so where are all the attacks against the OTHER dems who weren't on board? (like there was for DK)

[Lerkfish]

Judging by DU, Kucinich was the only holdout, and he was dragged through the vitriolic mud. He was the ONE reason it wouldn't pass. He was as EVIL as the GOP.

then, I was shocked when I read CNN yesterday and found out there were several other DEMS who weren't on board for HCR.

so where is their helping of abuse?

Especially once Kucinich said he'd vote yes, I expected the cadre to start on the next Dem on the list.... but oddly, that didn't happen. Once Kucinich was on board it was like crickets.


(one caveat is that I"m not on all the time, so there may have been attacks on other holdout Dems, but I didn't witness it here -- if that's the case, please correct me.)

[mmonk]

1. It is because he is Dennis Kucinich, a liberal icon.

[Lerkfish]

2. amazing, isn't it?

I don't think anyone even mentioned by name the other holdouts.

[mmonk]

4. When do they ever say anything about the rightwing of the party

(I'm speaking elected Dems, not DU)? When do they ever lean on rightwing Democrats concerning legislation? When do they ever issue personal insults at conservative Democrats in public? The answer is they don't and that is all one has to know.

[Lerkfish]

6. in fact all I see is them bending over backwards to PLEASE the rightwing dems

even to the point of changing the legislation.

yup, this one thing (the targeting of DK but no other holdouts) should be a wakeup call to the fact of what the reality of the current democratic leadership is all about.

[Orsino]

13. Yep. All the right-wing crud that waters down legislation...

...must somehow be the fault of the progressive.

Beck wins.

[blm]

35. actually, when you think about it, it FOCUSED attention on Kucinich's position that the left wasn't

getting from the media the previous 10 months.

I am GLAD that Dennis dug in and kept up his fight because it actually gave the left position greater exposure than media would previously allow during this yearlong debate.

Our position got the last word, and many pledged to continue the fight to expand the bill...and THAT is good.

I don't WANT to hear any more from the obstructionist right from either party. They had MORE than their fair share of attention from the corpmedia for their BS talking points, and THAT is what made the fight harder and longer than it ever should have been.

[Tailormyst]

3. Because they aren't lefties, so they aren't "bad"

You see the same thing going on that we saw under Bush. You could go to any repuke site and see the same things being repeated there and on faux news over and over that were said at administration level.

The Obama people made it clear they were pissed at Dk and so the target was set. Politics as usual. People follow the lead of their leaders. So you end up with the real liberal being targeted and the repukes and centrists given a pass.

[Lerkfish]

5. precisely

[KharmaTrain]

8. It's Called "Whipping" For A Reason

I'm seeing a lot of heat being placed on Blue Dogs. I had to laugh at Stupak's whining, but there are others, James Oberstar for one, who voted against the bill last year and will vote for it this time around. Call it the bully pulpit or party discipline, but there's a lot riding on this vote for this administration and thus the pressure is being applied. I applaud Congressman Kucinich for seeing a big picture here in his announcement yesterday.

[DrDan]

9. I think you make an excellent point. The admin set the stage

and it was noticably followed as evidenced by the DK-bashing here.

My rep - Suzanne Kosmas - is also a hold-out. She had a 1:1 with Obama. But she escaped the mud-dredging here at DU.

[Arkana]

69. Maybe because Suzanne Kosmas doesn't have 8 kabillion defenders

around here talking about how wonderful she is all the time?

Or maybe because she doesn't have a long history of voting against bills that weren't "perfect"?

Pick one.

[readmoreoften]

86. +1

[thelordofhell]

7. Because they don't have a hot wife

And oh yeah, they didn't yell it to the rooftops that they were opposed to it.

[pampango]

10. I don't attack DK, but I assume that most holdouts now are Blue Dogs and, of course,

republicans. Most of us probably get more frustrated when progressives (not just DK, but all progressives) don't vote the way we want them to, than we do when republicans vote against issues we support (that is hardly surprising) or when Blue Dogs do the same (there's a reason they are not considered to be progressives).

I know that there are several Democrats (and all the republicans, of course) who are still not on board with HCR, but I haven't seen a list and don't know how many of them are Blue Dogs and how many are progressives.

[Lerkfish]

11. right, that's kind of my point -- we haven't seen a list of names of the others

but Obama publicly shamed DK and targeted him ALONE publicly by name.. and the DU boards did the same.

[dmallind]

15. Wrong!

17 of 52 Blue Dogs are opposing the bill - less than 1/3, and are a minority of those Dems opposing it. The words "Blue Dog" do not mean "any and all Democrats voting a way I don't like" despite the DU usage in that way.

