Blue Dogs will suffer the same fate as those who voted for Iraq in 2002-They will lose in '10

[FrenchieCat]

if they keep this shit up.

They think that somehow in this case, betting against this President is a good thing,
but they've got another thing coming.

Just like those who voted against their party, and voted FOR the Iraq War in 2002,
the biggest losers, at the end of the day, were those too afraid to do the right thing,
and voted against what the people of their party wanted.

The real Democrats in their district will just stay home....and Republicans will be elected.
Barack Obama's job will be not anymore difficult for it, since the Blue Dogs have taken the
Republican's place.

[elocs]

1. The only practical way to purge the Blue Dogs is to let a Republican win.

Then next time make to run an actual and for real Democrat.

[Sebass1271]

3. I am all for that. Let them learn a lesson. Or either they are real

DEMS or they are not.

[donheld]

17. Meanwhile we suffer for their sins

Good plan :sarcasm:

[RollWithIt]

4. Keep hearing this "real Democrat" nonsense.....

I mean, is there some sort of test people should take to be "real Democrats?" It's a ridiculous concept.

[Sebass1271]

6. HOw about believing your party platform and core principles?

These ppl forgot what these are.

[RollWithIt]

11. K, what are those?

Define?

[Sebass1271]

13. all dems SHOULD

support universal healthcare, stand up for the common person against big money, work on behalf of social justice, be pro-labor, pro-civil rights, pro-environement, pro-education, pro-choice and lastly, anti-war.

granted NOT ALL blue dogs share these with the rest of the dems or the so called liberal-progressive dems. It should be mandatory for a person that wants to represent us in congress to take this oath and be reminded of these core values and party platform. otherwise, they should not be called Democrats

[RollWithIt]

15. Ok, how is that "universal oath" any different than what led the Republicans to doom?

I.E., you agree with us 100% or else you're gone. And then you're 80 deep in the minority and no one gives a shit anymore.

[quakerboy]

18. Not that hard to find

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a738445026d1d5f0f_bcm6b5l7a.pdf

and as to your post # 15, What makes it different is that it is what the majority of the people want. Not what the majority of politicians want though, more's the pity.

[RollWithIt]

2. What is a "real Democrat?"

I find that statement to sound a lot like the McCain campaigns "real America" lines.

The Democrats in those district happen to be more conservative than other areas.

[Sebass1271]

5. That is bull. IT is not that their districts are conservatives

it is that these jerks have been bought by the insurance and pharma companies.

[cali]

7. uh, sorry, but many of them do indeed come from conservative districts.

that is not to excuse their fealty to the insurance companies, but it is a fact.

[Sebass1271]

14. you said it, many, NOT all.

[onenote]

10. its not bull. many of them are from districts that went for McCain over Obama

[RollWithIt]

12. Incorrect, most of them come from truely conservative districts

And those districts in many cases actually voted for McCain over Obama.

[cali]

8. are you saying that dems that voted for the IWR were voted out of office?

got any evidence for that?

[onenote]

9. president obama's job will not be any more difficult" -- wrong

There are 50 or so blue dogs. On the very first, and in many ways, most important (because it was first) item on Obama's agenda after being elected -- the Recovery Act -- the vote in the House was 232-195. Not one repub supported it and of the 19 Democrats that opposed it, only 12 were blue dogs.

YOu can do the math. If just half of the 38 blue dogs who supported the president on the recovery package had been repubs, the bill would've been defeated. Or blocked. Whatever. It would have crippled Obama's presidency from day one.

The blue dogs are a burden no doubt, but far less of one than 50 more repubs in the house would be.

[totodeinhere]

16. If it weren't for the Blue Dogs we probably wouldn't control the House.

Then where would we be? I don't like what the Dogs are doing any more than you, but I think the alternative is worse.

[TheKentuckian]

19. Are the purity police trying to manufacture a trip to the wilderness for us?

They'll figure out the point of having even a compromised majority.
Control of the agenda, committee chairmanships, and schedule are HUGE advantages in our political system. Then it's the fact that Blue Dog are substantially to the left of the run of the mill Republican on about everything and night and day on social issues. People that are demanding we go from bad to worse strike me as run by emotionalism and or throwing a tantrum.
I'd also think it might register that the country needs another go at unabated Reaganism for any period less than a hole in the head but some motherfuckers are stubborn enough to cut their own heads off to clear up a headache.

It would seem like folks could recall two and a half years ago but the focus on the short term and the hand to mouth mentality are core American issues that transcend ideology. Only the corporate Republicans show any indication of a long range agenda.

[JVS]

20. Hopefully

[depakid]

21. That's exactly what's going to happen

But these fools are are too dumb (and/or corrupt) to see it.

Who in their right mind is going to want to work for them?

[democracy1st]

22. I'm starting to think we have a bunch of enablers in the WH

Noone from the admin is on tv or writing editorials exposing the Bluedog coalition. The Bluedogs are in direct talks with the insurance companys and the democrats are still working with them :wtf: