So how many of the lost Blue Dog seats are going to go to progressives in two years?

[LoZoccolo]

My guess is zero. What is your guess?

[VMI Dem]

1. I'd answer but I'm kind of scared you will come after me.

:scared:

[LoZoccolo]

3. I'll be too busy being the mayor of Chicago to do that. n/t

[Ken Burch]

6. Y'know, if you actually ARE Rahm, that explains a lot....

Why do you stay in a party you hate?

Why don't you just admit you're really a Republican and be done with it?

You can't be progressive or radical and spend more time attacking OTHER progressives or radicals than you spend fighting the Right.

Rahm forgot what his mother used to march for. And so did you.

[LoZoccolo]

9. I don't stay in a party I hate; last I heard, 80% of liberals like Obama.

I'm pretty much a liberal, just not a liberal: netroots edition.

[Ken Burch]

11. It can't be liberal to want more Blue Dogs back in Congress

They all stabbed Obama in the back last time: they'll do it again next time.

We don't HAVE to elect "Democrats" that think they are above the party that elected them and that they owe no loyalty to it.

Blue Dogs are no different than Republicans.

[LoZoccolo]

13. Which Blue Dogs are no different than Republicans?

You can name just one if you want.

[Ken Burch]

19. Gene Taylor.

Baron Hill. Heath Shuler. Almost all of them. You can't seriously say we should want more like THEM.

Blanche Lincoln(who only voted for the healthcare bill after she made sure it was meaningless).

None of them were the best we could get from those districts.

We don't need "Democrats" anywhere who hate urban people, love the Pentagon and want to force prayer back into schools.

There were NO meaningful issues where the Blue Dogs did us any good.

And, without real commitments to change "organizing the chamber" is nothing.

We organized the Senate. It turned out to be useless.

Half-victories never lead to anything better in the future.

And gradualism isn't progressive.

Most of them are only slightly different at best. And progressives don't HAVE to accept the myth that we're a minority in this country(which you do, and which is the same thing as giving up on change entirely), which is the myth that is used to justify the Blue Dogs.

The voters were never insisting that they'd ONLY let Democrats have Congress back if we agreed to have a right-wing fifth column to keep us from getting anything done.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Gene Taylor voted 78% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/t000074/

Baron Hill - 86.9% http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/h001030/
Heath Shuler - 83.9% http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s001171/

So you didn't like their vote on the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (HR 847)? You don't think it's important to help people who worked on the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack? I think a lot of those people were those "urban people" you mentioned. It sounds like they like urban people; do you like urban people?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.847:

[Ken Burch]

31. He said if he had been re-elected, he'd vote against Pelosi as Speaker

Isn't that disloyal enough for you?

We don't NEED Democrats who think our party should be more like the Republicans than not.

You can elect progressive candidates in any district if they have a strong organization and can present themselves and their ideas in a way that appeals to the electorate they're dealing with.

You just want us to give up. That's what electing Blue Dogs mean. People that vote against us on all the big issues(as the bulk of the Blue Dogs did)or only vote with us after making sure the bills are watered-down to nothing(as even you would have to concede was the case with HCR and Finance Reform)aren't worth anything to us.

Please let go of your defeatism. And please start fighting the Right, instead of the people you're supposed to be allied with.

We can't gain anything from bringing back the Blue Dogs and you know it.

[LoZoccolo]

34. I think the Republican who replaced him would also vote against Pelosi as speaker.

He would probably still vote for a Democrat though. And Nancy Pelosi would probably still be the speaker anyways.

[Ken Burch]

36. He said he'd have voted for Boehner.

You don't even think we have the right to expect ORGANIZATIONAL loyalty from these guys?

Why should we ever settle for people who think they're ABOVE the party?

Why do we need anybody who is that arrogant?

[LoZoccolo]

41. Is thinking that it is good that the Democrats lost organizational loyalty? n/t

[Ken Burch]

42. Nobody's thinking that

What a lot of us DO think is that we don't HAVE to agree to guarantee a right-wing Fifth Column in our own caucus. This isn't a permanently center-right country, and if you make the calculation that it is(which you'd have to do to want the Blue Dogs back)is the same thing as giving up on creating progressive or radical change.

We don't have to recruit candidates who are promising to stop us getting things done. We don't have to recruit candidates who take the side of bankers instead of the foreclosed. We can win on a "the people, not the powerful" campaign.