[Lerkfish]

23. but why aren't those 17 blue dogs being attacked like DK?

that is the question.

[dmallind]

51. You HONESTLY think DK gets more vitriol than Blue Dogs? On DU??

Really? I did a poll a few months back that asked for most despised Dem subset - Blue Dogs won by a 400% margin over next choice.

[Ignis]

71. It's not a guessing game, it's simple math. Do a search of the past 2 weeks.

:shrug:

[dmallind]

88. OK - you search for Deniis Kucinich bashes and I'll search forBlue Dog bashes

I know for a fact I'll find more.

[Ignis]

89. Why search if you already know the result?

:eyes:

Truthiness in action.

[pampango]

37. Sounds like you have a list of Democrats opposing the bill (52).

I count Blue Dogs are those Democrats (54) who belong to the Blue Dog Coalition. If 37 of those 54 are supporting this bill then I withdraw my "assumption" that Blue Dogs were the main source of opposition.

In the final analysis we'll see how most of the Progressive Caucus (82) votes and how the Blue Dogs vote.

[dmallind]

50. I used the one in this post which also cites your source. Only 17 are BDs

The list may have changed of course, but if five BD's had changed from yes to no you'd think we'd have heard about it,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=225031&mesg_id=225049

[Lerkfish]

56. according to my math: 17 is still a larger number than one.

so why aren't we publicly shaming the other 16?

kinda the point of my thread.

[dmallind]

60. And you seem to miss the fact that we DO. NT

[Lerkfish]

63. really? to the same degree?

you know what, though, forget it.

I can't reach you.

[dmallind]

64. I CAN reach you

list as many anti DK posts on HCR as you can find. I promise I will find twice as many anti-Blue Dog posts on HCR. What else does the same degree mean?

[pampango]

49. Just check at the Hill.com. Of the 37 "no's" on HCR-22 are Blue Dogs, 1 progressive and 14 others.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/85693-whip-watch-the-hills-survey-of-house-dems-positions-on-healthcare-

Other Blue Dog numbers: 7 firm "yes", 6 likely/leaning "yes", 19 "undecided", 22 "no" (firm, leaning, likely).
Progressive Caucus: 73 firm "yes", 1 likely/leaning "yes", 4 "undecided", 1 firm "no"


The one "no" from the Progressive Caucus is Luis Gutierrez who doesn't like immigration language and the lack of movement on immigration reform from the Obama administration.

If The Hill is right Obama has the Progressive Caucus vote for the most part, but still needs to do a lot of work with the Blue Dogs and those Democrats not in either caucus.

[stray cat]

12. How many of these other dems are considered by DUers as the only true progressive in the world?

[Lerkfish]

24. doesn't matter

since he was singled out by people who DON"T think that.

[The Magistrate]

66. Actually, Sir, It Does: No One Here Praises 'Blue Dogs' For Voting With The Republicans

It is the fact that Rep. Kucinich's various votes against the Party are praised here by some which accounts for the level of attack aimed at him here.

[Ignis]

73. "votes against the Party" sums up the mindset, sadly.

I'm disappointed to see you employ this terminology, sir.

[beardown]

75. Ouch.

That one's going to leave a mark.

Like the old saying goes, the truth hurts.

[Ignis]

78. Thanks, but I'm not trying to score points.

I'm just honestly saddened to see a respected voice slip into political tribalism rather than focusing upon the underpinning issues.

[The Magistrate]

82. It Is Employed, Sir, Because It Is The Appropriate Usage

Once the Party caucus determines on a policy or stand, all members of the Party should act accordingly. The fact that Democrats do not do this is why Republicans, who definitely do do this, are so effective even when in the minority. A party which acts as a bloc will prevail over one that does not, almost irregardless of numbers.

"Politics in a democracy consists in building group identification and loyalties."

[Ignis]

85. Thank you for clarifying.

I suppose the point of contention is whether or not the HCR bill in its current, neutered state is "the Party's" bill, and thus all who claim allegiance thereto should step in line.

IMHO, there were many, many missed opportunities over the past year to whip up support/unity for stronger, better versions of the bill, yet suddenly at the 11th hour we're hearing that Party unity trumps ideology.

I'd have been much more impressed with cries for unity that actually supported the published 2008 Democratic Party platform:

Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options.

Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.

