You know those Blue Dog democrats everyone hated?

[pnwmom]

Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 04:12 PM - Edit history (1)

We could use some of them back now.

Most of them got replaced by tea party crazies, and we lost the speakership to Boehner.

How's that working out?

Better a Blue Dog dem helping us to control the House than a tea party nut trying to wreck the country.

[cthulu2016]

1. They didn't lose because we hated them, so the

OP seems rather petulant.

[pnwmom]

7. Some of us rejoiced in their defeat, and some of us think we should be following

the tea bagger's lead to our own version of extremism.

I think the party is healthier when it's a large umbrella.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. Agreed. Some among us won't stand for a BlueDogDem in a Red State (the only kind that would win)

Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 01:28 PM - Edit history (1)

but have unrealistic demands; thinking they can place a Liberal in a deep-red district and then win the election. I don't know what planet they're on, but they should understand that, just as a BlueDogDem can't win an election in a liberal district, a *Liberal Democrat can't win in a deep-red district. Why is that so hard for them to understand that simple fact?

[msanthrope]

60. Me--here in PA. The only Democrats we elect here in Pennsyltucky are Blue Dogs. nt

[Demoiselle]

195. You mean like Chaka Fatah?

He's my Congressman, and I'm pretty sure he's not a Blue Dog.

[msanthrope]

200. Honey...Pennsyltucky doesn't include Philly or Pittsburgh..remember what Carville said? nt

[Demoiselle]

207. Pennsyltucky is not quite all of Pennsylvania.

As a life-long Philadelphian, I'm pleased to make that observation.

[Bluenorthwest]

201. I love your Congressman.

Chaka Fatah is the stuff and certainly no Blue Dog.

[Demoiselle]

206. I love him too. Good guy, classy and smart.

[Hekate]

210. Glad to have him. Would he be able to win outside the district that elected him?

[Demoiselle]

216. His district includes chunks of both the city and its Western suburbs.

I think he has pretty broad appeal.

[cthulu2016]

77. While wondering what planet people are on...

On what planet are disgruntled progressive posters on DU responsible for bluedogs losing to conservatives in 2010?

I get that some folks are heavily invested in the lie that the left didn't turn out in 2010 and thus will continue telling that lie, but it is quite petulant to do so.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

89. The lie?

The youth vote was down by nearly 50% from 2008 to 2010. Participation by Black and Hispanic voters was off by about a third. That's not a lie. That's math.

And to make matters worse, the Republican won a majority of women voters for the first time since 1982.

[cthulu2016]

95. Hmmmm... so you deduce "left" from ethnicity?

Intriguing.

The drop off was among centrist dems and part-time/first-time voters who had voted for Obama in 2008.

That is not the left. That is not ultra-liberals.

The Republicans won a majority of women... and to you this means the left didn't vote? Because all Democratic women are leftists?

Like I said, some folks are really invested in this nonsense.

[Capt. Obvious]

114. Black/left - same diff

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

117. Ummm....

Since young and minority voters go overwhelmingly Democratic, I'd say that's a pretty fair bet. Since women have favored Democrats for nearly thirty years, I'd say that's a pretty fair bet as well.

Hint: "Left" is not a ballot choice. You either show up and vote Democratic or you don't.

[pnwmom]

126. African American voters are undeniably far more likely to vote Democratic.

This isn't a myth. It's reality.

[Capt. Obvious]

137. Was it African Americans who primaried Blue Dogs?

[pnwmom]

145. No. But they didn't help them stay in office. n/t

[Rex]

154. Doesn't matter, this is to keep the shit stirred.

DU cannot function as a unit, there are people here to make sure of that.

[progressoid]

69. Our own version?

Like replacing Rinos with bleeding heart, dyed in the wool, pro-environment, pro-worker, anti-corporate, pro-woman rights, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-military industrial complex, old fashioned liberal Democrats? Sounds good to me.

[LondonReign2]

107. I love the Liberal = Bad meme

[Rex]

148. When you are weak and have no honest debate points

well you see what happens...a weak liberal bashing thread that gets torn to shreds.

[LondonReign2]

187. Why are you still telling this lie?

You've been shown it was independents, not liberals, that failed to support out center-right Democrats.

So what are you still lying? And why are you so worried about the Republicans taking the blame for this shut down?

[hootinholler]

37. Harry Truman was right

A real republican was elected over a pretend one.

[hobbit709]

48. Exactly.

[bvar22]

57. Nailed It!

[font size=3]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]


[font size=3]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]

[Laelth]

88. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[Maven]

82. Yup. Thread over.

[brush]

205. Woohoo!

You're so right. They we DINOs (Democrats in name only), and voted with the repugs against the President more times than I care to remember.

I say good riddance to them and Rom Emanuel too who helped get them elected.

And what a "great" job he's doing as mayor of Chicago — not (unabated gun killings and school closings in minority districts does not a good mayor make).

[mythology]

214. Except that quote doesn't account for the fact that in modern times

there aren't elected officials who vote more with the other party than their own, and it's not particularly close. Most members of Congress vote with their party over 75% of the time.

Of the current Senate Democrats in this term, exactly 1 has voted with the party less than 75% of the time. For Republicans, 4 have voted with the party less than 75% of the time. In the House, it's 7 Democrats and 1 Republican who have voted with their party less than 75% of the time.

In the 111th Congress, the one from 2008-2010, 3 House Democrats and 1 House Republican voted with their party less than 75% of the time. In the Senate 3 Democrats and 4 Republicans (although Arlen Spector was listed in both parties as that's when he switched so I would argue 2 and 3 respectively) voted with their party less than 75% of the time.

Not exactly a lot of DINOs or RINOs when you actually map out the votes.

Harry Truman's quote was much more appropriate before the parties realigned in the 1960s and 1970s where the party makeup became more accurate with regard to party policy particularly around civil rights for blacks. But because most members of Congress and the public at large have become "correctly" sorted based on preferred policy and which party is more likely to deliver it, there's a lot less cross-party voting than in the past. If I vote for a candidate of a particular party, odds are pretty good they are going to vote with their party. It's why Republicans have tried so hard to link Democratic Congress members with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Because when push comes to shove, the overwhelming majority of Congress members vote with their party the vast majority of the time.

[Rex]

147. Well we needed our daily liberal bashing thread

one that is completely untrue and made to keep us divided. Have to have one everyday on DU...always the Usual Suspects *yawn*.

I have most of them on ignore. Pathetic lot are they.

[Mojorabbit]

162. Yes it does. nt

[villager]

2. In other words, capitulating to the right, again and again, didn't save their careers?

Damn, think of all the times they could've cast votes to benefit people, instead of corporations!

[treestar]

10. And you don't see the

Cognitive dissonance of this statement?

[villager]

27. Unless you're replying to the OP...

...I see it quite a bit in yours!

[treestar]

61. Well now we don't have to "capitulate" to the right at all

They control the House! They get what they want therefore, without having to compromise!

[villager]

65. Well, they control it more. When Dems vote like Republicans, they still control it.

n/t

[treestar]

68. Now you're just being stubborn

Blue Dogs do not vote like Tea Partiers.

Geez, it's like talking to right wingers who insist that I am the same as a communist because I support government regulation of business to a reasonable extent.

