Skip to main content

View Diary: Blue dogs are your friend, not your enemy (153 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No more support for Blue Dogs! Its OVER (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, JesseCW, anarchyintheusa

    I and many other Progressives will not give one red set for any Blue Dog candidates. So here is an easy solution. Support progressives in the primaries and then the progressives will get our support and we can try to take back 2012 together.

    You pull that "Anything for a D" crap in 2012 and watch support falters and people simply vote D to vote against teh R instead of voting with energy.

    VOTE out the Blue Dogs! Go progressive or go home!

    •  so you'd rather have 100 (2+ / 0-)

      progressives you like than 250 democrats and a majority?

      •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, anarchyintheusa

        "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

        by dr fatman on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 02:12:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  then you like losing (0+ / 0-)

          and losers don't get shit passed in DC.

          •  Boo frakking hoo! Maybe the party needs to stop (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden, cybrestrike, JesseCW

            Spitting on progressives so maybe in the future we can find a way to work with the blue dogs.

            But for now its a hell no policy towards Blue Dogs. Because 2 become more when the "Oh just support these nutjobs and we have a majority and then support 10 more so we get a supermajority that we will piss away in 2 years" meme comes to play.

            Try to blame progressives for 2010 or bully them for 2012 and 2012 will politically go down in flames for the dems in my opinion. NO SUPPORT FOR BLUE DOGS!

            •  not blaming anyone for tuesday (2+ / 0-)

              but it's hard to be honest and think democrats will ever have a majority in the house without bluedogs.

              you must be in the camp of you'd rather have 100 liberal reps than a majority in the house.

              that is a recipe for president palin.

              •  We will definitely have a majority without them (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                redlum jak

                We'll need people like Stupak probably.  

                Blue Dogs have been the crassest of hypocritical sellouts for the most part, and we really don't need them.  Don't confuse them with (for instance) socially conservative economic populists, who we damn well do need -- or civil-libertarians with an economically conservative streak (who are still willing to appreciate Keynesianism), who we could certainly use if we can find any.

                Blue Dogs are for the most part (yes, there are honorable exceptions, I think) not representing their districts, not politically astute, and not smart about any policies.  They are just a drag on the brand.

                -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

                by neroden on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 04:35:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Let the GOP nominate Palin. I, for one, (0+ / 0-)

                would LOVE to see that!  It would guarantee another Democratic landslide in 2012.  She has negatives in the 50s and women voters, by and large, cannot stand her.  Her base is waayyyy over-hyped and exaggerated and Mike Hucksterbee is prepared to fight her tooth-and-nail for the evangelical vote.

                The argument you seem to be making is that having a D majority with obstructionist bluedogs is better than having no majority at all.  I would suggest that the history of the last 21-22 months doesn't support that theory.

                Nancy Pelosi gave the bluedogs permission to attack her if it helped them get re-elected and it didn't work for half of them.  The electorate has changed its mind about bluedogs, it seems.

                •  The majority sets the agenda. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  elmo, Trobone

                  The majority gets the committee chairs. Without a majority, there would have been no chance of passing HCR, Wall Street reform, unemployment extensions, or anything else.

                  I don't like these middle of the road wafflers either, but this is what politics is. You never, ever, ever, get the whole loaf. Ever.

                  "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                  by happy camper on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 06:00:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What you say is true, however, in (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    happy camper

                    many of the instances you cite, it seems the bluedogs hurt as much as they helped, agenda-wise.

                    On the other hand, not having the majority in 2001-05 led to inertia and ultimately, victory in 2006 for us.  We'll see how this latest twist works out, I guess.

              •  No it isnt. (0+ / 0-)

                The presidential run is a WHOLE lot different from Congressional anyway.

                Besides if Palin did win nominations then you wont even NEED the support of progressives for the presidency at that point Obama can air NO ads and still win easily against her.

                The GOP isnt that stupid however it will be a stronger candidate so you need progressive support so don't spit on us for the next 2 years.

                And yes I would rather have 100 PROGRESSIVE (Not Liberal) Fighting like tigers for years instead of what we had.

                What we had diddnt work and never will work. Vote in progressives for your district primary and maybe they can get the extra support a blue dog wont get from us. Progressives for the good part are done with Blue Dogs.

          •  But winners sure did pass some absolute shit NT (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden

            Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

            by JesseCW on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 04:17:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It's something to build on (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          khereva

          Whereas the Blue Dogs who force Democrats to pass Republican legislation is NOT something to build on.

          -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

          by neroden on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 04:22:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, we'd like you centrists (12+ / 0-)

        to support us for a change and quit acting like support only goes one way.

        "Play it LOUD Robbie, Play it fucking loud" Dylan

        by NearlyNormal on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 03:14:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nicely put! That's the issue -- (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tbetz, NearlyNormal

          why must it always be liberals & progressives who are forced to give in?

          •  Because we are the ones (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tbetz, Deep Texan

            bucking the status quo. We are the ones working for change against entrenched interests with really deep pockets.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 06:03:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not sure why that explains liberals and (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tbetz, NearlyNormal

              progressives must always be the ones forced to compromise.

              Saw an interesting slogan from the on-going protests in France in an article in The Nation: "The inevitable is always avoidable"

              •  Swimming against the current (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan

                is always tougher than going with the flow.

                "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                by happy camper on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 07:03:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  you think the more conservative (0+ / 0-)

                members of our caucus didn't compromise? Sheesh. Most of them didn't even want to vote for any health care reform in the first place.

                •  No, I don't think they compromised as (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NearlyNormal

                  much as the liberals and progressives did.  Healthcare is still captive to private interests b/c of conservatives "concerns" about "government-run" healthcare, which liberals and progressives wanted w/the PO.

                  •  Remember that scene in Annie Hall? (0+ / 0-)

                    The Diane Keaton character says to her shrink: we have sex constantly! Four times a week!

                    The Woody Allen character says to his shrink: we never have sex! Only four times a week!

                    It's all a matter of perspective. Of course you think progressives gave up more because you care deeply about what we gave up. I suspect more conservative Dems feel the same way about what they gave up and I'm sure many of the ones that got voted out Tuesday now feel they gave up too much. I, for one, am grateful for the sacrifice they made.

                    •  Never saw that movie -- not a big (0+ / 0-)

                      Woody Allen fan, but I get your point.  

                      My point is, the US is trapped in a nineteenth century time warp when it comes to availability and affordability of healthcare for its citizens and conservatives don't seem to have a problem with that.  Progressives do.

                      Yet, everytime liberals and progressives try to remedy this very real problem in our society, we are told, no, can't be done, not now, not this time, maybe in the future, too expensive, why should Americans take care of one another, subsidies for corporations are OK but there's no money in the budget for healthcare, blah, blah, blah.

                      And the same arguments against stimulus money and financial regulations were invoked by conservadems when they dug in their heels in opposition -- and liberals and progressives were forced to compromise and settle for much weaker measures.

                      We disagree on these matters now, but history always vindicates progressive ideas.  It's just the way things go.

                •  Really, they wanted to leave it like it was? (0+ / 0-)

                  All busted up and heading for disaster?  

                  "Play it LOUD Robbie, Play it fucking loud" Dylan

                  by NearlyNormal on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 08:28:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site