Since when was the democratic party taken over by the so-called blue dog dems

[bigdarryl]

the media is acting like the progressives are a minority in the party.As Howard Dean said as chairman we know what happens when democrats act like republicans. They get voted out off office

[polichick]

1. imo, it happened when Rahm was put in place. nt

[invictus]

12. +1

[Birthmark]

2. What's the "Democrat Party?"

[orwell]

3. It's nice to see the Con meme has settled in...

...I sure miss the the good old Democratic Party.

On edit: Thanks for the edit BD :hi:

[lyonn]

4. Blue Dogs need to understand they profess to be Democrats

When it takes 6 - 9 blue dogs to decided what direction our President must go with issues like health care that will change the course of medical treatment for all Americans then something is seriously wrong with our Party. When the Vast Majority of the Democratic party wants a public option policy then the blue dogs need to ponder their stubborn view on the issue.

Yes we know, the blue dogs are from States where they stand a chance of losing the next election. What heros they are......

[alsame]

6. They should lead, instead of caving in to the most

conservative factions in their state, no matter how loud they are.

If they are going to call themselves Democrats, they should stand for Democratic principles and policy. Period.

[elocs]

5. Actually, Blue Dogs who act like Republicans get reelected in their districts.

I don't believe that Blue Dogs have taken over the Party, but I don't know exactly what percent of the Party are progressives. A lot of that depends upon how "progressive" is defined and it can be defined in a way which would make most Democrats progressives.

[dgibby]

7. Since they started towing the Party line.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4024316&mesg_id=4024394

[TheKentuckian]

8. I fully accept blue dogs, for the most part, hail from more conservative areas

but at some point you have back the caucus on major issues and more importantly they cannot be allowed to obstruct the agenda or to define the party as a whole. More than anything I have a problem with describing them as moderates, giving fuel to the notion that they hold and push for the views and hopes of the vast middle. It isn't true, they are fiscal conservatives (at least when it comes to spending on the people), pro-corporatist, and only moderate on select social issues as long as that by being so they doesn't cost multi-national conglomerates and the uber-wealthy a thin dime in the process.

The rise of the blue dog, conservadems, or whatever you call them came in reaction to the the huge tact to the right the entire country but that grip has slipped over the last 10 years or so, now they hold the party hostage by voting with and by negotiating by proxy for Republicans, knowing they have a de facto 40% of the Congress behind them. They are, by and large, creating a doubling down of the minority and that has to be stopped, even if it does result in some net shrinkage because we are allowing conservatives to dictate policies that we have to be responsible and accountable for.

Simply, negotiation and compromise are acceptable and have always been part of the American system but we can't allow ourselves to just be co-opted into the opposition positions and policies by a sliver of our caucus. I'm not looking for a purge but we need to demand that the right end of the party be reeled in because their short term help isn't that beneficial long term if they are allowed to supersede the will of the left that outnumbers them as well as the middle of the party that also outnumbers them.
Nobody wants to lose the tail but the tail can't be permitted to wag the dog, especially not all the time, every time. Everything starts with these few in the Senate, making everything compromised before we even deal with the opposition.

We MUST demand a greater level of intra-party discipline or cut folks off from the benefits of being in the Caucus.

[Egnever]

9. Bout the same time this place turned into a mass of sheeple idiots

Willing to believe every headline thrown at them.

[Phx_Dem]

10. I think we need to let them know we haven't been! Contact Blue Dog offices!

Why should six Democrats hold the entire party hostage?

[Overseas]

11. Glad to hear Ed Schultz talking about that too.

It isn't the Blue Dogs that got President Obama elected.

If anything, some Blue Dogs owe the President and Rahm some loyalty for getting them elected instead of more progressive democrats in their primaries.

Sure, the President was ill advised to start the discussion with the best plan off the table. The Blue Dogs would have had an easier time of things arguing for a public option that was an expansion of Medicare which is already popular, and is a mix between public and private systems.

[Better Today]

13. The problem is, blue dogs were voted in by blue dogs.

While I agree and am at least as annoyed about what you and I are seeing in the MSM, which is to say that the blue dogs are truly the minority in the Democratic Party and yet are being touted as the base; I have been absolutely flabbergasted at the apparent support our blue dog congresscritter gets from Dems in this region. I need outta here!!!