[villager]

73. My point is, when the country moves inexorably to the right, it's still moving inexorably

...to the right.

The Blue Dogs were part of the process. Perhaps they did it in 3rd gear, and the Tea Partiers do it in 5th gear, but they are all part of the same continuum, and the same problem.

And think of all the Democratic capitulation on bad legislation that brought us to this moment, starting with all those Quisling moments under St. Ronnie.

No need to knock your head against a wall. Those Blue Dogs you are so enamored of didn't support government regulation of business, well, at all, really, toward the end.

Though I doubtless support more public sector business regulation than you do...

[onenote]

78. Moving "inexorably" to the right? From what starting point?

You name the Congress, and I'll name something more progressive that the Blue Dogs supported than the Congress you pick.

Its never "inexorably." There is give and there is take in politics, except when you get crazies like the Tea Partiers.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

118. +1

Sorry that some find your point too complex.

[BlueCaliDem]

33. Apparently, that poster doesn't.

In their quest for purity in the Democratic Party (or so they claim), they'd rather allow a BlueDogDem to lose to a TeaBagger and hand the U.S. House over to the right-wing nuts than to move from their rigid and uncompromising view of how the Democratic Party should be populated. They really can't see how incredibly self-defeating that is.

What they ignore, is the fact that with those BlueDogDems, we had the majorities in both the House and Senate, and the continued obstructionism and current government shutdown that will now move to tank our struggling economy, would have never happened.

[villager]

49. Strawmen much?

The point is, Blue Doggery was always a losing strategy.

For America, and for the Democratic party. Passing Republican legislation didn't spare us from... a Congress that passed more Republican legislation.

Had Democrats acted like Democrats these past 30 years -- signing into law, for example, the structural changes that allowed our economy to be tanked by its richest actors -- we wouldn't be at this point either.

[treestar]

64. Tea Partier is an even MORE losing strategy

Bottom line, there would be no shut down with Blue Dogs there instead of Tea Partiers.

What you don't seem to want to get, but which is the only logical thought pattern, is that the districts the blue dogs come from will NOT ELECT a Dennis Kucinich type.

[villager]

67. Yes, capitulating to the right hasn't saved us from... the right.

That's exactly the point.

And I see with your Kucinich reference, you still love your strawmen!

[BlueCaliDem]

86. How do you define "capitulating to the right"?

Through replacing BlueDogDems who vote at least 70% of the time with Democrats with Teapublicans who vote 2% with us?

Or finding compromise (as good governing has always required) between two opposing parties since all adults know we can't always get our way 100% of the time?

Teapublican-nuts don't believe they have to capitulate to the Left or even the Center. They, much like you, believe you need to stand on principle. You should never compromise or bend. You should stand your ground. And that's why we have a government shutdown today, a downgraded credit rating, and NO jobs bill. The "my way of the highway" attitude is unhealthy for a country that's very diverse.

[villager]

91. You've switched from apples to oranges, now

Yes, finding consensus and "compromise" between opposing views is what politics used to be about, to some degree, in this country.

Republicans and Democrats used to be able to do it. More or less.

But it's not the progressives you love to blame, who brought us to this present juncture. The loss of "compromise" in this culture comes from Newt Gingrich in the 90's. Hate radio. The erosion of journalism. The unlimited corporate cash thrown into politics (allowed by a Supreme court where Democrats were complicit in approving some of the most odious nominees now on the bench), etc.

The loss of the media as a voice for actual "balance" was due, in part, to Democratic complicity in ceding the press to a strictly commercial -- rather than societal - -enterprise.

Etc.

In other words, the loss of "compromise" is a long-standing plan -- no accident - by the economic royalists running this country.

And earlier Blue Dog compliance with the wishes of those royalists helped bring us to this very moment.

[reddread]

189. ^ pearls

but they prefer slop.
of one sort or another.

[laundry_queen]

254. Having Democrats who vote against Democrats 30% of the time is a BIG problem. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

261. But having Teapublicans vote against Democrats 98% is a much bigger problem, yes?

No one is going to get 100% of what they want. Even TeapublicanNuts know that. But with the help of the equally unbending on our Left who believe in the same stringent principles as their counterparts on the Right and who have loudly proclaimed they won't vote for "third wayers" in the Democratic Party, the TeapublicanNuts, by default, are darn close to getting it, aren't they?

[laundry_queen]

265. I don't agree with your premise.

The reason teapublicans get elected is BECAUSE of the Dems only having that 70% loyalty.

[BlueCaliDem]

267. And I don't agree with your premise.

So let's agree to disagree.

[laundry_queen]

269. mine's already been proven

so ok.

[BlueCaliDem]

270. So has mine.

So, good!

[laundry_queen]

272. So you think. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

273. Nah. It's a given fact. eom

[Jamastiene]

220. So, you think the Democrats in Congress right now should

do what the Republicans want them to do and gut the ACA so the government wouldn't be shut down?

After all, that is what would be happening if your precious Blue Dogs were there right now. Want to see the ACA gutted just to keep the government from shutting down? That is what would be happening right now.

[bvar22]

136. Blue Doggery is NOT a losing strategy..... for conservatives.

Using money from the Koch Brothers funneled through the DLC,
they have been very successful at destroying UNIONS, marginalizing the FDR/LBJ Wing of the Democratic Party, privatizing the Commons, deregulating Giant Corporations, increasing Military Spending, Shrinking Government Services, forcing Austerity on the Working Class, and shoveling money to Wall Street and the Health Insurance Industry,
no matter which Party has been "in power".

US Wealthy Have Biggest Piece of Pie Ever Recorded
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/09/11-6


Yep, I'd say they have been very successful over the last 30 years.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]

[villager]

140. Yes. The Rightwing ultimately wins, either way.

And of course, for the real troubling cases, there are always those plane "accidents," as per your sig line...

[frylock]

11. +1

[Vashta Nerada]

25. +1

[sabrina 1]

38. So true. The push to change the Dem Party into a milder version

of the Republican Party is what causes people to stay home. The nonsense that a Democrat cannot win on the issues, continues. When people are asked for their opinions on the issues, Democrats win hands down.

They lost because they did not push the issues that are important to people and who knows how many Independent votes they lost because of that?

[villager]

50. +1

n/t

[progressoid]

72. Yup.

[Maven]

85. SHOCKER!

It's obviously liberal Democrats' fault!!!111!!!

[Jamastiene]

221. Except when it's the "gays"

that they blame. They always need someone to blame. Themselves? Never. They just blame the minorities in the Democratic Party for what the Republicans are doing. That's what they do. If they aren't blaming the gays, they are blaming the liberals.

[Blue_Tires]

3. Oh, so you'd think they'd be on our side in this critical moment??

[pnwmom]

12. This critical moment wouldn't be happening at all if we'd retained the majority in the House.

Speaker Pelosi would have sent a clean funding and a clean debt ceiling bill to the Senate.

[Blue_Tires]

23. There's a reason why most 'republican-lite' -dems

are so easy for the GOP to target and unseat, especially in purple or reddish-purple districts...

[pnwmom]

29. Which is why we should be supporting every Dem in a tough election

against a Rethug.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. Bingo. eom

[Blue_Tires]

41. I've voted for the blue dogs here in Va. every time...

Obama came to stump for most of them, even the lost causes...What more could you want??

[pnwmom]

153. That's great. But not everyone did what you did.

And the turnout was low, as it usually is during off-year elections.

[Bluenorthwest]

208. Oregon turnout in 2010 was record setting. No Blue Dogs to keep Democrats away.

Actually WA did ok too. So did CA. Not sure this turnout theory holds much water.

[Rex]

212. The OP has to keep changing the theory

as people come into the thread and tear apart the premise. Just flat out lying in order to bash liberals...pathetic.

[neverforget]

230. I've got a Blue Dog Kurt Schrader after redistricting. Went from Blumenauer's district (awesome!) to

Chained CPI, Cat Food Loving Commission (Simpson-Bowles) Schrader.

[Walk away]

149. +10000!!!!

[sabrina 1]

43. Then blame the Blue Dogs who lost the critical Independent vote

because they chose to stay home rather than vote for Republican Lite. Democrats DID vote in 2010, it was the Independents who stayed home. Now lets get some real Dems in office who can attract Independents from now on by pushing for the issues that are most popular with the people.

[Marr]

196. When liberals lose, their politics are the problem. When Blue Dogs lose, liberals are the problem.

Strange.

[sabrina 1]

198. Yes, a lot of people are wondering, A LOT about these constant attacks on Liberals

here on DU. We certainly are used to being attacked from the Right. This is something relatively new and needs to be nipped in the bud, especially considering the false claims being made constantly. You have to wonder why ...

[treestar]

14. Of course

How would they not! There were there when Obamacare passed

[Blue_Tires]

19. The one-term blue dog in my district voted against it...

[BlueCaliDem]

39. But because the House was under Speaker Pelosi, ObamaCare was able to proceed

and not be Koch-blocked in the House - and it passed.

Today, my husband can get a platinum health care policy for the price of a silver a few years back, thanks to the PPACA. The Platinum plan is perfect for him (I already have Platinum under my daughter's generous health care plan at her law firm) since he does have a pre-existing condition - colitis. The additional medicine he would need during a flare-up had cost me $600 every month! Today, with this plan, he would only have to pay $150.

Can you imagine if Boehner and the Teanuts were in the House during that time? Do you think we'd have health care reform today? I sure don't.

[treestar]

59. It still passed THAT house

and certainly would not have passed today's!

[immoderate]

4. How can they help us if they "get replaced?"

--imm

[pnwmom]

79. That was my point. A blue dog might not provide

us with votes for every bill that we want; but the alternative is a tea party crazy in office and John Boehner or Ted Cruz as speaker.

[immoderate]

97. So why don't they get elected?

--imm

[pnwmom]

102. Unfortunately, a lot of Dems stayed home in 2010

because off-year elections often get poorer turnout. People who are less political stay home -- leaving angry people like the tea partiers with more influence.

[Capt. Obvious]

106. Are you undermining your thesis here?

[pnwmom]

127. Not at all. n/t

[mitchtv]

125. the liberal Dems did not stay home

it was the part time voters who stayed home

[pnwmom]

128. A significant number of African American and younger voters

stayed home when Obama wasn't at the top of the ticket.

[Capt. Obvious]

133. You are undermining your thesis

Your OP is blaming "the left" for 2010. And here you admit that young and African Americans didn't turn out.

[mitchtv]

176. sounds like what I called part time voters

liberal dems like me vote any time we can.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

251. Which undermines your thesis.

Unless you can prove that it was the left that stayed home (I didn't stay home, and I can already guess that I am to the left of you) you argument is based on false assumptions.

And this little nugget of yours seals the deal as to crazy talk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023759440#post7

Some of us rejoiced in their defeat, and some of us think we should be following the tea bagger's lead to our own version of extremism.

I think the party is healthier when it's a large umbrella.

So what do you believe is a extremist liberal view? That the Democrats behave like Democrats and not like Republicans? That we can count on Democrats to stand by what they promise?

What? Be specific. Cite examples.

[Cleita]

5. What happened is a DINO got replaced with a real Republican.

Now it's time to run real Democrats, progressive ones against those TP guys and then you will get proof to your allegations, not before.

[leftstreet]

9. +1

[pnwmom]

13. And that meant Pelosi got replaced with Boehner. Majorities matter,

even if the majority isn't always in perfect unity.

[Cleita]

24. We'll see in the next election. I'm predicting all the Tea Party will be

gone and most of the establishment Republicans. If the news is right many of those tea party guys are being primaried.

[Chan790]

35. My blue dog backed Shuler.

I'm glad they're gone...now after a little pain, we need to run Democrats and not DINOs. If the people in the purple blur are pissed-off enough with the tea-party and they should be and seem to be...we can get something done.

You run on principles and win on principles where you can. You lose on principles where you cannot but you contest every seat. You don't run blue and drift to put useless fuckwits into office because they have the right party after their name but the wrong principles, values and positions.

[reddread]

190. she knew how to standup for us, didnt she?

She could really stop a fight for what is right!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

252. You're still flailing about.

Stop blaming Liberals for the shitty job that the Blue Dogs were doing.

[sabrina 1]

46. Exactly! n/t

[creeksneakers2]

236. Name some far left members of Congress

who won in red districts.

[Cleita]

240. Name some candidates who ran or were on the ballot.

I'm not talking about fringe parties but as Democrats. I don't think it happened because the establishment Dems didn't support them and pushed them out of their way in favor of the DINOS. Saw it happen right here in my county.

[creeksneakers2]

242. Do you think no far lefties ran in any red districts?

If none did at all that goes to show you that nobody is crazy enough to think a far left agenda can win in a red district. If the far lefties truly believe, like they say, that the far left ideology would win where moderates haven't, why don't the far lefties get together and try to elect one far lefty in red country. Heck, they could all even pool their money and give their candidate a big financial advantage. The far lefties never try it though, because they know what they claim is bullshit.

[treestar]

6. Yes

This would not be happening if they were still in office

[handmade34]

8. I remember well

when everyone was complaining in 2010... "What's the point, why should I vote?? I always said 2 words..."John Boehner"

a bad day indeed when he became speaker...

[BlueCaliDem]

42. It was a dark day, indeed. eom

[CakeGrrl]

15. That whole "stay home in 2010 to punish Obama" idiocy

has now played out like some of us knew it would.

[Capt. Obvious]

21. I never heard of the "stay home to punish Obama plan"

[BlueCaliDem]

47. Ed Schultz has propagated it on his radio show and his week-day television show.

And so were many other Liberals.

[Capt. Obvious]

92. Some people say that's not true

Did liberals stay home in 2010?

[BlueCaliDem]

130. The problem with those stats is, for example, I consider myself a Liberal. But many here on DU

alone would consider me either moderate or conservative. I believe many Democrats like me (who are called third wayers by the ultra-left) don't see ourselves as anything other than Liberal Democrats, not moderate and certainly not conservative Democrats. So who's can tell who called themselves Liberal when they took that poll, and are actually considered moderate or even conservative?

That's the problem I have with those stats.

