Pssst.... those blue dogs we hate got us the majority

[Recursion]

Losing them cost us the majority.

The progressive caucus did well because... wait for it... they represent progressive districts (and the members who weren't from progressive districts didn't do so well). The blue dogs don't (didn't) represent progressive districts.

Being more progressive will not get us back MS-4, MO-4, VA-9, etc. It just won't. The DLC was not formed out of a hatred for liberal values. It just wasn't. It was formed because a lot of Democrats were tired of being Mondaled into irrelevance outside of cities (come to think of it, Kerry may be the only urban DLCer, though I'll have to check).

The price we paid for winning the majority was having members representing districts much more conservative than we are. If we want the majority back, we're going to have to accept that again.

The blue dogs lost because we decided the legislative victories we had were worth losing their seats, and with them the majority. Yes, yes, I know, "corporatists run everything", blah blah blah... just leave the echo chamber for a second. We massively expanded government's role in health care and passed a bill that will help (and has already helped) a lot of people.

Deal with reality. We moved farther left than these blue dog districts wanted, and paid the electoral price, and ultimately it was worth it (particularly with a coattails election coming up). But this stuff about running progressives in conservative districts who will magically energize all these mythical liberals living there nobody has noticed before is ridiculous. It's the same mistake the tea party makes (remember, the tea party is the group that kept the GOP from taking the Senate).

[EFerrari]

1. Wait -- I missed the part where we moved to the LEFT at all.

When was that?!

[Recursion]

4. 2008-2010

Like I said, leave the echo chamber for a little.

[EFerrari]

20. You're conflating gaining a majority with moving to the left.

Electing all those Blue Dogs did not move us to the left.

[Recursion]

23. It allowed us to pass HCR, financial reform, the stimulus

And please spare me the idea that those bills being insufficiently liberal somehow makes them conservative.

[Edweird]

37. Newt-fucking-Gingrich's plan was more 'progressive' than the one we got.

The individual mandate has ALWAYS been far RW policy, but at least Newt's only applied to people making $75,000+/yr. Your defense of the RW policies advocated by a Dem president is mind boggling.

[laughingliberal]

79. +1000 nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

96. ...

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

59. How any of those things moved us to the left remains a mystery.

To the left of what? The country wanted that puny public option. The bill was to the right of public opinion.

A mostly toothless "financial reform" bill, a too small and mis-allocated stimulus bill. Whatever.

Again, you seem to be confusing the passage of Democratic bills with movement to the left.

[Greyhound]

92. None of which are "left" or even accurately named. n/t

[laundry_queen]

100. They were holding the fort.

Nothing more.

[Recursion]

103. Yes, and when that's what you can do, you do it. NT

[That Guy 888]

113. Some examples would have been helpful to your argument

When people put one sentence answers like this it makes me think they don't have a convincing argument.

[emulatorloo]

9. I think the point is "too far left for Republican Voters in Republican Districts"

I don't buy into the whole OP.

However, Pelosi House put out some damn good legislation, of course Republicans hated it.

[treestar]

34. Do you live in a red state?

In a red district?

It is too easy to point fingers and blame from a blue state or district.

their accomplishment in getting a Blue Dog might be a much greater one that getting a progressive out of san Francisco.

[EFerrari]

54. I'm not pointing any fingers. I was asking a question.

In fact, I had a suggestion for helping our DUer friends coping in Red areas. Maybe you can help out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9477853

[laughingliberal]

75. Yeah, we all missed it. Remind me when we passed the $1.2 trillion dollar stimulus we needed.

In fact, show me when we even asked for it.

The Blue Dogs were the reason we had to start by asking for an inadequate stimulus bill and negotiate down from there.

[Recursion]

83. Yup. Now what kind of stimulus can we introduce? NT

[laughingliberal]

88. Zippo, nada, nuttin. That's been true since unemployment hit 10%.

Passing the inadequate stimulus and failing to tell people it was inadequate and call out the deficit hawks about it set us up to never be able to do more.

As soon as unemployment hit 10%, after the President promised it wouldn't go over 8%, all chance of ever getting more was lost. The Republicans were then able to paint the stimulus as a failure and discredit the whole idea of stimulus, completely.

It was one thing to let the Blue Dogs and Republicans water down the stimulus. It was another to go out and make claims for it that would never be realized.

[Slit Skirt]

101. whack!!!!!

:toast:

[stray cat]

2. We are better off with them then the rabid conservatives

now we have bohner instead

[Cosmocat]

94. People just do NOT get it ...

it isn't easy to understand ...

There is no middle, and there is no moderate republican, not a stinking one at this point ...

You either have "progressives," "blue doges" or republicans ...

[leeroysphitz]

3. pssst... even in the minority we are better off without them. n/t

When the pukes fall flat on their faces, and they will, we might, at least, have a chance to get a few real democrats into those seats.

[Recursion]

5. Well, between you and the post above you, that's the argument

Are we better off with conservative Democrats, or even more conservative Republicans?

[dkf]

13. Then you should be celebrating.

[treestar]

36. Which seats? Name the districts and your knowledge about them

And why your plans for places you've never been to are better than those of the Democrats that live there.

[kctim]

69. They can't

All they can do is tell each other that we really want to be just like them, whether we know it or not.

[Recursion]

74. It's the "what's the matter with Kansas" syndrome

Way too much "why are these rubes voting against their own clear self-interest?" and way too little "why is my view of 'self-interest' different from theirs?"

[kctim]

86. No doubt

and sadly, they would rather dismiss, demean and ignore our differing views than discuss, understand and respect them.

[countrydad58]

60. Very True!

[leftstreet]

6. The Democrats would need to run Richard Nixon to move back to the left

What is this 'being more progressive' of which you speak?

[Recursion]

11. Yes, Republicans in the 70s were more liberal than Democrats today

The country as a whole was significantly more liberal.

It's simply not the case that things always become more liberal as time passes, though many of us seem to think so.

You can say all you want that we're only more conservative because of the corporatist lie machine or whatever, but that doesn't matter because we are, in fact, a more conservative country than we were 40 years ago. And pretending that isn't so won't help us.

What is this 'being more progressive' of which you speak?

Well, until you can see that, I'd suggest you don't manage any campaigns in the south or great plains.

[Tony_FLADEM]

7. People in these districts are conservative when it comes to balancing the budget

and the abortion issue.


If the Democratic Party embraced a balance budget and worked to reduce abortions by dealing with the cause of abortion which is economic, they could win these conservative districts.

On other issues such as regulation of business and healthcare these people agree with liberals.

[Cant trust em]

8. This is true. Many of the seats we lost were in places that didn't exactly embrace Obama in 2008.

nt

[sinkingfeeling]

10. I think we will notice their absence when there's a vote for, let's say gay rights or abortion.

One of the most-hated 'blue dog' Senators to lose was Blanche Lincoln. Many here celebrated and haven't realized what not having her vote on education, financial reform, abortion, civil rights, etc. will do.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

16. Blanche Walmart deserved to lose

Not because she was a DLC'er, a Blue Dog, or a corporate shill. But because she stole the Arkansas primary. Bill Halter might have won that seat. Everyone knew she was going to lose, including her and her Arkansas Clinton mafia fan club.

[sinkingfeeling]

18. Bill Halter didn't have a prayer of winning in Arkansas this general election. Dream on.

[Recursion]

22. He was polling better than Lincoln; she had strong negatives for a lot of reasons

But, yeah, I would be doubtful.

[sinkingfeeling]

97. Take a look at the outcome from the entire state. We only have 4 Congressional districts. The

one that covers NW Arkansas has been in the hands of the GOP since the 1960's and Boozman was the Representative. It went to a Republican by a 72% to 28%. In District 2, Democratic State Senator Ellis was defeated by Karl Rove's boy, Tim Griffin 58% to 38%, replacing moderate Democrat Vic Snyder. In District 1, replacing moderate Democrat Marion Barry, the Republican won 52% to 43%. The only Democratic winner was one of the chief Blue Dogs, Mike Ross, in District 4, winning 58% to 40%.


With the major shift of District 2, I would guess Halter would have lost to Boozman by about 62% to 34%.

[w4rma]

108. In a better election year he would. (nt)

[apocalypsehow]

102. "Clinton mafia fan club" - Nice.

:eyes:

[DCKit]

12. What's the difference between a (D)-DLC and a Republican?

The current makeup of the House simply reflects the reality that is, and has been since 2006.

My opinion.