ERG! Sorry, Anyone reading my posts as of late knows that the blue dog problem and my proximity to it, is driving me crazy(er, than I already am :) )

[ieoeja]

15. Then how do you explain Rahm?

I know for a fact that Rahm was elected to the House from a screaming liberal district. He got elected because of Daley's support.

Okay, maybe that explains it. Daley is an extreme Rightist. So Rahm probably had to lean Right to get Daley's support. And Chicago can't seem to look beyond the Daley name to his politics.

- Bob Novak last called Daley "only nominally a Democrat"
- He privatized an interstate highway!
- He privatized parking ... on the city streets!!!

If only Nixon could go to China, then only Daley could advance an EXTREME rightwing agenda in Chicago.


So Rahm wasn't elected by Blue Dogs. He was elected by Blind Dogs.

[Better Today]

16. Fair enough, I think given room for some exceptions, my statement is still generally accurate.

[WI_DEM]

14. hasn't it been this way for a while? We have blue dogs and before this it was the DLC

[Better Today]

17. I think the point is the misrepresentation by the media that Blue dogs are the norm for Dem Party

[denem]

18. bigdarryl has a long history of having to be corrected on the "Democrat Party"

[Thrill]

19. Since the Ronald Regan yrs

[rollingrock]

20. Since the death of the Kennedys

with the end of the short-lived Camelot era, the left was wiped from power and the democratic party was turned into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate America.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. Though the Progressive Caucus is the largest caucus within the Party, the DLCers

and the Blue Dog Democrats have been more powerful because they tend to side with corporate interests. I'm not asserting that the Yellow Dog progressives have not dabbled in the corporate campaign contributions cesspool, a la, John Conyers and Charlie Rangel. I'm arguing that both the DLCers and the Blue Dogs have one thing in common: they both tend to be more fiscally conservative than the Yellow Dogs. Both groups tend to be more corporate-centered in their disposition and often side with Republicans on a host of economic issues. And both groups tend to be given more airtime on these punditry talk shows and whatnot. It's the tragedy of the Democratic Party. When I hear the so-called pundits refer to Blue Dogs as "moderates," but blood boils. The Blue Dogs are the conservatives. The DLCers are the moderates and the Yellow Dogs are the liberals/progressives.

Yes, the Democratic Party should be an open tent and should welcome differing views, but the fact that the Yellow Dogs often lose out to the Blue Dog-DLC coalition should be troubling. The Yellow Dogs seldom win on these positions. Because of the Blue Dog-DLC coalition, we went to war, we got the Bankruptcy bill passed, the Patriot Act, and many other concessions given to corporate interests.
The so-called Left in the party has always been demonized as marginalized as the "crazies" in our party, the "unreasonable," "the purists," "the non-pragmatists".

[Canuckistanian]

22. They seem to have made health care reform their Waterloo

Which is fine by me.

It's time the voters realize that when they VOTE for a Democrat, they don't always GET a Democrat.

This may open a few eyes.

[sofa king]

23. I think it was in about 1860.

Back then the Democratic Party was the place where disaffected racists could go. There was a little dust-up about that, you may recall, and it effectively bought the South for the Democratic Party until the last Civil War veterans died in the 1950s.

Then, in 1960, the Republican Party lured away the racists with a fresh new combination of racism and fear and militarism (just like the Democrats in 1860). But the Democratic Party was still heavily influenced by the Scoop Jackson conservadems.

Until the Scoop Jacksons (except for Zell Miller) all went over to the precursor of the PNAC, and the Republican Party, in the 1970s.

Then, in 1985, the DLC came into being and asserted a conservative position so that the Democratic Party could still have a share of all that evil money lying around, in return for shitcanning every decent and well-meaning idea the Democrats ever had.

So what the Democratic Party winds up being is a centrist party with heavy conservative leanings, which actually works fairly well since most Americans aren't all that bright or interested in politics, and imagine themselves to be "centrists" when in fact they're two lightning bolts shy of being total pricks. Most American liberals are really centrists, too, but please don't tell them I said that.

The problem is you have to be smart to be a progressive, and you have to be smart enough to teach others to be progressives at the same time that the other side is doing everything it can to keep others confused and indifferent. There's just not enough of that going around in the United States, and certainly not in American politics.

[Perky]

24. Actually No one has taken over the party... We are Democrats!

There is no one who controls the party. Just a bunch of faction. We don't march in lockstep on anything,