[Capt. Obvious]

135. What a bunch of gobbedly gook you just threw up there

"Stats are only good if they support my argument" would have been a lot shorter to type.

[BlueCaliDem]

234. I'm sorry you choose to be so unreasonable.

And here I thought you were a Liberal. My bad.

[Capt. Obvious]

246. I didn't make that mistake about you

[BlueCaliDem]

263. Which means what I wrote in my previous post to which you responded

what I've claimed is not "gobbedly-gook", is it? And it underscores that the stats of those exit polls have the real (and now, through you, proven) possibility that people are misreading the numbers.

Thank you for playing.

[Capt. Obvious]

264. A train leaves Chicago traveling 48mph

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

247. If you have to revert to epithets such as "ultra-left" you really aren't that much of a liberal...

IMHO.

[BlueCaliDem]

262. I'm sorry my opinion offended you. I guess the shoe fit, eh? eom

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

266. There was no offense taken, and I hope that you are less wrong in the future.

[BlueCaliDem]

268. Of course there wasn't. eom

[ForgoTheConsequence]

163. Great piece.

It's interesting to see the same crew of conservative Democrat posters blaming the shutdown on Liberals while letting Republicans off the hook for gerrymandering and voter suppression.


Wonder what their real objective is.....

[Blue_Tires]

45. +1000

[sabrina 1]

56. What is the 'stay home to punish Obama idiocy'??

Are you aware of what happened in 2010? Did you know that Democrats DID vote, holding their noses when it came to Blue Dogs, but they were out there struggling to get the critical Independent vote which wasn't possible as it turned out.

Why? Because Independents vote on Issues, not on Parties. And Independents did not want Republican lite, they wanted Real Democrats so they stayed home.

I don't know why this false claim continues to be spread around. It has been debunked over and over again.

Here's the reality. Neither Dems or Rebubs can win depending only on their bases. They both need the huge Independent vote which Dems got in 2008. After two years of Blue Dogs voting with Repubs on critical issues, INDEPENDENTS stated home.

Blame the Blue Dogs for losing control of the House.

Now lets get some real Dems running in those districts who can attract the Independents back again. No more Republican lite in this party. That is what lost us control of the House.

[Hydra]

98. Because ideologically it's a useful weapon to use against us

The "We don't Support Obama enough" meme + "You stayed home!" is used to cover the fact that Third way failed spectacularly. We gave them the WH, the House and the Senate, and they didn't even want it.

What they really wanted is what they had afterwards- the ability to blame everything on Republican obstruction. "If only we had X, we'd be doing massive populist things!!"

Righttt....

[sabrina 1]

101. I want to know who these people are here who are constantly

attacking Democrats, under the guise of 'we are so concerned about our party winning no matter what'! I am very familiar with this type of attack on the left but not on a Democratic Forum.

I agree totally with your comment. I've never seen such hatred for the Left frankly as I've seen here over the past few years. I used to go to Dem Forums to ESCAPE that kind of thing.

[Hydra]

104. It's all message control

And specifically directed here because of the noise we made during the Bush Admin. If a viable Progressive Party rises, it will rise hard in places like this. That's the 3rd way's worse nightmare- votes for 3rd way make up less than 5% of our party but they control all of the power.

If we kick them out or we have to leave, they're cooked.

[Blue_Tires]

108. I'm just saying...

We had horrible Dem turnout in Va. for '09 (Governor) and slightly better for '10 (Congress), which was discussed on DU at the time...

[sabrina 1]

111. If Dems had not come out we would have lost the Senate and

far more seats in Congress. This constant attacking of Dems, who worked so hard to try to stop the Republicans is more likely than anything else to turn people off altogether. It was INDEPENDENTS and the YOUNG who stayed home. What was to blame for that? Dems, Blue Dogs eg, voting for Republican policies. They saw no reason to vote for people with a D after their names, who were voting the same way on important issues as someone with an R after their names.

Sometimes I wonder if the constant attacks on Democrats is INTENDED to turn them away altogether. There is simply no reason to keep making these false claims. The facts prove them wrong, they have been debunked over and over again, yet we still keep seeing them.

[AgingAmerican]

70. That was a fantasy

...used to attack people who criticized Obama, even thought they voted in 2010. We lost in 2010 because the youth and Independents that helped get Obama elected in 2008 did not come out to vote in 2010. This was because Obama did a right turn once he was in office.

www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021551-503544.html

[Union Scribe]

80. Stop pushing that stupid falsehood.

It has been dismantled time and time again here, and still the anti-left trots it out to whine. The truth is that centrists stayed home, not the liberals "mad at Obama."

[Bluenorthwest]

99. Is that what you did in your State? In Oregon in 2010 we had record breaking turnout

and elected Democrats. Why did you fail to do that? What's wrong with your State and the candidates you run?

[Marr]

197. "Moderates" are the ones who stayed home. Look in the mirror and stop

pushing that bullshit.

[Cerridwen]

16. The ones who routinely sided with the repubs

against the Democrats thereby giving issues the look of bipartisan support/criticism? Those "blue dogs."

Yeah. I remember them. If they'd been in office during this fiasco of political theatre they could have made it look like "both sides" were fighting the president.

Now it looks as it really is; the r/w conservative "mind set" fight the "evil black man."

What about them?

[Capt. Obvious]

17. FUCK NADER

[hedgehog]

18. I don't know - it's like being asked if you want to be hung or

starved to death. The tea Party is doing a lot of damage very quickly, but the Blue Dogs give us a moderate Republican policy rather than a Democratic policy.

[RC]

20. Maybe if we would have run a real Democrat, instead of an imitation one, we would not have lost

those seats.

It is the Blue dogs, DLC, DINO's and other flavors on imitation Democrats that are our problem. The Democratic party has become the shadow of the Republican party.

There are not enough actual Democrats left in Congress to effect enough change to get this country back on course. And of those that are left, quite often get denigrated and sidelined as some kind of loonie.

[PeteSelman]

54. Hear hear!

Nailed.

[pnwmom]

81. It's a delusion to think we can run a "real progressive"

in a heavily Red district and win. But we can run a centrist Dem (to the right of DUers but still a centrist) and at least have someone who helps maintain a Dem majority in the House.

If Pelosi had Boehner's gavel, the government wouldn't be in shutdown mode and we wouldn't be looking at a default in a couple weeks.

[RC]

105. A Centralest Democrat is not a DLC'er, DINO or whatever.

It is the Right of Center 'Democrats' DLC, DINO, Blue Dogs and other imitation Democrats that put way to much importance on the (D) and name recondition and not enough importance on the positions of the person running.

The Democratic party have moved so far to the Right, main stream Republicans are now switching parties to be Democrats. That is the death knell for the Democratic party as far as being Liberal or Progressive.

[sabrina 1]

180. Well, you got YOUR way with that theory and people DID vote for Blue Dogs. Now

look where we are. Dems lost control of the House and came close with the Senate.

It's time to put that now proven-to-be-false theory to rest and start electing REAL DEMOCRATS.

What you are asking for is to coninue what we have been doing. How has that worked out?

To keep on doing what doesn't work for Democrats just isn't an option anymore. You've had over a decade to prove your theory right. It failed. Now let's get back to electing DEMOCRATS.