[Recursion]

15. The difference is who holds the gavel. And DLC is not the same as blue dog

In fact IIRC the only member they have in common is Jane Harman (why couldn't she have been one of the losing blue dogs?)

[emulatorloo]

14. Well at any rate I am very PISSED OFF at the Blue Dogs right now re Dem Minority Leader fight

They have no right to be agitating for the position of minority leader. There are more people in the progressive caucus.

Strategically the LAST THING we need is a ConservaDem negotiating with Boehner

[Recursion]

17. Totally agree: this is not the time for that

And I don't think we should change our legislative strategy to keep blue dog seats, just that we should recognize that if we go too far we'll lose them for a while.

[fascisthunter]

19. lol... they also lost the majority for not representing people

but instead representing big money.

[ClassWarrior]

21. A district only becomes progressive when it elects one. And if you never run one there...

...how will you ever know?

Again, there is NO "center" and there are NO "centrists." The winners are the ones -- left and right -- who stand strong for their values. Those who try to cling to a squishy middle LOSE.

No Center, No Centrists
George Lakoff

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

...I am a cognitive scientist and believe that people's brains play a significant role in elections. From the perspective of brain science, the answer is a no-brainer. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals.

Read the rest at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[Recursion]

25. Well, Lakoff is just wrong

The winners are the ones -- left and right -- who stand strong for their values.

Like Grayson. And O'Donnell.

The winners are people who convince voters they will accomplish things the voters want.

Well, I'll agree with Lakoff that there isn't a centrist "movement" or "ideology", because "centrists" are people who aren't very concerned with ideology.

[ClassWarrior]

28. Cherry-picking names of targeted candidates. ROFL.

:rofl:

NGU.

[Recursion]

31. Specifically picking people whose constituents didn't give a damn about ideology

And wanted someone who would spend more time writing legislation that helps their district than getting on tv making outrageous statements.

[ClassWarrior]

98. Why do you keep bringing up "ideology?" It helps to read the article first...

...before acting like one knows what one is talking about.

:shrug:

NGU.

[Faryn Balyncd]

24. Lots of Americans would have loved the right to buy-in to Medicare...(& just aren't impressed that..

...."we massively expanded government's role in health care" (with a mandate to buy overpriced corporate insurance with no public option).

Perhaps we need to measure our worth by how much we truly address the problems that are killing Americans, rather than by how much "we massively expanded government's role".

The fact is, a public option was what the clear MAJORITY of Americans wanted, even in red districts, ("center right", my ass)...... but "massively expanding the government's role" as a collection thug for corrupt corporations just didn't quite hit the mark.

If we actually solve people's problems, even with so-called "left wing" solutions, we will be rewarded at the polls.

If don't address the real problems, or make them worse, or claim to "reform" the system with a flawed pseudo-reform, we will be punished at the polls.

Saying we succeeded because "we massively expanded government's role in health care", won't even hold water with the "left".







:kick:

[Recursion]

26. That focus-groups well until you get into the price

And then it doesn't focus group well. It always polls well because it's usually a simple question like "would you like to be able to buy in to Medicare", to which most people say "yes" because you never get into how it's paid for.

Hospitals and doctors hate the idea because they're losing money on Medicaid patients already and fear it would become Medicaid II.

[Faryn Balyncd]

35. (By the way, I am not arguing against your main point re: blue dogs)

[Recursion]

39. And I wasn't picking on your Medicare point; I was using it as an example...

...of how politicians have to deal with messy realities that don't get accurately represented in phone polls.

The main reason the public option died was that nobody could come up with a convincing way to pay for it that wouldn't bankrupt small hospitals and independent general practitioners. But that's the kind of stuff that never gets into the public debate because too many people are shouting "single payer" or "death panels".

[countrydad58]

68. Focus group the cost of war.

[Recursion]

76. Roughly 180 billion dollars per year (and falling); about 1/5th of Medicare

That 1/5th sure would help, though.

[countrydad58]

81. Bush tax cuts

How does that help the country? Now Obama is breaking his back bending over to these Nazi fuckers! I am both sick & furious with his administration & his timidity!

[Recursion]

82. Nazis rounded up tens of millions of people and methodically killed them...

...after starting a war that obliterated Europe, killed 100 million people, and established Soviet control over Eastern Europe for the next 50 years.

Republicans have policy ideas that will make our country's economic situation much worse.