-- http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

[The Magistrate]

93. The Platform Plank, Sir, Is What Ought To have Been Enforced From The Start

Certainly the recalcitrance and idiocy of the right wing of our caucus is the greatest difficulty we face. Even in the Senate, a majority of Democratic Senators would have supported it.

The experience of Sen. Spector in this is instructive. Back last spring that fellow, a former Republican, obviously laboring under the belief he had joined a functioning political party by becoming a Democrat, proposed that all members of the caucus at least pledge to vote as a bloc on procedural matters, fillibusters and such like. He was told that was unthinkable, impossible, by our Senate leadership. But of course, had that sort of discipline been present, a far better bill would have been passed, and passed before Labor Day last....

[Ignis]

98. Agreed, and that's an instructive anecdote.

Why our party leaders refuse to punish the recalcitrance of the Blue Dogs--while bringing to bear the full brunt of the media machine against such long-suffering liberals as Kucinich and Dean--I'll never understand.

Or rather, I choose to pretend not to understand as an alternative to accepting the dismal, DLC-colored reality. :(

[Lerkfish]

81. He's elected to vote for his constituents.

unless you mean the party supercedes the people.

[The Magistrate]

83. And It Would Seem, Sir, That At Last He Has Agreed To Do Just That

Remember that people voting for him, and many others, voted for a Democrat. That identity is, when the vote is taken as a whole, at least as important as the person and personality of the candidate. When people vote for a Democrat, they expect that person to act with the Party they support.

[Lerkfish]

84. I'd have to disagree in a case where the bill has been compromised by republicans

to this degree.

Your assumption is that the democratic party is for the people. In this instance, I do not think they are trying to help out we the people as much as they are trying not to piss off the insurance and pharma lobby.

if you view that as voting for the people, then you and I will have to disagree on that.

the Party is not always right in individual cases or bills, even though I agree that percentage -wise they are right more often than the republicans.

keep in mind, this bill is the result of "bipartisanship" wherein we capitulated and compromised every where the republicans wanted us to.

[The Magistrate]

96. We Probably Agree, Sir

That it is owing to poor leadership, and pusilamity on the part of many of our Senators, that matters have come to this pass. But to this pass they have come, and in the present political situation, this bill must be passed, poor thing though it be. More harm will be done, to the people and the Party, if it goes down to defeat. In a democracy, it is better to do the wrong thing than to be proved ineffectual, unable to act at all. Failing to pass this bill will simply convince the majority of the voting populace Democrats are incapable of governing, and that will be that....

[Lerkfish]

100. You make a valid point.

I agree that at this point, not passing is POLITICALLY damaging.

but I also think it is also damaging to pass it in this state.
If Obama hadn't made this the first big push, then all the cherries wouldn't be in this basket politically.

There were other, achievable milestones that he could have done, gotten them under his belt, and then attacked this. IMHO

But I think we've already lost politically in one sense, whether it passes or not: we've proven that even in a majority of power, we are powerless to stop the republicans.

that is quite frankly frightening.

[Forkboy]

101. Which tells me the vitriol is more about payback than what's right.

So all the times those potentially dead millions that would be littering the streets if the bill didn't pass were thrown in the faces of DK supporters it really wasn't about what's best for those millions at all....it was about scoring some cheap points online to fap over because some people felt they had been picked on previously. :shrug:

And on edit - It's good to see you, btw. Sorry, I was too busy making my cheap online point to fap over to be friendly. ;)

[The Magistrate]

102. It Strikes Me Simply As A Social Dynamic, My Friend

People come here as much to get into scraps as anything else. Since few will defend 'blue dogs', the chances of a fight concerning them is pretty slim. Many support Rep. Kucinich, and so there is a quorum on both sides of the question, which almost guarantees a fight will break out. Threads in which people are fighting are much more interesting than threads in which people are agreeing, so threads that become scraps over Rep. Kucinich tend to stay up near the top of the page.

[dmallind]

14. Just open any thread at random

And you're sure to get plenty of venom directed at Blue Dogs (even when 2/3+ of BD's are voting for the bill and make up a minority of those voting against it).

Ever think the anti-DK hysteria was just a backlash to the constant pro-DK hysteria that is DU?

[mmonk]

17. I don't think we're talking about DU or it is affecting

elected Democrats and their behavior.

[Lerkfish]

25. sidesteps the point

my point is that DK was in a GROUP of congresscritters that were holding out.

but he was the only target.

that has nothing to do with what you're bringing up.

the point is, the blue dogs who were obstructionist to the bill were NOT attacked.


bringing up DU past history on other issues isn't the point, really.

and I'm not just talking about DU -- Obama singles out DK publicly and orchestrated a public shaming ritual against him. and him alone.