[pnwmom]

183. No, in 2010 not enough Dems went to the polls. That's why we lost.

REAL, i.e. pure progressive Democrats, won't get elected in heavily conservative districts.

We actually picked up seats in the last election over the Rethugs. So our method worked -- we just need to do it better next time.

[sabrina 1]

186. That is absolutely false no matter how many times you say it. Independents

were lost because of the Third Way dragging the party to the right.

With the Dem Base AND Independents such as those who helped Dems win in 2008, who support Progressive Dem policies, Dems can win ANYWHERE.

No more of this defeatist nonsense that Dem policies can't win. THIS is what is costing the Dem Party so much. I certainly won't be listening to it anymore. It is a failed policy for getting the Dem Party back on track.

[Vashta Nerada]

22. Wow.

Just...wow.

Why don't you just throw in Nader voters in 2000 as well, just for good measure?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

26. Screaming subtext: it's the fault of progressives that government got shut down.

Pull yourself together. You'll be ok.

[pnwmom]

31. No it's the fault of the tea party nuts who were elected

during an election when too many Dems were complacent.

[Hydra]

36. The Dems showed up

The 3rd Way scared off all the young voters and "independents."

You know, the ones President Obama dared to have "The Audacity of Hope"?

That worked SO well! So did Blanche Lincoln! She even voted for Obamacare.

Oh. Wait.

[Chan790]

51. Complacent?

I actively worked to primary those assholes out and push-campaign them out of being blue-dogs in the GE under the threat of losing.

Losing as a Blue Dog and maintaining their big business/shadow-RW ties to a payday once out of office was more important than winning by vowing to be more progressive in the name of party unity. They deserved to lose. They lost. Fuck them, they're party cancer. They got irradiated. The party is stronger and more unified without them. When the Democratic party ascends back to controlling both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, it will be as a party more in-line with Progressive values and cancer-free.

I've always known this was a way-stop on the path to saving the Democratic party from becoming a center-right party chasing an every more rightward appeal. I'm sorry you didn't, I thought it was obvious there was going to be some pain along the way as we purged the corporatist conservative blight from our midst.

[LondonReign2]

112. Still sticking with that lie against all evidence, huh?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

121. +1

[Marr]

250. You've been corrected on that point about a thousand times, so I can only conclude that

you're intentionally lying. Why would intentionally lie to smear Democrats?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

253. The Blue Dogs have themselves to blame is they couldn't defeat "crazy."

You keep on blaming somebody...anybody except for the most obvious people: the Blue Dogs.

[Orsino]

40. Which is akin to blaming Jane Fonda for losing in Vietnam.

Progressives have been bystanders at best in the fight between the two parties' big donors. There just aren't enough of us to earn any significant blame.

[villager]

52. That is always the screaming subtext of the self-styled, right-leaning "pragmatists."

n/t

[Myrina]

53. Disgustipated for the win

[progressoid]

76. +1

[onyourleft]

84. Thank you. n/t

[Avalux]

28. Tea partiers were elected through underhanded redistricting.

Dems got more votes by a couple of million, but many lost anyway.

[FSogol]

30. +1. Well said. n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

44. Yep

And the Tea Party crazies are utterly destroying the GOP brand. You think they are going to get re-elected in 2014 after this debacle?

[BlueCaliDem]

55. Yep. They will. Due to the major state wins in 2010, districts have been gerrymandered

and these Teapublican-crazies have all gotten very safe seats. Do you think they'd be this reckless if that weren't the case?

I don't see the Democrats winning back the House in 2014. I really don't. The only way for that to happen is if Democratic controlled states did a Delay-style redistricting before the next Census. It's been held up as constitutional by SCOTUS so why aren't they doing what the Republicans have been doing in order to level the playing field again?

[Kelvin Mace]

179. Well, they can't since

the Dems lost control of the state houses. I believe the GOP controlled the Texas legislature when they launched the off-census redistricting.

As to losing in 2014, I think the GOP actually risks it, even in gerrymandered districts. Especially since I think they are going to go all the way and refuse to raise the debt ceiling causing default and massive economic calamity.

These people are insane, and it will be more obvious even to conservative voters that they are insane. The hardcore TP voters only make up about 25% of the population TOPS.

Once people start seeing complete collapse of the economy (an event that will cost the GOP pretty much all their Wall Street backers) they will show up in droves to turn these people out.

It will then be interesting to see if the Crzue crowd are prepared to push for an actual civil war rather than step down after losing.

Yes, I believe they are THAT crazy.

[LondonReign2]

113. Yes, they probably will be

Most of them anyway, considering the gerrymandered districts they sit in.

[morningfog]

58. Blue dogs lost because they are piss poor capitulating candidates.

[leveymg]

62. Earth to OP: Dems lost the House in large part because of disillusionment at HCR and

business-centered Democratic response to the meltdown. Many people (particularly traditionally disaffected voters, poor, Black, young) who enthusiastically voted in Dems in 2006 and 2008, with an expectation of much greater systemic change in policy -- a real jobs program, foreclosure relief, single payer, etc. -- were turned off by what they got: the Wall St Bailout and the rightward tilt of so many policy outcomes. Most of this group turned back out for Obama in '12, recognizing the perils of the alternative, but are generally turned off by the center-right, pro-business Congress and Washington in general.

[stranger81]

63. So how did the 9 Blue Dogs that voted with the Republicans yesterday help us control the House?

Blue Dogs do what Blue Dogs always do . . . . vote with the other side.

[Hydra]

100. Oh, that's going to leave a mark

I think you won the thread

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

103. But, but, but we have to support them. They're Democrats...even whe they side with Republicans.

[Blue_Tires]

185. Yeah, the OP's premise of "don't-you-wish-you-still-had-the-blue-dogs"

is SOOOOOOOOOOOO 2007.......

It's like I hit a mini-timewarp or something...

[Egnever]

142. But they also put the gavel in someone else hands

they can vote how they want. It doesnt hold a candle to controlling the agenda of the house. Or are you trying to pretend that cause blue dogs vote with repukes often that we would have had 40+ attempts to repeal the ACA with Nancy holding the gavel?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

157. Great point.

The lack of a response is very telling. So are the RECS for this thread, the list reads like a who's who of conservative (liberal bashing) "democrats" on this board.

[Rex]

159. YOu won't get an answer from the OP.

This thread was not meant for debate, but to bash liberals... pathetic ain't it?

[Recursion]

248. Because they didn't vote for Boehner for speaker

Seriously? Do you get how the caucuses in the House work?

[AgingAmerican]

66. The blue dogs got themselves voted out

Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time - Harry S Truman

[NCTraveler]

71. How many blue dog incumbents lost to tea party people?

Seems like that would be a very important stat for your op.

[villager]

74. Stats!? In a flamebait OP!?

Surely, you jest!

[n2doc]

75. My blue dog just voted WITH the repubs

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Blue dogs suck, and people who want to re-fight 2010 suck, too.

Maybe not getting rid of Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy might have been a better idea?

[Union Scribe]

83. ^ THIS!

OP's argument is destroyed by reality. Excellent post.

[onenote]

87. So how was it the great outpouring of progressives in your district didn't rise up and primary him

and then sweep away the repub opposition like smoke on a windy day.

