Should Blue Dogs Be "Primaried"?

[Dinger]

Poll question: Should Blue Dogs Be "Primaried"?

This is in reference to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=343887&mesg_id=343887

I think ANY blue dog should be. Fuck 'em.

[rurallib]

1. Even if they win, they will get the message.

No doubt newly minted Dem Arlen Specter is moving left with the threat of a primary.

[comtec]

41. primary that fucker anyway

he is scum and we the people demand better!
assholes like him are what is killing universal health care!

[Thrill]

2. Yes. If for no other reason than to make them spend the money they got from

the Health Insurance industry

[beachmom]

3. In some districts, the choice is between a Blue Dog or a Republican

Here in Georgia, we have two, and I guarantee you that if they were primaried successfully by a liberal, the liberal would lose in the General. The fact remains that there are a lot of moderate to conservative (but sane) Americans who don't support liberal policies. I wish that wasn't true, but it is.

[rateyes]

6. The choice between a Blue Dog and a Republican

is no choice. Same animal, different name. And, on edit: My Rep is a Blue Dog POS.

[karynnj]

14. Actually there is a big difference

There are organizations that "score" legislators. If you sort the legislators by score, you will see that there are two nearly disjoint clusters. Except for a small number of outliers, our worst are better than their best.

In addition, we now have large majorities in both houses. That won't always be the case. It is a big deal which party controls a house - especially in teh House of Representatives. If we reject our blue dog and get the "Same animal, different name.", that will be one for vote for Republican leadership.

It also has the affect of long term destroying the party. Look at the Republicans, who did primary many of their moderates. As they move to the right, they are becoming a party with meager support in many areas of the country.

I think that it is fine for anyone to run against an incumbent in the primaries. But, it should be because they have a coherent view of what they want to do and local support. I think that outsiders eager to give money to anyone running against someone they don't like can be a bad idea.

[cascadiance]

36. And Rethug minority members you don't have to give committee chair gavels...

Baucus would be sitting on the sidelines if he were a Republican and someone else would be chair of the finance committee then!

If they vote the same as Rethuglicans, then there's no difference there. But if they control the committees, then we have more problems...

[Renew Deal]

51. How soon we forget Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Delay

:dunce:

[Aragorn]

7. make it a single-issue candidate

Run someone who is FOR single-payor even if no more liberal in other areas. They can even claim to be a christian for all I care.

[Jennicut]

10. That is true. I guess you have to vote the Dem then.

But many areas of the country need a choice.

[n2doc]

15. Hell we can't get rid of the repubs here in GA

So we have a ways to go before we can even consider the problem.

Frankly, given the stakes, turnover is a good thing to push for in any case. If we have to endure a repub for 1 cycle in exchange for removing one of these DINO blue dogs, fine. At least they will lose their senority. I have a DINO rep and I vote against him in every primary where he has an opponent.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Actually, it's the only recourse, short of leaving the party. nt

[Perky]

5. Yes.,Not because they oppose reform, but becuae they are blocking reform.

They can try to amend, they can vote against final passage, but blocking the process from moving forward is unconscionable.

[invictus]

8. YES! Every Blue Dog/DLC/ConservaDem candidate should be "primaried." n/t

[damonm]

9. oh, HELL yes!

[T Wolf]

11. NOt only primaried, but if they manage to get to the General, vote them out! They

serve NO purpose other then destroying the party from within.

To those who say any Dem is better than the alternative - I say that the god-damned DINOs are more destructive than any puke could be.

It's way past time to eliminate them from "our" party.

[karynnj]

16. You really don't like being in the majority????

[T Wolf]

20. I don't see that being "in the majority" is paying such great dividends so far. We're getting

a centrist-if-that SC justice, "our" Congress threw trillions at the banks and Wall Street, the wars are merrily rolling along (or escalating), the secrecy/torture/rendition constitutional issues have been Xeroxed from the Bush playbook, there has been little support for expansion of civil rights to all Americans, and the deal-breaker (for me): the health insurance "reform" is going to be worse than no change because the opportunity to make significant improvement will be lost for another 20 years.

I will grant that some things are better than they would have been under a repuke Congress, but not enough, not by a long shot. Whether it is the lack of courage to "do the right thing" or an actual belief system held by the majority of Democratic politicians that corporatism is the best ism, the results are the same --- Dems = Reps.

I am facing the reality that I will not live long enough to see real progress in this country. After fighting the assholes for forty years, I really did hope that I would.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. T Wolf isn't currently in the majority.

T might be on DU, but is likely not a Democrat.

[T Wolf]

25. As "my" party becomes more like the enemy, I fear that my days as a Democrat are numbered.

I have NEVER voted for a puke for any office, and never will. But that does not mean that I blindly press the button for any DLC piece of shit that has a D after her name.

As a resident of Pennsylvania, I am cursed with three right-wing Democrats (Casey, Spectre, Schwartz) speaking for me in DC. None get an ounce of support from me because they are no better than the rethugs who used to "represent" me.