[dionysus]

29. comeon, the blue dogs get shredded on here all the time... and rightfully so.

[Lerkfish]

32. that's a fair point -- but my point was that on THIS ISSUE

DK was in a crowd, and he was singled out.

if the behavior were unacceptable, the whole crowd would have been shredded equally.

[Lerkfish]

30. I should add, my OP doesn't in fact bring up anything else but DU -- my bad

I was intending or implying the administration as well and thought I had that in the OP until I reread it.

[mmonk]

36. Sorry, I thought you were talking about the partywide assault.

Everything still applies though.

[Lerkfish]

41. yup I sort of meant everything but failed to make that clear in my OP

[dmallind]

53. GHow many cites do you need attacking Blue Dogs on DU for THIS reason

to admit you are wrong? 100?

[Lerkfish]

57. are they being attacked for not saying yes to the bill to the same level as DK?

quit moving the goalposts.

[dmallind]

62. Pot meet kettle

Blue Dogs are attacked MORE than DK. Count up every anti DK post you can find on HCR and I GUARANTEE I will find at least twice as many anti-Blue Dog posts on HCR.

[Lerkfish]

65. ok, you go first.

If you'll reread the OP, I already stated I haven't read everything on here 24/7

[dmallind]

67. You're the one claiming DK gets most abuse. The baseline then should be how much

Find all you can. I'll beat it. I promise. If I spend the time listing 100 or 1000 or even 10000 anti-Blue Dog posts on health care I know for sure your answer would be "well Dennis gets more" with no effort to prove it. Put in the work. You made the claim. Support it.

[Lerkfish]

80. since feb 15, 147 threads

now, your job is to find threads on a SINGLE blue dog dem that is crticized for voting against the bill.
I will not accept an aggregate of many. just one dem.

loosely, there are 102 on stupak (though many of those are about Kucinich)

this is in GD. I did not do all the forums

[dmallind]

87. People tend not to criticize Blue Dogs singly but as a group

often even when the people are not in fact Blue Dogs. Once you are one of "them" you lose your identity.

[Lerkfish]

92. so.... you are making my point, here.

thank you.

[MineralMan]

16. Stupak. I rest my case.

It's just that he has no defenders on DU. There's plenty of vitriol about him, though. In fact, there's a thread just down the page.

Lincoln...lots of threads on DU about Lincoln.

Blue Dogs in general...not very popular here.

Again, no defenders to stir the pot.

[Lerkfish]

26. I'm not just talking about DU...

but you make a point.

[NeedleCast]

18. Because most of them were not as vocal about it

Most of them didn't feel the need to call a press conference every time they changed their mind?

[mmonk]

19. The press conference was to explain his switch to his supporters.

Maybe if more would, we would have better government.

[NeedleCast]

20. Just seems like typical Kucinich to me

Everything's gotta be a press conference for him. You may be right though, and I really have not been one of the people attacking him...I've stayed off his case on this issue for the most part, even though I disagreed with his reasoning.

[Lerkfish]

28. all politicians hold self serving press conferences.

where have you been?

[mmonk]

38. In his case, there was a large fund raising effort backing

his stands. Not so in the cases of others that were voting no.

[beardown]

76. This conflicts with numerous posts here.

It's hard to go very long on DU without reading a post about how the democrats need to get the word out and fight the repub and corporate media onslaught and of course Kucinich loses points for doing just that.

While your statement didn't venture into attack status this just reinforces the OP's point that Kucinich is viewed through a different lens than most of the other democrats.

[Lerkfish]

27. vocal or not, a vote is a vote

why only target DK when there are several others not supporting the legislation?

[PA Democrat]

47. Or perhaps their reasons for opposing the bill have more to do with their campaign contributors

than with principle.

Case in point: PA legislator Jason Altmire was an executive for a large health insurance company before ran for Congress. He receives a LOT of money from the health insurance industry (4th highest in the House). The only time Jason addresses health care reform is in an attempt to defend himself against well-deserved criticism.

[patrice]

21. Well, maybe . . . . If I was ACTUALLY going to go after someone, I wouldn't put it on the internet.

maybe that's just me.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

31. wtf?

:crazy:

[RainDog]

34. Obama said he opposed the public option

this is now on record.

Obama made deals with hospitals and big pharma before the bill came forward... Stupak was all about prosecuting poor women over their health choices to get money to catholic hospitals who refuse b.c.

they were on the same side of this issue, basically, in that they did not want a public option but made sure they did their jobs servicing the big money.

you want to claim otherwise?