[treestar]

38. Unfortunately those Americans are crowded into Blue States

Americans who don't want the government to have anything to do with health care, in Idaho or Wyoming, have as many Senators as the millions in California and New York.

The Dem House passed the public option. The House is representative by the population. The Senate is not. It gives red states and small states more power.

[tularetom]

27. Psst - what fucking good did it do us?

They voted with republicans on most of the important issues.

[Recursion]

29. Yep, that's what we can get out of those districts

We're certainly not better off now.

[TexasObserver]

30. recommend

[treestar]

32. K&R

The Rs did the same thing. They chose Christine O'Donnell and lost a seat they could have kept, had they been willing to nominate Castle, who they thought was a RINO. The outside influences did not understand the local influences.

Each person who calls for primaries of Blue dogs ought to be challenged by the Dems who live in that district as to their plan for getting a further left wing candidate in place. It is disrespectful to DUers who live in red states and worked hard to get the Democrat they were able to get in that district.

[treestar]

33. K&R

The Rs did the same thing. They chose Christine O'Donnell and lost a seat they could have kept, had they been willing to nominate Castle, who they thought was a RINO. The outside influences did not understand the local influences.

Each person who calls for primaries of Blue dogs ought to be challenged by the Dems who live in that district as to their plan for getting a further left wing candidate in place. It is disrespectful to DUers who live in red states and worked hard to get the Democrat they were able to get in that district.

[Cant trust em]

There's a lot of bubblism on this site.

It's easy to be that way when you live in a dark blue state, or hang out on a chatboard with like minded buddies. Sometimes I'm still amazed when I remember that Obama somehow won Florida, Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina in 2008. Did those states suddenly turn liberal now that he's in office? Hardly. I think we're learning that lesson right now.

[BurtWorm]

40. Did you also notice that they LOST us the majority?

:o

[Recursion]

43. Yes, because the Congress did its job and legislated.

The price of health care reform, financial reform, the stimulus, and the GM bailout was that we couldn't hold that coalition anymore.

[BurtWorm]

47. Was trying to hold a coalition with blue dogs worth it, then?

Maybe it would have been worth more to push as far as Democrats could go with health care reform--i.e., with some form of public option that would put pressure on the private HC sector to lower costs for everybody? Or to end the tax breaks for the top 1% to spur revenue to pay for a jobs program?

Maybe the voters would have reelected even the blue dogs if they'd gone along with those programs?

[Recursion]

50. In the case of HCR we got as far as the Senate's rules would let us

And, yes, in some ways the House is being punished because the Senate is dysfunctional.

with some form of public option that would put pressure on the private HC sector to lower costs for everybody?

The issue wasn't caving to the insurance industry, the issue was caving to hospitals and GPs who were already losing money on Medicaid. Insurance companies loved the public option (they could dump sick people on it, and the pressure from hospitals and GPs meant it would not really be cheaper than private insurance).

[BurtWorm]

115. You've got to be kidding me!

The insurance companies were in favor of the public option and it isn't law now? Bull. Shit.

[JTFrog]

41. K&R

[Edweird]

42. With that kind of help, who needs enemies?

[Recursion]

We're certainly not better off now, are we? NT

[fascisthunter]

49. actually, yes we are

[Recursion]

52. So you'd rather have an ideologically correct minority?

And, yes, this is basically the new left vs. old left argument, I guess.

[fascisthunter]

57. projecting failure onto the left

second, we are better off because those Blue Dogs are responsible for the mess we are in. THAT is historical fact. Liberals have not been blocking progressive legislature and the left hasn't been in power basically because your conservative buddies in DC worked against them, also historical fact. God luck moving the party to the right, and oh... when you are wrong most of the time, it's time to start listening and not telling those "Who Told You So" what is good for them. Thank you in advance.

[Recursion]

61. Me? Where do you get that?

God (sic) luck moving the party to the right

Since I didn't say "the party should move to the right", I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Recursion]

44. Dupe. This keeps happening today.

Weird.

[Individualist]

45. Pssst....unrec for DLC talking points.

[Autumn]

46. Pssst.... A majority is no good if

the President, and I include the blue dogs, don't fucking use it. Deal with reality? That's the reality.

[Recursion]

48. HCR, the stimulus, unemployment extension, financial reform...

They accomplished a lot.

