democrats identify themselves as being liberal? Its because liberals/progressives and conservatives do not get to define what is and is not moderate. That is determined by what the majority of the people are willing to accept and the consistent back and forth election swings show that the majority do not support too much or too little govt. So, until those swings stop, liberals/progressives and conservatives are NOT the moderate positions.

Voting against some progressive interests is not voting Republican, and it is blind foolishness to say it is. Progressives do not get to choose for others what liberties are worth surrendering and they do not get to choose for others what would be better for them.

Blue Dogs get elected because they receive the votes. They receive the votes because voters like their position more than they like the progressive or conservative position. You can make excuses about why the ideas are rejected until the cows come home, but it just prevents the truth from being seen.

Moderates do work with progressives, but the "we know best for all" all or nothing demands from progressives cause them to see anything other than total acceptance of their views as being Republican. Healthcare, the wars, the 2nd Amendment, all are proof of this.

Obama is doing just what he wants to do: govern to the right of Nixon

I've never understood part of DU's obsession with the idea of if you run a progressive in a conservative/moderate district that = a win. Not going to happen unless the Repub opposition gets caught screwing a horse (and then's it's a 50-50 proposition). If you insist on the party purity platform championed by a minority in the Democratic Party then you're looking at minority status in the Congress and probably the Presidency. I'd rather have people that vote my way the majority of time versus people who will vote against it all the time.

If we have to be conservative in order to win, we have not really won anything.

The reason that conservatives hold so much power is because the opposition to them is so weak. Saying that we have to be weak, because otherwise we would lose is surrendering without a fight. The supposed solution - be moderate - is actually the cause of the problem.

When there is a strong left wing narrative, and an infrastructure that supports that - the Minnesota DFL and successful politicians like Wellstone being prime examples - all of the centrist moderate crap is shown to be a bunch of hooey. People say they we have to be centrist and moderate because the electorate is. The truth is that the public is centrist and moderate because we are, so they never hear anything clear and powerful in opposition to the conservative agenda.

This "well we won't fight for it now, because we would lose if we did, so we will be moderate and centrist, so we can first win, and then we will fight or it later" is what has been tried for the last 40 years, and it has failed miserably and is the main reason that the right wing has had such great success.

Tow steps forward and then three backward is no better than a step backward. It is worse, because it gives people the illusion that we are making progress. We now have a Democratic party to the right of where the Republican party was 40 years ago. So even when we win, we lose. That is not progress, and it certainly is no ringing endorsement for continuing the cautious, moderate, centrist approach.

Rahm Emmanuel and the other people from the DLC pro-corporate moderate (conservative) faction who have now gained control over the party may succeed, in which case the Democratic party will replace the Republican party as the dominant conservative party in the country and a new party on the left will no doubt emerge. Or they may fail, in which case the battle for the soul of the party will begin again. Either way, the centrist approach by the pro-corporate "third way" faction and the traditional Democratic party base can not co-exist mush longer.

"If we sail to the west we will fall off the edge of the world. We know that to be true, because nobody has ever done it."

The progressives are saying: "Let's just give it a try, and see what happens."

Conservatives (which some here translate as 'moderates') are scared to get out of sight of the shore line because they are consumed by the mythologies they have themselves created.

We are in an era that needs some government and corporate reform. It's obvious what needs to be fixed. It happened because we took down laws that made us safe and prosperous after The Great Depression. Just put those laws (Glass Stegoll for example) back online. We need work programs, once again, we have done these before (CCC, WPA) The Blue dogs are adamantly against doing the right thing. Ignore them. It's just not the right time for them. A guy as smart as Obama should know this and DO IT.

(sigh) Much better to be popular, I guess than to take the heat and do what's right.

From the Democratic Party 2008 Platform:

-- http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

If any Republicans had so openly revolted (dare I say, "mutinied?") against their own party's platform, they'd find all their support and funding pulled. But on our side, we fall over ourselves to keep these Blue Dogs happy.

So it goes.

I'm sick of people who think that there is a valid debate over whether a much more liberal Democrat could win in a place like Arkansas in this environment. Bill Halter is running WORSE than Blanche Lincoln against any no-name Republican. From listening to your theories, Bill Halter should be winning over any Republican in a landslide. Because he is to Lincoln's left.

I think the ultimate problem is that people don't know how to distinguish what they WANT with what they are going to get. They just can't take the fact that they are not going to get what they want, so they pull scenarios out of their ass where a Kucinich gets elected in Arkansas.

There is a HUGE difference between a Democraic Congress with blue dogs and a Republican congress. HUGE. Instead of debating over whether the stimulus was big enough, they would be debating over how MUCH of a tax cut to give to the top 1% in the name of "stimulus." Instead of debating whether financial reform goes far enough, we would be debating over how much of a tax credit to give to big banks. If you don't get that by now, you would absolutely get it after a year or two of speaker Boehner. Reality has a way of forcing people to realize their actual best interests, even if they are in deep denial prior to reality taking hold.

Compared to Republican control, some pepole here really have no idea how good they have it.