Where's the evidence? Right here on this forum you can read the quotes from Obama about his initial unwillingness to consider a public option.

so, yeah, that puts him in the same camp as Stupak.

[QC]

33. Artur Davis is making a special trip to D.C. just to vote against this bill,

and taking time off his campaign for governor to do so, yet I have not seen 847 threads sliming him.

[hayu_lol]

39. Why was Dennis singled out? By Liberals? ...

First off, Dennis is not now and never was a liberal. He is a Green and is to the far left of the party(actually, he ought to run as a Green).

Much of the ruckus about Dennis was not attacking him per se, but was bringing his own past record up to date with a group of far-left fringe that dearly love him and will not see his record. The fact that he jumps up and down on his pogo-stick soapbox...his constant flip-flops, his stands that he has deserted when it was expedient to do so--for him--choice for example are all in the man's personal record. His 15 years as a Rep have netted a total of THREE passed bills, none of which did anything for America except possibly the naming of a post office.

His actual record sucks. His followers fail to understand that this is his record. It sucks.

Not an attack on Dennis. With him, the truth is damming. That is why he is not a Liberal but a Green. His supporters are such a small group for all the denial they practice. He will continue to garner about 3% of the vote, except for that very small part of Ohio known as 'that mistake on the lake.'

The title of this thread should be: Why do we support this guy?

[RainDog]

42. bullshit. has he ever said he was a green party member? no

you're trying to define him to fit your own prejudice.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PVnRT]

45. "far left"......"fringe".....

Yep, that tells me everything I need to know about this poster.

[fascisthunter]

55. You just made that shit up

[Ignis]

74. Yes, they let a Green deliver a speech at the '08 Dem Convention.

:eyes:

That's one of the dumbest things I've seen posted on DU--and we're talking about some stiff competition here!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

48. thanks everyone for your responses!

[backscatter712]

52. I was protesting in front of Betsy Markey's Fort Collins office yesterday.

We're going hardcore on her - she voted against the House bill, and she's still "thinking about" the current bill.

[Lerkfish]

58. ok, cool -- are you attacking her personally in large numbers and posting thread after thread

about her inviability as a congressperson... or threatening to "primary" her.... or are you simply trying to change her vote?

[backscatter712]

59. I'm trying to change her vote. n/t

[Lerkfish]

61. good for you!

[slipslidingaway]

54. knr nt

[LostInAnomie]

68. 1. There's no use lambasting ConservaDems.

2. DK was such a sanctimonious douche about not voting for it.
3. The Kucinich Cult on DU is profoundly annoying.

Seems like the "attacks" worked though. Now he's on the right side of a Democratic bill instead of voting with RWers.

[branders seine]

70. This year has been about crippling, isolating and marginalizing the left.

It has nothing to do directly with policy.

[Ignis]

Bingo: Just the DLC flexing its muscles to get Lefties in line.

Smells a bit like the mid-90s again, doesn't it?

[Cleita]

72. Sure seems like he was singled out for this witch hunt.

And it seems like the attacks all arrived pretty much in unison with pretty much the same language. Now that he's flipped, they are all gone.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jennicut]

79. Stupak and his coalition, Lincoln, Bayh when he was being an ahole earlier this year

Conservadems make me sick. DK does not, I just disagree with him at times.

[butterfly77]

91. These are the main ones..

who have gotten a lot of my attention and you can add Baucas,Landrieu and others.

[Jennicut]

95. The conservadem bunch in the Senate.

[Kaleva]

90. DK supporters were cheering his previous "no" stand. Nobody was doing that for the other Dems.

[Lerkfish]

94. doesn't explain DK's NON supporters who only took him to task

honestly, I don't see why this is a hard idea to get.

but for the sake of argument, let's say the ONLY reason people attacked DK was because other people defended DK, that does NOT explain why his attackers, who were allegedly attacking ONLY because of his stated vote intentions, left alone all the other dozens of blue dogs who also stated intentions to vote no (for other reasons).


you can't have it both ways: you can't say DK was only attacked for his vote, and then say he was only attacked because he was supported.

If its the first reason, then there is no excuse for giving blue dogs a free pass. If its the second, then its proving its a personality/liberal issue.

either way, you don't wiggle out of it that easily.

[Kaleva]

97. It takes two to argue.

The numerous Stupak threads sink rather quickly because no one here is defending his position on the health care reform vote.

[Lerkfish]

99. well.... I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

I've made my point and you've made yours.