[jpak]

53. That didn't happen - the Dems are the same as the GOP, Obama=Bush

yadda yadda yadda

[Autumn]

58. I would still rather have a minority with real Democrats

than a majority with republican lite. The stimulus and the unemployment extension could have been MUCH more without the republican lites. The other two were nothing more than lite reform.

[jpak]

51. Sssshhhh - they can't handle the truth

:evilgrin:

[countrydad58]

55. Pray tell

tell me how that worked out will you?

[Recursion]

56. How what worked out for whom?

It did pretty much what it was supposed to: got our party the majority, with which we passed the legislation we could, until we made those seats untenable for a while.

[countrydad58]

66. What was passed? Watered down stimulus

That any true economist said was not enough. Mandated insurance buying ,with the uninsured still not insured till maybe 4 years from now! This you call a success? BP allowed to extract & exploit our national resources,ruining our enviroment. I could go on & on Wars, unemployment, civil liberties, take your pick!

[Recursion]

67. Yes, that was what we could get NT

[countrydad58]

77. Well then it was useless

and your point was?

[Recursion]

84. Only in the echo-chamber fantasy land where health care reform didn't accomplish anything

Or financial reform, or the stimulus, or...

[elocs]

62. Blue Dogs get replaced by Republicans who count toward their majority.

This is not a left of center, progressive nation no matter how many cling to the illusion that it is. There are some who support certain aspects or specific liberal, progressive issues, but go too far with the liberal/progressive agenda and they are gone.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Tuedsay, they lost our majority, rejected by the districts that had

elected them previously. That is the fact. They each failed to win their own damn constituents. Nothing I can do about that. But the fact is they lost districts which they had won. Not conservative districts, not progressive districts, their own damn districts.
Most of the Democratic nation is not willing to live like MS-4 to gain a seat. Sorry 'bout that. A politician's job is to win the election, if they fail, they fail.
All the Democrats on my ballot won. The losers should pattern from the winners, not demand that we too go Republican to please them. They need to take a lesson and stow the excuses.

[GOTV]

64. Maybe you live in opposite land?

Blue Dogs lost in greater numbers than progressives and we LOST the majority

[Recursion]

65. That's what I said. We didn't lose those districts for failing to be progressive but for succeeding

We went farther to the left than those districts wanted.

Winning those seats got us the majority. Losing them cost us the majority.

[Vinca]

70. So, essentially, the blue dogs were the insurance policy against

subpoenas and that's about it. They did, after all, vote with the Republicans most of the time. Maybe, just maybe, after the public feels deja vu all over again (Clinton investigations), they'll wake the hell up and vote for sane people again. That's the dream at least.

[Recursion]

71. Basically, yes

Maybe, just maybe, after the public feels deja vu all over again (Clinton investigations), they'll wake the hell up and vote for sane people again

Maybe; their record isn't that great, though. And they're voting about issues that aren't the ones we face, for the most part.

[countrydad58]

72. perceived in their pea brains

that we went to far to the left. Thanks to weak leadership not taking on the RW.propaganda machine.

[HughMoran]

73. Right on target. 100% correct. Couldn't have said it better myself

Expect to be excoriated by those who, in their heads, think we're a progressive country. No. Parts of the country are progressive and other parts are down right right-wing. We do need some of those who are "in the middle" to gain back control of Congress.

We cannot regain control of Congress without having Blue Dogs in the party - we just can't - at least not without any sustainable majority.

Dean, who was so beloved for his "50 state strategy" was the one who realized that Dems could have a significant majority if we tried to win everywhere - even in moderate to right-leaning areas!!!

[AtomicKitten]

78. That's unfortunately true. nt

[BzaDem]

80. You are spot on. Unfortunately, there are some here who think HCR was somehow a bad thing

so you won't really convince them. They are wrong with their fundamental assumptions, so you have garbage in, garbage out.

Luckily, they are a tiny minority within our party.

[Stevenmarc]

85. No they got us a number, a majority that doesn't act like a majority is nothing

A statistical possibility of a win is not a win.

[scheming daemons]

91. They put te gavel in Nancy Pelosi's hand instead of John Boehner's

*THAT* is the difference.

[Stevenmarc]

95. Well who doesn't love a good Pyrrhic victory

[budkin]

87. Glad they're gone, despite losing majority

Now we can replace them with real Dems.