I was going to post that most of those suggesting that progressive Democrats could easily capture districts previously held by Blue Dogs don't live in a Blue Dog district. You disprove that theory. But not in a good way.

[n2doc]

90. Because our great and wise state Democratic party doesn't give a crap about anyone outside ATL

We never get any support, even for those running against repubs. To think that somehow people are going to 'rise up' and toss someone out just is a fantasy. Or blaming the victims.

What my district proves is that the state and national parties, since Dean, couldn't care less about anyone other than established pols and a few 'darlings'. They are too busy lining their own pockets.

[Egalitarian Thug]

167. And that's the way it is almost every place. Greedy, conservative cliques that guard the gates.

[treestar]

255. +1 They need to take responsibility for what they claim happened.

They were perfectly smug after 2010.

They keep up with this unreasonable idea, just as right wing Republicans do (McCain lost because he was not conservative enough, blah, blah).

[B Calm]

93. Of course I'm glad we purged most of the fakes out

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

123. Did your Blue dog vote for Pelosi for speaker or Boehner?

That's the point of the OP. The speaker controls what legislation gets to the floor.

[Hayabusa]

94. A Conservative is still a Conservative.

We didn't lose shit.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

96. Wrong. Those Blue Dogs were replaced because they acted like Republicans.

It would work out a lot better by not voting for Blue Dogs so they can sandbag us then get replaced by republicans later.

"The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat..."

-Harry S. Truman

Better to have real (D)emocrats than pretender Blue Dogs.

[SomethingFishy]

109. So the shutdown is the fault of people who hated blue dogs?

You know the past couple days I was enjoying the fact that most of DU was on the same page and there was way less animosity.
Oh well.

[BlueCaliDem]

116. No. Those who voted against them bear most of the blame.

The idiom, "Elections have consequences" come to mind. We're now seeing what those consequences are.

[SomethingFishy]

119. Yeah well there was an election in 2012 too.. this OP is just one more today

bashing fucking Democrats.

[BlueCaliDem]

124. I'm not bashing Democrats, f*cking or otherwise.

I'm simply stating the facts.

The 2012 election was a huge loss for the Democrats although we won 1.5 million more votes in the House. It was due to the 2010 elections and the wave of red across the country (except for California, Washington, and a couple of other states) as Republican governors and legislatures immediately began redistricting and creating safe havens for Teanuts to sweep up. And today, their seats are utterly safe.

Even you can't deny that had the 2010 elections not helped a sea or red across the country, we wouldn't be in the misery we are today, yes?

[SomethingFishy]

131. Whatever.

This "mess" has nothing to do with elections. It has to do with a party that thinks that BLACKMAIL is the way to govern. If you think it's the far left's fault that the Republicans are blackmailing Obama then there is no help for you.

You and your ilk are using this shutdown as an excuse to bash any Democrats you disagree with. You are acting as petulant as the Republicans.

[BlueCaliDem]

134. I'm sorry you see it that way.

I'm not making this personal. You shouldn't either.

I'm just trying to have a discussion on how we can learn from the mistakes in 2010 and try to rectify it - if that's even possible anymore.

[Rex]

141. Of course you are right, the very people in this thread

stirring the pot are the ones that didn't vote I would bet. The usual liberal bashing crap is getting so boring, you would think they could get some new talking point. This one is rather pathetic and proved untrue years ago.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

150. You don't get it.

Forget that the Tea Party is holding congress hostage, forget about the gerrymandered districts, forget about voter suppression. This is all the fault of liberals and progressives. Certain posters here have been praying for a government shutdown so they could blame progressives and liberals instead of tea baggers and right wing libertarians. They have been dying to say "I TOLD YOU SO". It's sick really.

[Bluenorthwest]

110. Blue Dogs? Try Tea Dogs. 9 of them vote with the Republicans yesterday did they not?

So Tea Dogs. Or Blue Baggers. 9 of them. Why don't you mention them?

[mitchtv]

143. I thought my rep was Dem Raul Ruiz

turns out he was one of the losers who voted to "delay" the bill yesterday. He is a first timer in Congress, we live and learn

[ForgoTheConsequence]

146. You know why.

That doesn't fit her "blame liberals first" agenda.

[Egnever]

155. You miss the point

the point is that he/she who controls the gavel controls the agenda of the house. A blue dog puts the gavel in Nancy's hands a puke puts it in bohners. Doesnt matter how they vote.

With Dems in charge of the house the blue dogs could vote with the pukes 90% of the time and we would still get 10% more legislation passed than we have with the drunk at the helm. There would never have been a single vote to repeal the ACA with dems in control of the house. Doesnt matter how any blue dog wanted to vote on it it would never have come to the floor.

[Bluenorthwest]

199. Many Blue Dogs voted against her as Speaker previously, so too many of them and you get

a Speaker who is not Nancy but is instead a Blue Dog and many of them voted with the Republicans yesterday. It does matter how they vote.

[Egnever]

244. what a bunch of crap

While the Speaker is elected by the full House membership, in modern practice the election is a formality, since the Speaker always comes from the majority party.

[Bluenorthwest]

277. The Speaker comes from the majority Party sure but that does not mean every member of

that Party votes for the same person for Speaker. That seems obvious but I guess it's not.
"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) entered the 113th Congress on Thursday with a greater show of support from her Democratic troops than she had just two years ago.

In Thursday's much-watched vote for House Speaker, all but seven Democrats voiced their support for Pelosi — a vast improvement over 2011 when 20 rank-and-file members declined to back the California liberal after the party was pummeled at the polls just a few months earlier.

Five of the seven lawmakers are centrist Blue Dog Democrats who voted for other people."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/275469-pelosi-consolidates-support-among-house-democrats

So there you have the facts. Of course you will not acknowledge how wrong and how insulting you were while being so wrong, that's the Centrist Way to be mean without remorse to be wrong without regret.

[Egnever]

278. LOL more crap

You are trying to imply the outcome would be different but it would not be. Of course not everyone would vote in lockstep for the position but the outcome would be the same no matter who your blue dog voted for.

Point once again is if the blue dog were there instead of the bagger we would have speaker Pelosi instead and you know damn well that's true. Because as you pointed out in your silly post that is exactly the result we got when they were there.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

115. Thank you

Lawrence O'Donnell made that point when debating Glenn Greenwald a couple of years ago.

[mmonk]

120. The remaining Blue Dog from my state voted with the Republicans.

Dare to answer why I should hate Republicans and not him?

[ecstatic]

129. Good point. I guess

the real problem is we needed to squash the teabaggers 3 years ago when they first emerged with their nonsensical rallies and silly town halls. Dems should have used their megaphone to turn the "teaparty" into a disgusting phrase that nobody wanted to be associated with. That way, the focus would be on defeating teabaggers and not really addressing the dinos who were trying to hold on in maroon districts.

[Egnever]

158. Because he also would have voted for pelosi to be speaker

and the vote he made yesterday would have never taken place with her holding the gavel instead of the drunk. The one vote for Pelosi would have erased many of the votes you disagree with.

