Inside the Blue Dog Mind

[babylonsister]

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/inside-blue-dog-mind


Inside the Blue Dog Mind

— By Kevin Drum
| Fri Sep. 24, 2010


Are the Blue Dogs congenital morons? Wait. Don't answer that. First read this passage about their support for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy:

"People are very imprecise with the way they are talking about it and reporting it," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) said in an interview last week. "The Blue Dogs have not proposed a permanent tax increase for the wealthy, just a temporary plan....They are working to identify offsets in the event that they are doing a one- or two-year extension {for the wealthy}, which is totally different from the Republican plan."

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Thursday, Rep. James Cyburn (D-S.C) the House Majority Whip, confirmed that Blue Dogs are working on a plan to identify specific cuts in government spending as a means of paying for a temporary extension for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Let me get this straight. It's not just that the Blue Dogs are in favor of extending tax cuts for the rich, which is an unpopular policy. They're also in favor of cutting programs over the next two years to pay for it. This is not only a dumb idea economically, but would almost certainly make the tax cuts even more unpopular. What's going to be their next idea? Tax cuts for the rich, funded by spending cuts for everyone else, and while we're at it let's outlaw barbecuing on the 4th of July. Then people will really hate us! Jeebus.

[izquierdista]

1. Mine is

Our district has one of the highest poverty rates in the country, yet he continues to curry favor with the rich Republican district to the north of us. :silly:

[DJ13]

2. Are the Blue Dogs congenital morons?

No, they're coward Republicans hiding behind that (D) after their name on a ballot.

Not morons, just liars.

[WVRICK13]

3. Inside the Blue Dog Mind

that sounds like a short trip.

[The Magistrate]

4. The Real Mystery, Ma'am, Is Why They Get Votes In Their Districts

[kentuck]

5. Sir, I think the whole "Blue Dog" rationale has been over-blown...

I think the majority of people vote either "R" or "D". It deosn't matter if they are a conservative or a socialist, most will vote their Party affiliation. No doubt, some will refrain from voting if the candidate is an avowed "liberal", but that is a very small percentage in my opinion.

Otherwise, how do we explain actual Republican conservatives not winning these districts??

[The Magistrate]

9. There Is Something To That, Sir

And it certainly opens the possibility that a progressive candidate could do well in some fo these districts, heresy though that may sound to some apologists for 'republidems'....

[Flubadubya]

8. They don't get my vote!

I haven't voted for Mike Ross in over 5 years. Any time there is a green party candidate on the ballot that one gets my vote. If he runs uncontested I don't vote.

Blanche Lincoln is getting the same treatment this November... Gray will get my vote!

I sure don't want a Repuke in these offices, but then what are Ross and Lincoln? :shrug: It's a matter of conscience, Sir.

[aikoaiko]

10. The simple answer is they they get votes because they are as left as they can be and still win.

I live in one of those districts and while I don't agree with my guys stance on everything, I'm glad he is not a Republican.

[CanonRay]

6. That should be (d-MD) instead.

He doesn't deserve the capital letter.

[Scruffy1]

7. In my mind these people are worse than the Republicans.

They suck up a lot of money from the DLC and always claim they need to vote the way the vote to get reelected from conservative districts. Colin Peterson in Minnesota is a classic. He nearly always votes with the Republicans yet gets to keep his lucrative ag committee chair. His whole job is to shovel money to rich farmers and agribusiness corporations.