You're whole approach is to give up. No radical change was ever achieved through the election of non-progressive Democrats.

[LoZoccolo]

43. If my approach is to give up, then wouldn't I be cheering the election of Republicans?

And didn't I just say that there was a way to get rid of some of the Blue Dogs that didn't involve replacing them with Republicans? Is presenting a solution a way of giving up?

I'm spending a lot of time in this discussion asking you why you keep making these egregious assumptions about what I believe and/or intend.

[Ken Burch]

49. What way was that?

There WERE primary challenges to some, but Rahm(your hero)did everything he could to stop those.

I assume that you're actually right-wing(or establishment centrist, which is effectively the same thing) because you spend most of your
time bashing progressive activists and telling us to shut up. What good would ever have come of our shutting up? When would silence ever have led to a more progressive result? It never has in the past.

And progressives worked harder to save Democrats this fall than anybody else did, even to save Blue Dogs, so I don't know what you're on about.

And if you support primarying Blue Dogs, it's a total contradiction to that for you to argue, as you appear to, that the DCCC should follow Rahm's fatal mistake and recruit more of them for 2012. We don't need people who call themselves "Democrats" but hold the party in contempt and feel little loyalty to it. Is that so hard to understand?

[LoZoccolo]

51. OK, well then work on winning the primary.

Work on producing more progressive thought in the electorate, work on funding the candidates like people did for Alan Grayson; all I'm asking is that you do not tear down any progress that's being made in the meantime.

What I don't want people saying is false things like that the Democrats are the same as Republicans. What good can come out of that? Well, I would imagine that a plan to make progress would begin with an accurate assesment of the current situation. I mean, it just might prevent us from tearing down more of what we do have. I don't think I'm really doing much that you're not doing anyways, only I'm not constantly using strawman arguments that drag the discussion out tiresomely.

I'd love to see more Blue Dogs replacing Republicans. I've never seen one that votes like a Republican. But if you have, feel free to give me their name so I can look them up on that website like I did the three others.

[Ken Burch]

59. I didn't say "The Democrats are the same as Republicans"

We were talking about this right-wing subspecies that was imposed on the party by the DLC.

Of course PROGRESSIVE Democrats are different than Republicans.

And of course I and many, many others will work on increasing support for progressive ideas between now and the next election. Why would you ever think we wouldn't do that?

And this game of whether they vote EXACTLY like Republicans is pointless. It's enough that they vote with them on the major issues.
If you voted against HCR until it was watered-down and the same with financial reform, there's nothing you could vote on that really makes up for that(even the tiny bill about the 9/11 guys, a bill that faced no serious opposition btw).

[LoZoccolo]

61. No serious opposition? The Republicans were against it!

Do you want me to pick another one that you can say is unimportant?

Man, if I was one of those 9/11 workers, I'd feel even more sick knowing that even some liberals think that my problems are unimportant!

[Ken Burch]

62. A black progressive Democrat, which is the sort that could also have won in Taylor's district

Would've voted for it too.

We didn't owe the Blue Dogs on that one. And we certainly didn't owe them enough to justify putting up with their universal "I'm ABOVE the party" attitude.

[walldude]

29. ROFLMAO...

That would explain a lot...

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Like?

It would explain that people don't belong on DU unless they all believe exactly the same thing?

That seems extremely UNliberal.
GAC

[Ken Burch]

44. It's not about LoZo disagreeing with people

It's about his being abusive and arrogant to people, about his being dismissive and condescending to actual activists, and his acting as if he, and he alone, knows what is needed to achieve change.

He sounds exactly like Rahm Emmanuel(the man who locked activists out in the cold throughout the last two years of this admin, a strategy achieved nothing, since the bills Congress passed would still have passed, and might have passed in stronger form, had Rahm not insisted on back-room negotiations instead, negotiations in which everything that mattered was always given away and nothing was left in the bills that did passed).

[ProfessorGAC]

54. But, I See That "He and He Alone" Stuff All The Time Here

And it comes from the centrists and the farthest left folks just the same.

So, why pick on someone specific for that, when lots of DU'ers do it?
GAC

[leftstreet]

2. If they go to moderate Republicans, will it count the same way? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

12. Are you saying that there were Blue Dogs who were just like Republicans?

Which ones were those?