And that is the point of the OP

[ForgoTheConsequence]

161. You don't know that.

19 Blue Dog Democrats voted against her for speaker in 2011.

[ecstatic]

122. This will fall on deaf ears

I'm not thrilled about blue dogs either, but jeez, if they were the only people standing in the way of psycho rule, we should have kept them.

But don't wait around hoping for the people who called for their removal to apologize or take responsibility. It's NEVER their fault. It's very hard to distinguish the Nader-types from the teaparty.

[B Calm]

139. If you want a republican, vote for the real thing.

[Egnever]

160. If you dont want republican legislation

Keep the gavel out of their hands. Blue dogs keep the gavel in our hands. Republicans dont.

No one here wants republicans they want to keep control of the agenda and if that means having blue dogs in red districts its a way better alternative than what we got instead.

[B Calm]

192. Whoosh

[Kaleva]

132. I remember several saying they'd rather see a Repub win then Stupak re-elected

Stupak decided not to run for re-election and we now have a man who was endorsed by Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin representing this district.

[Rex]

138. I can spin a story out of whole cloth too, nice try but fail.

I only see hate coming from one place in the Democratic Party, you should look in the mirror.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

144. It's always the liberals fault isn't it?

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to take the blame off the tea baggers and twist it around to the liberals. Fucking amazing. Are there any message boards where liberals aren't punching bags for DLC/Conservative/Blue Dog Democrats?

[Rex]

151. Foxnews blames the Democratic Party.

Shit stirring DUers blame the liberals. I really don't see any difference at this point between the two. Just on this board solely to stir up shit and keep us divided.

[adirondacker]

164. Word. This country is turning into a clown show. nt

[Rex]

165. And Congess hosts the biggest number of clowns.

Evidently clowns don't know how to run a country very well.

[valerief]

239. Fox News NEVER blames the Democratic Party. They blame the Democrat Party. :)

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

191. Just like Florida 2000.

They never blame the 200k conservative Democrats that voted for Bush.

[Jamastiene]

217. It's always either the liberals' fault, the gays' fault,

or some other punching bag the moderates and conservatives in the Democratic Party decide to blame. The blame is never placed on them, even when they vote with the Republicans more often than they vote with the Democrats. I cannot believe someone honestly believes more Blue Dogs would have helped this situation. They would be right there on the Republican side of the aisle helping shut the government down, not voting with Democrats. There is a reason they are called Blue Dogs and it is not that they would vote with the Democrats in situations like this. They would be voting with the Republicans and making it even worse.

[Tarheel_Dem]

152. Thank You!

[Agnosticsherbet]

156. Blud dog Democrats gave the majoirty to Democrats so Democrats could set the agenda.

They also had the effect of watering down the agenda, but even a watered down agenda is better than warming a chair for four years.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

166. Maybe, if they tried appealing to the left instead of the right, they'd have been elected.

Maybe, trying to be better rather than "not as bad" would've have worked.

[pnwmom]

169. A blue dog Dem wouldn't get elected in a conservative red community

by appealing to the left. It doesn't work that way.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

172. Oh, well. If appealing to the left or right doesn't work, what does?

[pnwmom]

173. Appealing to centrists or moderates can work in a conservative district.

That's what our blue dogs were in there doing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

178. Apparently, that didn't work either.

Maybe, they should seek work in a different profession.

[pnwmom]

181. I think a better solution is for the party to offer even more financial

and other resources to Democrats trying to keep difficult positions in tenuous districts.

Giving up on those districts would be a way to land us in a permanent minority position. Someone will always be going after the centrist voters and I'd rather they be aligned with us.

[MineralMan]

168. And there you have it. A Blue Dog Democrat who votes with

the Democratic caucus is better than any Republican. Every time.

We don't learn.

[bullwinkle428]

170. A SHIT LOAD of "blue dogs" voted AGAINST the ACA in the first place!

Think I'm lying? Check out the Congressional record!

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml

34 in total, including such luminaries as Heath Shuler, Ike Skelton, Artur Davis, etc.

[pnwmom]

171. That wouldn't matter a bit now. Nancy Pelosi would be in charge,

if that group were still in office, and she would be sending a clean funding bill and a clean debt ceiling bill to the Senate.

An imperfect Democratically-led Congress is better than any Rethug Congress.

[LondonReign2]

175. Still sticking with the lie the liberals didn't come out to vote in 2010?

Those darn things called facts! Best just to ignore them if they don't support your point, eh? The Republicans I used to argue with on the Yahoo boards used that same tactic.

[Zorra]

182. Not only that, but they took universal healthcare off the table as well. If they had been real

Democrats, the republican party would be little more than but a bad memory and an ugly stain on the history of the United States right now.

Don't blame me, that's not my dog that shit all over your tent.

[Pab Sungenis]

174. Most of them

would be standing right beside the teabaggers in their efforts.

Net result: zero.

[Rex]

177. All I know is that some here hate the Left with the exact same passion

as the GOP. I have never hated anyone with a D next to their name...try again.

[polichick]

184. Fuck the blue dogs...

If the WH and Cong Dems had stood with the people instead of Billy Tauzin and the rest of the for-profit healthcare lobbyists the momentum of 2008 might have continued.

[Blue Idaho]

188. Enough already...

Those blue dogs spent more time fighting for the Right Wing than fighting against the right. Please don't try to "guilt" anyone into thinking that if the Democratic party was just a little more like the TeaPublican party we could advance liberal ideas.

That's just nuts.

[B Calm]

193. +1

[Marr]

194. As if they wouldn't line up with the Republicans.

There's a reason people around here tend not to like your beloved trojan donkeys.

[Jackpine Radical]

202. Reminds me of this--

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."
- Harry S. Truman

[brush]

203. They were DINOs . . .

and would have voted with the repugs anyway. Just as they did when they were in office — or in disguise — however you want to put.

[lostincalifornia]

204. Incumbent republicans also lost seats to tea party crazies. The biggest problem facing us is

Gerrymandering that has occurred

[Hekate]

209. You know I'm with you all the way on that, pnwmom

The reality is as plain as the nose on their face... but ideology too often trumps Real Life.

[hobbit709]

211. I still hate them.

There are people that I voted for while holding my nose and carrying a barf bag but I still voted. "So don't put that boogie woogie on me"

[Jamastiene]

213. They would vote with the Republicans most of the time, including now.

What we need is to fight the Republican party with their gerrymandering and their other nasty tactics that keep them in power. If they did not rig the vote with gerrymandering and other nasty tactics, they would not be able to hang on as a party. They are going down and doing everything they can to keep from losing more than they have already lost.

I live in a state where I have no choice but to vote for the Blue Dog Democrat most of the time and I do vote consistently for only the Democratic Party. But Truman was right, the Republicans will vote for a real Republican over a Democrat who tries to act like a Republican every single time.

What needs to be done to fight the Republicans most effectively is to shore up support for liberals in the south. We ARE here in large enough numbers that it would work. The rest of the country just needs to realize that and do something about it instead of hating all southerners so much. It would finally put the Republican Party and their whiny temper tantrum pitching asses to bed.

[OilemFirchen]

215. This post is dominated by individuals spouting a convenient meme.

Don't know who or what is driving it, but there is an insistence that progressives did not sit out the 2010 elections. It's utter bullshit. And their counter is that it was "independents" and "centrists" who stayed home because the Dem was too conservative. Further, they expect others to believe such a bizarre thesis.