I recognize that I am in the minority, not only in the country but within my own party. And on DU as well, according to the rightward-leaning posts that have become all-too-prevalent here.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. I didn't imply that you were a Republican.

There are other "allowed" third party DUers.

[TahitiNut]

40. Wouldn't it be simpler to merely register in whatever party holds the majority?

If it's that important to be in the "majority party" then that'd be easy. After all, it's effectively the same as having people like Ben Nelson. :shrug:

[SidneyCarton]

30. Yes, so much better to be in the minority, to have no say whatsoever in the governance of the nation

Then again, in your case, it's probably already true.

[ieoeja]

12. At least 1/4th of them!

Democrats + 1/4th of Blue Dogs = majority

So if we replace one-quarter of the Blue Dogs with Democrats, the rest can just go sniffing each others butts. And some of these Blue Dogs do *not* come from ultra-conservative districts.

[harun]

13. I'd gladly run against mine. He's an alright guy but we could

use someone more left and not as Blue Dog.

My blue dog rep is Partick Murphy in PA.

[kenny blankenship]

17. Some of them should be "Generaled".

[ellie]

18. Yes, and then

they can all go work for the insurance companies like proper employees, not any of this stealth shit.

[xchrom]

19. yup -- every damn cycle -- until they are gone. nt

[Hutzpa]

21. Without a doubt

if it was Rahm that recruited these pricks my guess is, he is probably disapponted
because their actions reflects on Rahm.

[bigwillq]

22. Yes.

I feel every politician should. I know money plays a factor (it's costly to have a primary) but people should have a choice for every seat.

[quiller4]

23. Not just "no" but "HELL NO"-primary blue dogs from conservative

districts and we'll get Republicans. Now who could possibly be helped by that?

[MaineDem]

46. I definitely agree. n/t

[NYC Democrat]

27. depends on which blue dog were talking about a few of them are actually pretty decent.

[Ewellian]

28. NO

My blue dog congressman won me over when, as a freshman, he co-sponsored a bill to impeach Alberto Gonzales. He's in favor of a public option. I consider him a BDINO.

[SidneyCarton]

29. If you can ensure their replacement in the GE with a progressive.

Some of these Blue Dogs are in very conservative districts, run a more liberal candidate and get a Republican in the GE. Hence do it selectively, where we can win and improve the general situation in Congress, by all means, give these lousy incumbents the boot, where it will hurt the majorities, let it ride. In doing so we strengthen the progressive caucus and weaken the Blue Dog caucus, eventually nullifying their influence in the party.

[SpartanDem]

31. Depends if they're in a safe blue seat then go for it

but if they're not then leave them alone.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. yes, provided it is not a self-destructive move. The particular district should be analyzed

If it happens to be in a district in which running a more progressive alternative in the primaries is highly apt to increase the probability of electing a Republican who is even far more reactionary than the "blue dog" - that might be a case of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

If on the other hand, challenging a blue dog in the primacies will in a given district sends a strong message of just how out-of-step they are with the rank and file and there is a reasonably plausible opportunity to replace the blue dog with a more progressive alternative - this could actually be a very astute move.

[ShadowLiberal]

33. Depends on if our challenger can win the general election, a GOPer is worse then a blue dog

Much as the blue dogs can be frustrating at times like this, the fact is so some districts we hold are so heavily republican that nobody but a blue dog democrat could win a general election as a democrat. Some of the most annoying blue dogs, like that one who recently called Obama a liability in his district (I forget his name, but he's from Oklahoma) represent the most republican leaning house districts we currently control. As annoying as democrats from those districts can be at times, say we had only a narrow 6 vote majority in the house. If we dumped 10 blue dogs in primaries and then lost those seats to the GOP, but all the other seats stayed in the same hands, then we'd lose our majority in the house, and rather than having watered down health care bills we'd have a house that would probably refuse to even vote on health care bills.

But not all blue dogs are from districts that are too heavily republican for a nonblue dog democrat to win. It's those blue dog districts where we should be threatening primary challenges at, so long as we have a candidate to run against them who stands a good chance of being able to win the general election as well.

[undeterred]

34. They shouldn't be allowed to marry at all.

They're dogs.

[mikelgb]

35. In addition to being spayed or neutered, yes

last thing we need are a bunch of strays

btw "Blue Cross Dems"

[depakid]

37. Knocked off period depending on their behavior

That's the only language certain sorts of folks- particularly corrupt and cowardly ones understand.

Republicans- who are their ideological soulmates in many ways- they get this -consequences- deal. Which is one reason why they win policy fights- time and time again.

The majority of Democrats for whatever reason don't.

[TheKentuckian]

38. Other: Very selectively.

If you can't tell the difference between even a blue dog and a Republican then you are both blind and cursed with an extremely short memory.

Your Bayh's and Landrieu's are far to the left of the run of the mill Republican. Come on guys, we're talking about a party that sees McCain and Ridge as liberals and Snowe as a boarderline Commie. Unfortunately, we have been driven so far to the right that anything less than full on nutts is moderate.

