At a very basic level, I don't care if the Blue Dogs get elected

[Stinky The Clown]

What is much, much more troubling is the lack of control the party exerts over their conservative asses. We are almost always better off with a Blue Dog than a repubican. It is absolutely true that in some districts and some states, a Blue Dog is the best we can hope for.

The problem is not with them so much as with the party leadership. Exercise some discipline, wussies.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. I think the leadership is WITH the Blue Dogs, not trying to control them.

And I think the Blue Dogs are better than the pukes in the same way that a slow-growing cancer is better than a fast-growing one.

They're both going to kill us soon enough.

[Warpy]

2. I agree. If Reid squeaks back in

use the tight margin with an idiot like Angle as an excuse to replace him as Majority Leader. Get somebody with balls in that job, somebody who will force through the rules change that suspends the filibuster when more than 100 bills are being held up by the party out of power or any other national emergency. Then do the damn job we pay them to do.

It's not a gentlemen's club any more, guys. The Republicans are nasty street fighters who don't obey any of the rules of common decency and must be steamrolled.

[RKP5637]

3. Yeah, I don't agree with the big tent idea that we're all over the place and

that makes us strong. When facing this new breed of republicans I think it weakens us if dems are going against dems. At minimal, line up with a common agenda, it's now more important than ever IMO.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. It is important to own the gavel and to set the agenda... n/t

[Scuba]

5. Voting for Blue Dogs is voting for the lesser of two evils....

... thankfully, I can vote for Russ Feingold.

[derby378]

6. The lesser of two evils is still an evil

If a particular Democrat is conservative in general, that's one thing. But if that Democrat supports sexual discrimination in areas such as healthcare (as Bart Stupak does), that's a deal-breaker for me.