Let's try a little experiment, shall we? Let's hear from posters whose states turned red in 2010 and provide some empirical evidence to test the theory.

In my home state of Ohio, liberal Ted Strickland lost to Fox contributor John Kasich for Governor. Liberal Lee Fisher was trounced by Rob Portman for the Senate. I could go down the list, including AG and SOS, but the picture has been painted.

Who stayed home in Ohio?

[pnwmom]

219. And liberal Dennis Kucinich lost in Ohio then, too, right?

Because of a gerrymandered district?

Being a perfect progressive isn't very helpful in red territory.

[OilemFirchen]

222. Clearly, if Kucinich had listed more to the left

he'd still be in the House. Damn those centrists and independents!

[Taverner]

218. When a Republican runs against a Republican, the Republican wins every time

[OilemFirchen]

224. Read it the first seventeen times.

Now quote some Orwell so we can really marvel at your individuality!

[Taverner]

226. Meh, maybe it was 18 times because it is, you know, correct?

Honestly - how does getting Republican lite help us?

I mean, shit, we've got the most Liberal President in YEARS and even he has been stymied by his own party

[OilemFirchen]

228. So Ted Strickland lost to John Kasich

because Kasich was the better Republican?

Go ahead. Pull the other one.

[Taverner]

229. I never really thought Strickland was really blue dog

No True Scotsman, I know

Although he may have spoke anti-choice, he sure voted pro-choice. Yes, he voted for the partial-birth abortion ban. But so did many non-blue dog dems

[OilemFirchen]

231. Pretty sure that was my point.

Strickland is an unflinching liberal and was a fine governor. Maybe the progressives voted en masse in the 49 other states, but thanks to them sitting it out in Ohio, I not only have to contend with Kasich as Governor, but Dumbfuck Mike Turner in Congress for the rest of eternity - thanks to gerrymandering that moved the AA voters in my district over to Boehner's bumpinkville.

The fine "progressives" in Ohio who stayed away in a snit because they didn't get their fucking Obama pony are responsible - not some mythical group of moderates who sat it out because Strickland wasn't liberal enough.

[Taverner]

243. No I am just happy the blue dogs went away

Folks like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman

[Maedhros]

223. You said "Blue Dog dem helping us."

<snicker>

That's funny. Those bastards are destroying the Democratic Party.

[Vashta Nerada]

232. ^^This^^

[stillcool]

225. it's way better, thank you

for asking. I mind when my friends watch me getting beat up, but I mind more when my friends beat me up.

[Daniel537]

279. Its way better having a GOP House

that will never allow a single piece of progressive legislation to pass, and isn't even able to do something as basic as fund the govt., than it is to have a few Blue Dogs in congress who would allow a Speaker Pelosi or any other Dem to hold the gavel? You've gotta be a few fries short of a Happy Meal if you truly believe that rubbish.

[Va Lefty]

227. Still hatein' the SOBs

You're either part of the solution or part of the problem

[Vashta Nerada]

233. Actually...

if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Sorry. I had to throw a bad science joke in there.

[Va Lefty]

241. That's pretty good

had not heard that one

[MFrohike]

235. Comedy

Perhaps you should write this to the constituents of the right-wing districts that unelected them. They didn't lose because Democratic voters didn't show up, they lost because they Republicans who had voted them into office got caught up in Tea Party bullshit starting in 2010. The barely veiled implication in your OP is just ignorant. You're pretending that Democratic voters, who didn't live in the Blue Dog districts anyway, somehow caused their loss by staying home. That is pure comedy.

One of them, Larry Kissell, got redistricted into maybe the most right wing district in NC, which is actually saying something, and lost to a guy with 3 DWIs. You can argue "should have helped" all day long, but that particular fact makes your argument especially hilarious.

[IronLionZion]

237. Our country is healthier with more Democrats of any type in office

as in literally healthier.

[valerief]

238. Blue dog Dem = DINO. What good are they? nt

[Recursion]

249. Well, again, as the OP points out, they don't vote for John Boehner to be speaker

If that's all we can get out of a district, then we need that.

There seems to be some factual disagreement among DUers about the tactics there: there are (as idiotic as it sounds to me) people here who really do think someone more liberal than Ike Skelton could have held Missouri's 4th district.

But there's also no getting around the fact that a contingent here actually doesn't care and would rather have a Republican in that seat than someone who at least votes for the caucus.

[Bluenorthwest]

274. In the last weeks, several 'Blue Dogs' or conservative

Democrats have voted with the Republicans to defund ACA. We are in a showdown, and they are with the other side. They are not 'voting with the caucus' they are voting with Republicans far too often.
They were the barrier to overcome on many civil rights issues as well. The worst of them had to be replaced or coerced into being decent human beings. They voted with Republicans against gay people over and over and over, going back to DOMA. Barf on that.

[Recursion]

275. I didn't say "with the caucus" I said "for the caucus"

"For the caucus", deciding who gets to be speaker, is really the most important vote a Congressperson makes.

[OmahaBlueDog]

256. Well, we vote for Democrats to begin with

and Democrats in the House and Senate (even we "Blue Dogs&quot support the Democratic leadership, meaning that Joe Manchin's presence helps support keeping Reid & Durbin in the Senate leadership instead of having President Pro Tem McConnell. Accepting Joe Manchin as a Democrat means accepting him with shortcomongs; in WV, you have to be pro-coal and pro-gun to be elected. If your view is that only a true progressive is acceptable, then you'll end up with a Republican Senator in that seat. That's reality at this time. Nebraska had Ben Nelson. Ben was far from perfect. He voted with the Republicans far too often for my taste, but (again) his presence helped support keeping Reid & Durbin in the Senate leadership instead of having President Pro Tem McConnell. Keeping Ben would have been a vast improvement over Deb Fischer.

I consider myself a Blue Dog principally because I do support balanced budgets. Where I differ from Republicans is that I don't believe hurting our most vulnerable through draconian budget cuts is the means to reach that end. Sensible tax policy that recognizes that those making more should pay more, and an end to a lot of misguided tax loopholes would be a first, big step.

[SidDithers]

245. DU rec...nt

Sid

[adirondacker]

257. Boy do I miss Joe Lieberman and all of his supporters both here on DU, and abroad.

NOT!

[bvar22]

258. The Joe Lieberman Wing of the Democratic Party is alive and well here on DU,

...and STILL Blaming and Attacking Old Style, Working Class, Liberal Democrats for their problems.





[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[adirondacker]

260. You'd think they would embed a picture for identification purposes...

Just a suggestion....

[Arkana]

271. Those guys were annoying, but at least they didn't threaten to burn the government down if they

didn't get their way.

[lonestarnot]

276. Are you kidding me. They would have thrown in with the teahadists 10 times by now.

And then bullshit mountain would be yammering on about that bullshit. No, better to call a spade a spade.

[Daniel537]

280. Oh really? So they would have voted John Boehner for Speaker?

The only reason we're in this mess is because the GOP runs the House. Like it or not, those Blue Dogs would have given us a majority, just as they did in 2006.