[Forkboy]

39. I haven't seen a poll this one sided since someone asked the Birthers if they hated black people.

[bunkerbuster1]

42. Early and often. yes.

No primary challenges, nothing to keep them within shouting distance of "honest", which is about the best you can expect.

[DailyGrind51]

43. We need more Progressives in Congress!

[Canuckistanian]

44. With alacrity and vengeance

They need to be GONE.

[blm]

45. Primary them and FUND their opponents. The funding of progressives HAS to come from us.

.

[marshall]

47. And in many of their districts, a Republican would win if the Blue Dog didn't run

They are all just a step away from being Ralph Hall--started out as a Democrat in a Democrat district (with the added greatest of being Mr. Sam's district) and little by little it all changed.

[Odin2005]

48. Yes! These nitwits are PISSING ME OFF!!!

[PolNewf]

49. Sure. Be just like the fringe right.

You do realize that liberal democrats won't win in conservative districts right? You want to push the party left but look at the result of the republicans and their purity tests. The democratic party is much stronger as a big tent representing more of the general population.

It is better to work with conservatives that are at least inclined to work with you rather than forfeit the seats to republican conservatives who are inclined to never to work with you.

[Moochy]

50. "Better"

You are trying to make a false equivalence with this vapid statement:
"be just like the fringe right"

But its ok, I'm sure you'll fool plenty with that rhetoric.

Blue Dogs are designed to fail us. They are fucking craven cowards, working against the interest of every single one of their constituents, save the corporate persons with huge novelty checkbooks.

[PolNewf]

52. That may be so but

"their constituents" are batshit crazy conservatives that vote against their own best interests.

My point stands: better a democratic conservative than a republican conservative. And advocating trying to primary democratic conservatives is no different to how the far right of the GOP is kicking out it's own "liberal" members.

[Moochy]

56. We agree that crazy conservatives vote against their own interest

Now where does that leave the Blue Dogs with huge Health Care Industry Novelty Checks?

So why are they voting against their constituent's interests?

Because people let them, people with $$$ and power as their core constituency....
People who think that the democrats need a "Leadership Council"

Sounds pretty undemocratic to me.

[jenmito]

53. No. They were only elected because they "fit" their conservative districts/states

IMO. I heard someone point out that the reason the Dem. party has such a large majority is because they are such a 'big tent' party unlike the Repubs. who are becoming a smaller, more RW-lunatic-fringe party. We may not like it but that seems to be why we're in the majority.

[Meshuga]

54. I am glad I don't have this dilemma

Living in a liberal district means I don't have to make this choice but I would go for the liberal option if I had to choose between a Blue Dog or a Progressive Democrat. But that could be just emotion talking. :-)

[Teaser]

55. Everybody should be primaried.

Seriously, I think every candidate should always have some competition from someone in their own party. It keeps people sharp, and it's generally a good thing to offer the public a diversity of viewpoints.

[Dinger]

58. I Like That Idea

:thumbsup:

[paulk]

57. not if they have to spend money to defeat a candidate who

doesn't have a chance to win in the general election. That would be a real waste of resources, considering that most Blue Dogs come from conservative districts that could easily swing back to Republican control.

I would still prefer a blue dog in our caucus than a Republican in thiers...

[TheKentuckian]

59. Anyone calling for actively pursuing shrinking the party by

purposefully running candidates that we know can't win should be ignored completely in this arena. Emotionalism has eclipsed sense. Building a Republican majority has no beneficial outcomes.

Blue Dogs are much more functional and rational than Republicans. Pull those voting records and then make a choice. 'Progressive' is not always a realistic option. Everywhere is not San Francisco.

[Xithras]

60. No. It just gets more Republicans in office.

I live in "Red-State" California, and Cardoza's district is only a stones throw from me. Even with a billion dollar campaign fund, a real liberal couldn't win here. This is an area where people voted to ban gay marriage by a nearly 70% margin, and where liberal groups are rare and powerless. In local polling, somewhere around 80% of the local population ranks themselves as moderate-to-conservative. The district has a Democratic Rep ONLY because he's a Blue Dog. The last time a real liberal ran, he took home about 8% of the vote.

If the choice were a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican, I gurantee you that a Rethug would be going to Congress. In many areas, a conservative Democrat is the only kind of Democrat that can win.

[DailyGrind51]

61. spayed and neutered!

[Iggo]

62. Yes. Whenever and wherever possible.

[mwooldri]

63. In any healthy democracy, ALL candidates should go through a selection process.

In the UK, the parties select their candidates and even sitting MPs have to go through the process - even if they're the only one nominated and approved. (plus they have to behave or they may get "deselected" but it doesn't stop them running in the general election though).

Since in the US it's a public vote, then yes anyone should run against even established political figures in a primary. Yes, that includes guys like Dennis Kucinich...

So yes, there should be a primary fight every time... if the candidate is truly representative of the "party base" then that would be the one who gets selected. Even if it is a "blue dog".