[leftstreet]

16. Your spelling and grammar are excellent this evening n/t

[polichick]

4. Depends on whether we talk labels or policies when campaigning...

Progressive policies are popular everywhere - people like social security, don't like outsourcing, etc.

[RZM]

8. I agree with your examples

When it comes to economic issues, progressives often have the edge. It's the social stuff that often ends up being problematic. The thing is, you can't divorce the two.

[polichick]

15. The social stuff is used by the other side to distract from economic issues...

Considering the condition we're in now, it should be easier to stick with economic and safety net stuff - but I really do think they need to hire a rebranding expert.

[RZM]

23. It is certainly used by the other side

Though we haven't seen as much of that recently with economic issues front and center for everybody. This whole season in Ohio, I didn't see one Kasich ad that wasn't about jobs. Not a single one. But remember too that the other side uses social issues precisely because plenty of progressive social positions have below 50 percent support nationwide. In red or pink districts, it's often quite a bit below 50 percent. The Tea Party is a good example of the type of branding you're talking about. They go on all day long about deficits and spending and hardly ever say anything about social issues -- and that's the point, I think -- economic issues are what unites them, so they try not to deviate. Problem for them is that they won't be able to keep their differences on social issues bottled up forever.

[Ken Burch]

5. If the progressive runs a strong, middle-class/working-class friendly message

A lot more than you'd expect.

It's not "radical" to assume those seats will ALWAYS be right-of-center.

And it wouldn't be "radical" to nominate MORE Blue Dogs, since those types proved that they're NEVER on our side.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Which Blue Dog was never on your side?

I love this game. :woohoo:

[Ken Burch]

14. All the ones who said "no public option"

All the ones who said "no REAL financial reform".

If they said that, there's nothing they could do that COULD be on my side. Or the side of the people.

If you were right-wing on those votes, you couldn't do anything good on any others.

Nothing else mattered.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Can you name a name?

You can go dig up the list from yesterday and pick one randomly if you wan't. I just want to take this argument out of the theoretical realm and make it about reality.

[Ken Burch]

20. Blanche Lincoln and Nelson.

And all of them who insisted on the completely pointless abortion funding ban in HCR.

All the ones who wouldn't vote for closure on HCR and financial reform in the Senate until the bills were watered-down to nothing.

I've now proved my case.

And no results like the results on those two bills could ever be worth having in the future.

There's no TIME for gradualism anymore.

Thanks to the centrists, no progressive legislation will be passed for the next two years, and more than likely none for the rest of Obama's term. And despite that, you'd STILL say we had no choice to renominate him in 2012.

It can't be radical to give up more than half of what we wanted, like we did on the health and finance bills. Less than half-a-loaf is no different than defeat. And those two bills are two weak to be improved gradually in the future.

[Pisces]

21. It's a waste of time. Some of these people wouldn't be satisfied with Bernie Sanders as Pres.

[Ken Burch]

25. Why SHOULD we want the party to recruit more Blue Dog candidates?

They didn't help us and they're not on our side.

There aren't that many seats where we have to settle for candidates who hate liberals, the poor, labor and the Rainbow as much as Republicans do.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Because they are better than Republicans?

Unless you can show me one that is just like a Republican; keep looking!

[Ken Burch]

30. Nearly the same is the same as the same.

And the large blocks of them that only vote with us 50% or the time or less are effectively the same.

Saul Alinsky would never support recruiting Blue Dog candidates. He'd see that as surrender.

We don't NEED "Democratic" candidates who show contempt for what this party stands for or act like they're above it.

And I gave you Gene Taylor as an example of a Democrat who was exactly like a Republican and a lot of others who were close to it, so you can't keep playing the "Name one" game. I did name one.

[LoZoccolo]

32. Are you going to tell that to the 9/11 workers?

Should I dig up another group of people who are going to be alienated by a purge of the Blue Dogs that you can say is not important?

[Ken Burch]

35. Gene Taylor wasn't the only kind of Dem who could win that district.

And nothing is worth settling for people who vote against us on everything that matters.

[LoZoccolo]

39. So why did he win the primary?

Was he even challenged in a primary?

You do realize it is not necessary to get a Republican elected if a different Democrat could win, right?

[LoZoccolo]

7. I WANT TIME TELL ME WHAT TIME!

Nobody has posted a number yet; let's see a number. It will be even easier than The Price is Right because you don't lose if you go over.

