"Blue Dog Dems" are burning up the House Floor on C-Span Now

[KoKo]

They are ripping Bush's Budget for borrowing from China, Opec, Mexico and Carribean Nations while giving tax breaks to those making over $400,000. Stressing that all this borrowing is hurting our country and our troops.

Also, Senator Obama stood up today with Two Blue Dog Congressional Members (Mike Thompson (CA) and Patrick Murphey (PA) to call for support for his Democratic Plan to start the Redeployment of Troops from Iraq starting this May if "Benchmarks" are not met by the Iraqi's.

It was a good move for Obama and the Blue Dogs to UNITE for this BILL!

--------------------------------------------------
WHO ARE THE BLUE DOGS?

Differences between the Blue Dogs and the Democratic Leadership Council

Blue Dog Democrats tend to differ ideologically from another coalition of moderate Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The DLC describes itself as new Democrat and positions itself as centrist while taking moderate or liberal positions on social issues and moderate positions on economic issues and trade. Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs, on the other hand, tend to be social conservatives, but have differing positions on economic issues ranging from fiscal conservatism to economic populism. For example, most Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, many have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups. On economic issues, Blue Dogs span the spectrum from fiscal conservatives to supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures, while the DLC tends to favor free trade.

A small number of newer Blue Dogs, however, hold positions closer to those of the DLC; some Blue Dog Coalition members are also DLC members. Blue Dogs share with the DLC a desire to keep the Democratic Party grounded in their view of the political center and to ensure that the party does not drift too far to the left of their own positions and no longer appeal to what they believe to be the majority of U.S. voters.

Differences between the Blue Dogs and Liberal Democrats

The Blue Dogs' moderate-to-conservative agenda in Congress has upset many in the Democratic party, as it sometimes leads to voting with the more conservative Republicans. In 2005, the members of the Blue Dog Coalition voted 32 to 3 in favor of the bill to limit access to bankruptcy protection (S 256). Congressman Collin Peterson was subjected to a heated round of questioning from colleagues in the Democratic Party over several votes where he strayed from the party line before being nominated as the ranking member on the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, in what would otherwise have been a routine nomination.

On the other hand, some prominent Blue Dogs have also received strong support from liberal activists within the party, most notably Brad Carson of Oklahoma in his unsuccessful 2004 run for the U.S. Senate, John Tanner of Tennessee (whose Republican opponent in 2004, James L. Hart, was a radical eugenics advocate denounced by his own party), Jim Matheson of Utah, and Loretta Sanchez of California in her successful bid to unseat former Congressman Bob Dornan. Online fundraising efforts by liberal weblogs in 2004 named Brad Carson's campaign a top national priority. In some cases this support for Blue Dogs came about because the Republican opponent (former Representative, now Senator Tom Coburn) was seen as holding strong right-wing views; in other cases the support is because in some states like Tennessee (where native son Al Gore lost the state's electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2000), Oklahoma, the Dakotas, and Utah, a conservative Democrat is seen as the only kind of Democrat who can be viable at the polls. Some progressive activists also view the Blue Dogs as an important part of a Democratic Party big tent coalition, which will give the party important credibility with rural voters and social conservatives, while viewing the Blue Dogs as perhaps easier to swing to the left on fiscal and trade issues than the DLC.

Others in the party's left wing disagree, and have promoted the idea of running future primary challenges against both Blue Dog Coalition and DLC members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

[fooj]

1. Blue Dogs, DLC...

Shit...aren't we just DEMOCRATS!???

[gratuitous]

6. When you represent a broad constituency

It can be tough to appeal to all people at all times. For example, when you want to spend more money for health care, the Blue Dogs are going to be upset because taxes might be raised (ignore for the moment the comparison of a tax hike of a few dollars a month versus the prospect of having an uninsured accident or health crisis like a heart attack). The DLC folks are going to get nervous because it might mean that their overrich campaign donors in the health care industry might face a loss of income, and they might not be quite so inclined to write big checks to campaign funds.

It’s much easier to be a Republican. You pander to your overrich base, scare some scareable people that taxes are going to go up or you might not be able to choose your doctor (whom you can’t afford to see anyway, but the scareable people aren’t into nuance like that). With any luck, you eke out a bare majority of folks who care enough to vote, and keep yourselves in power.

The big mass of folks who would really like universal health care and wouldn’t mind paying for it lose out, because they aren’t as organized or well-funded as the DLC or the GOP, and the scare language of the GOP resonates with the Blue Dogs, who do the GOP’s dirty work in making inroads in the Democratic base.

[wyldwolf]

7. "inroads in the Democratic base." What is the "base?"

Anytime someone speaks of the "base" as some separate entity from Democrats as a whole, I have to question what they think is the base and why.

[gratuitous]

10. Shorthand for "the natural constituency"

I'd call the natural constituency of the Democratic party to be the lower class, blue collar, and white collar middle class, as Democratic party principles are generally in favor of working people; labor rather than management or capital. More of that natural constituency would be environmentalists and environmentally-conscious folks. And generally anyone who recognizes or believes that service of the common good for most of society will inure to their individual benefit as well. That is, a childless person will recognize that quality public schools will inure to his or her benefit by raising the educational level of the next generation, and be willing to pay taxes that foster good schools with well-paid, professional teachers and administrators, small class sizes, and well-maintained buildings and physical plants.

Naturally, nobody fits into any one category neatly. Each of us is a jumble of competing interests, some altruistic, some selfish. Folks who ordinarily would be expected to support Democratic policies will vote against their own interest because they perceive a greater benefit to be had by (for example) buying weapons and armaments -- even if they're unnecessary and will eventually be discarded when obsolete -- rather than maintaining a good highway system.

When the Blue Dog Democrats convince a sizable segment of the populace to buy more and bigger armaments and fund private contractors to carry out military objectives, they're making inroads into the Democratic base which will support federal money being spent on useless equipment instead of funding alternative energy research, because they are persuaded that our national security will be enhanced by expensive weaponry that will never be used rather than long-term research and development of renewable energy resources.

[wyldwolf]

13. better yet, the single most reliable voting block

Consisting of many types of people. To conclude as many do on DU that "the base" is some small liberal unified in thought and practice is ludicrous.

The "graasroots/netroots" types, with their constant threats to vote third party or withhold their votes until some goal is met hardly qualifies them to lay claim to the mantle.

[Clark2008]

23. Question: what if we really just think the Dem nominee sucks?

I really, really, really don't trust one of the candidates to make sound decisions on foreign policy because he hasn't in the past. I really, really, really think he changes his mind to suit whatever audience he's speaking in front of and, chances are, in my state, my one vote either way probably won't make much of a difference.

To me, voting for this particular candidate would be, in my mind and juding from his voting history, be the same or nearly the same as voting for a Republican - a least a moderate Republican.

Therefore, I don't think that it's necessarily some lofty goal to which I'm holding a group of candidates - I just think this one particular candidate would be no better than Bush on diplomacy and foreign affairs (and his healthcare plan sucks, too, now that I've read it) and I don't want to vote for him, even if he becomes the nominee.

What am I to do? Am I just a victim of knowing too much?

[wyldwolf]

25. you're going to think he/she sucks anyway.

[ulysses]

11. who do *you* think is the base?

Is all your base belong to us?

[Tom Joad]

2. I don't understand. We only withdraw troops IF benchmarks are not met?

Not supportive of uncondtional withdrawal?

[creeksneakers2]

3. I like the Blue Dogs because

they are for balanced budgets. However, both the Blue Dogs and the DLC favor massive defense spending. If the money for balanced budgets doesn't come out of defense,where will it come from?

[Labors of Hercules]

4. Domestic spending.

[KoKo]

5. If you have a chance read the Wiki link. Some are Populists

and don't always vote DLC even though some are members. Their main tie in common is being Fiscally Conservative. With Bush the "Borrow and Spend" P-Resident...they have alot they can gripe about. And, since there were conservative Repugs who weren't in favor of BIG GOVT and BORROWING it would seem we might be able to get them over into the Progressive Camp to vote on some of our issue. (I'm a Progressive...but have some cross-overs with the Blue Dogs."

[wyldwolf]

8. there really isn't a big difference. Social issues is where they part ways the most

Blue Dogs might be described as having the social positions of Truman-Kennedy era Democrats while New Dems are bit more liberal.

They're both fiscally conservative. The DLC tended to favor free trade like the Truman-Kennedy era Dems while the Blue Dogs are more protectionist like most were pre-FDR. The changing scope of the economy has made many individual DLC members step back from the "free trade" mantra.

Foreign Policy, they're practically identical and with the overlapping of members among both groups, the policy ideas are often indistinguishable.

The problem with wiki is it can be slanted. For example, this disclaimer is posted at the page for the DLC:

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!)

[knight_of_the_star]

9. Show proof of that

Where in Kennedy, LBJ, and Truman policies do we see pro-free trade efforts? Otherwise, don't make assertions you can't back up.

[wyldwolf]

14. Sure...

The short version: Trade protectionist pre-Franklin Roosevelt were all Republicans - Reed Smoot, Willis Hawley and Herbert Hoover, for example, the President who signed the GOP's infamous 1930 tariff.

President Hoover, in office between 1929 and 1932, had believed that Americans lose when we trade -- and that we lose most when we trade with the poor. Calling on Congress to pass the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill in the first year of his administration, he wrote that with America's high standard of living, we cannot successfully compete against foreign producers because of lower foreign wages and a lower cost of production." In the fall of 1932, he warned Americans that repealing this law would force American workers to "compete with laborers whose wages are only sufficient to buy from one-eighth to one-third of the amount of bread and butter you can buy."