[Ken Burch]

22. What does "I WANT TIME!" even mean?

And why are you so obsessed with trying to browbeat everyone into supporting the idea of recruiting MORE Blue Dogs for the next cycle?

We don't NEED "Democrats" who think they're above the party and don't feel any loyalty to it.

We don't NEED "Democrats" who think they're doing the party a favor by backing it on trivial side issues without backing it on what matters.

We don't NEED "Democrats" who think the wishes of their big donors(and this is the case with ALL Blue Dogs)are more important than the needs of their constituents(most of whom WANTED a real healthcare bill and most of whom wanted real financial reform).

[Coexist]

18. 0 zip nada

:) of course.

[bullwinkle428]

24. Depends on how bad the economy gets.

[dimbear]

28. I thnk the reason you are right is that politics is

the art of the possible.

[Kaleva]

37. zero to five maybe.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Who knows what could happen if the DLC types don't sabotage them.

as they dissed Christine Cegalis (who had come close to capturing Henry Hyde's old seat the previous time) and lavished money and help on the "sure winner" (disabled veteran and all that) Tammy Duckworth--only to see the Republicanite win.

The voters want someone who understands them and communicates with them, not a candidate handpicked by the Beltway types according to a formula, the way music producers pick new members for boy bands.

[leeroysphitz]

40. Gotta start somewhere man. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

45. Well, now, wait. That depends.

Some of the Blue Dogs didn't run as Blue Dogs.

For example, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin. I remember her political ads running in DKos and Atrios as some new brand of super-progressive.

And Sen. John Tester, too. He's made some surprising votes - I wouldn't call him a progressive any more. But he sure RAN as one.

[sufrommich]

46. Probably very few of them. nt

[Hawkeye-X]

47. How about all of 'em? I remind you of the Harry S Truman quote..

They want to have a choice - not picking right-wing and batshit crazy.

They want at least a sensible option to the left.

[LoZoccolo]

48. The one he gave to the 1952 Democratic National Convention

before he lost?

[Hawkeye-X]

50. Wrong event, right quote - if you bothered to look at Tuesday's GD, you'd see his quote there.

and if you don't get it, then I suggest a visit to the other side and stay there.

And FYI - you got a fact WRONG - Harry S Truman never ran for the 1952 election.

So you're exposed. And goodbye forever.

[Ken Burch]

58. Actually, Truman did run briefly in 1952.

He withdrew after losing to Estes Kefauver in the New Hampshire primary.

The speech he gave at the convention had nothing to do with his defeat in the primaryh, and, realistically, nobody would've beaten Eisenhower that year no matter what.

[LoZoccolo]

63. And back to the quote...

If you really think that Blue Dogs are like Republicans, and Truman's quote is true, then how did they get elected in the first place? I'm assuming these "phony Republicans" won elections against real Republicans in order to get their seat.

[BootinUp]

52. lol

not too many to be sure. You are such an instigator.

[LoZoccolo]

57. Well, yeah.

But I'd argue that much of what we see here, like this push to get Democrats run out of office to replace them, is just so much instigation in itself. I think a lot of people have convinced themselves that there's this shortcut to participating in democracy, that if they cause a ruckus on the Internet (at little or no expense to their reputation because they are hiding behind handles) they'll create this scary impression that they are going to do and say crazy things if they don't get what they want from the elected officials. It's street theater, and they hope Obama and the rest are listening, but maybe they don't see how much they are distracting the real activists and poisoning the discourse that the new people who want to get involved see every time they come here and other liberal sites. It's a shame, because people could be out there actually creating enough consensus in the electorate to get what they want; instead, they're trying this cheap and ineffective shot at freaking out the people who've paid their dues and won the offices.

[Ken Burch]

60. There was no good reason for LoZo to start this shit-stirring thread.

Nobody here deserved it.

[LoZoccolo]

65. If people are going to say that the loss of these seats is a good thing,

then why is it bad and/or "shit-stirring" to ask people how much good they think it will do?

[stray cat]

53. 0000000000.00

[bettyellen]

55. 00000000000

0

[bettyellen]

56. 00000000000

0

[Radical Activist]

64. It depends on redistricting.

Actually, we can get rid of 2-4 Republicans with a good map in Illinois. Especially in 2012 with Obama on the ballot.