Roosevelt argued the converse. Confident that Americans could succeed in an open world market, he asserted that worldwide reduction of trade barriers would benefit both the United States and its trading partners. His victory marked the beginning of America's modern trade policy; a year later, the signing of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act on June 12th established a commitment to open markets and trade liberalization sustained by each of the next ten presidents.

With FDR's support, Democratic Secretary of State Cordell Hull negotiated a series of bilateral trade deals that Harry Truman used as the basis for the revival of the multilateral trading system known as GATT in 1947.

In 1941, FDR and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill issue the 'Atlantic Charter', a joint statement setting out eight "common principles ... for a better future for the world". Drawn up at sea, off the coast of Newfoundland, the charter includes commitments to national sovereignty, democratic government, free trade, improved labour, economic and social standards, freedom of movement, world peace, and the abandonment of the use of force.

John Kennedy pushed for freer trade with Latin America as part of his Alliance for Progress.

I could continue but you get the point.

[knight_of_the_star]

15. Uh huh

So did they mean free UNREGULATED trade in the sense of Clinton or something more along the lines of what we would call FAIR trade?

[wyldwolf]

16. uh uh

Clinton's policies were not "unregulated."

But that is beside the point. The Dem party has been the party of Free Trade since the election of '32.

[knight_of_the_star]

20. Bullshit they weren't

NAFTA dropped ALL trade barriers between the US, Canada, and Mexico. That's pretty damn close to unregulated in my book, no concessions made based on different labor, health, environmental, and safety standards, just let's drop the barriers completely. To say that free trade as FDR proposed it is the same as that is disingenuous and distortion to say the least.

[wyldwolf]

21. historical revisionism is always a problem

NAFTA was complimented by NAAEC for environmental regulations and NAALC to resolve labor issues, and a slew of other regulations.

Yes, Virginia, the Free Trade of FDR's time was much like NAFTA was in relation to trade with Europe.

My advice to you is read a book.

[knight_of_the_star]

22. My advice is you watch your tone

And just to ask the question again, how enforced are the labor and environmental standards? Last time I checked, labor and environmental standards in Mexico aren't even close to what we have, not to mention how rarely they are enforced. FDR wouldn't settle for something so half-assed, and you forget historical context. In the 1930s, the global economy was in a tailspin because of prohibitively high tariff rates, you can't compare one to the other because the state of international trade in the 30s doesn't compare to the state of international trade at the ratification of NAFTA. Stop trying to use those efforts in the same way the GOP uses Kennedy's tax cuts, you're trying to compare apples to oranges.

[wyldwolf]

24. or what, you'll tell your mommy?

Yes, you can compare one to the other.

[knight_of_the_star]

26. No you cannot

Not without seriously rewriting the historical record, since when was the world caught in the throes of a Great Depression in the early 90s and engaged in a tariff war? Your arrogance, condescending attitude, and willingness to play fast and loose with the facts is not going to win you any followers pup. And if you insist on talking down to people that disagree with you and point out your bs, you are going to be talking to yourself sooner than you think.

[wyldwolf]

27. yes. Only when you say you can't comes the serious rewrite of history

Your arrogance, condescending attitude, and willingness to play fast and loose with the facts is not going to win you any followers pup.

ad hominem?

[tulip]

12. I can relate to that

I don't consider myself close to the DLC although I respect their right to excist.......but I do identify some of my political beliefs with the blue dogs.......especially on fiscal conservatism.

[Apollo11]

17. I want balanced budgets AND tighter gun laws

I am all in favor of balancing the budget and paying off the national debt - by shrinking military spending and slapping more taxes on the rich. I would also slap taxes on all motor vehicles that get less than 30 miles per gallon, plus gasoline, non-renewable energy, tobacco and alcohol. Why not legalize marijuana for over-21s and slap a big tax on that?

But I will not support a candidate who is a "strong supporter of gun rights and gets high ratings from the National Rifle Association".

When it comes to saving innocent lives and reducing the number of victims of shootings, from school kids to street cops, I would rather be "pro-Life" than "pro gun".

[ieoeja]

18. So close ... and yet so far.

I agree with all your points in the first paragraph. And none of them in the last.

Pro-choice on guns and sex. I usually have to compromise and do so on the gun issue since personal sexual freedom is far more threatened in this country than are our firearm freedoms.

Just another example of how it is impossible to have a party agree on every issue, even on the ones they may consider the most important.

[rep the dems]

19. That's my Congressman!

Thank you, Patrick Murphy. So good to have you instead of Fitzpatrick.