[Recursion]

89. No, we really can't. I think you don't get the 50-state strategy

How far left can we run in Gene Taylor's old district and win? Ike Skelton's? Rick Boucher's?

If we elect Democrats from those districts, they will need to be conservative Democrats.

[brooklynite]

93. Please point to a conservative district where a progressive dem has been successful

I'm the friend of a Blue Dog Congressman who lost on Tuesday. He didn't vote for the final HCR bill, and I've had personal arguments with him about it. But, he did vote for DADT repeal, and the Stimulus Bill and the Disclose Bill, as well as for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. A Liberal Democrat would not be successful in his rural, conservative district. I'll take him being office over progressive "purity" and Republican replacement any day.

[laughingliberal]

90. Who's this 'we,' Kemosabe? Plenty of people here loved the Blue Dogs & cheer on the...

failed supply side economics they promote daily.

[struggle4progress]

99. We lost because we didn't do enough of the hard GOTV work

[Hekate]

104. Sadly...

I see lots of fingers stuck in ears and lots of lips going "La La Laaaaa I can't heeeeeear you."

But good post anyway. :thumbsup:

[mmonk]

105. I respectfully disagree. When the DLC was formed,

it was formed specifically to drop the traditional coalition that had previously held the Democratic Party together.

[frustrated_lefty]

106. The reality is they were voted out. Deal with it.

[murdoch]

107. European politics in the mid-late 20th century shows differently

In 1948, the communist party of Italy, which a majority of working class Italians belonged to, almost won the election there. Only a massive effort (and some fraud) kept them from being elected to power.

In 1956, the Communist party of France was the largest French political party, with members like Pablo Picasso. In or around 1956, West Germany reinstated the Nazi ban on the communist party. The Portuguese and Spanish dictatorships banned the communist party. Greece was under a dictatorship much of this time, with the same bans.

Up until even 1976, the Communist party of Italy was getting over 34% of the vote, with the Christian Democrats getting less than 39%. The Italian Socialist Party, which at the time had the hammer and sickle as its emblem, got over 9% of the vote. Proletarian Democracy, which was even more militant then the communists, got 1.5%.

These were the major western countries in continental Europe. Aside from some platforms during and immediately after World War II, the communist parties never held power in any of these countries, never controlled parliament.

Yet these countries often have full health care, weeks of vacation etc. French workers create more wealth per hour than American workers do, probably partly due to them getting time off - bosses need them to be more valuable.

The Democrats get in power little happens, US imperialism continues its bloody murder throughout the world. These parties never came to power, yet had a massive influence on the countries. Getting elected isn't everything. In fact, it means very little.

[hayu_lol]

112. The Blue Dogs had to go...

we still have a ways to go with those remaining. There are certain planks in the
Democratic platform that the Blue Dogs were against...basic to liberal thought. They consistently voted with the Repugs.

Look at the failed bills that were watered down and passed because the Blue Dogs helped water them down.

Dump the rest, choose better replacements, and go on from there.

[Richard Steele]

109. They never got "US" a damned thing, as anyone willing to look can clearly see.

NM

[Waiting For Everyman]

110. Those Blue Dogs prevented us fixing the bankruptcy law, which NOBODY can justify.

And that's just one example.

If we never get anything done correctly, as it should be, what the hell good are they? Seriously? The only thing we get out of it is the fact of majority, which yes, gives us the chairmanships etc.

But that is not enough for what they INTERFERE with. It's pointless.

If they at least voted Dem on the key things that need to be correct (public option, for instance?), that would be different. But this way, even when we pass law it's crap law - which ends up doing as much harm as good. And that only gives the other side something to hammer us with, and go "see, government doesn't work".

Well the Blue Dog way it DOESN'T work. We need a better solution to this than conserva-Dems. What that solution is, I don't know. Maybe it's deprogramming the brainwashed middle of the country. Maybe we need our own 24/7 radio or something.

[SunsetDreams]

111. K&R

[That Guy 888]

114. Sorry, but this insulting post ignores redistricting

While DLC has "worked" on the perfection of triangulation and helping elect more blue dogs, the pukes have been doing a much more effective 50 state strategy. By dominating local gov't they picked how elections were run, from electronic voting machines to extremely partisan election officials, leading to false candidates with stunning victories and even something as simple fewer and less functional voting machines in Democratic districts that haven't been gerrymandered away.


Blue Dogs and even "moderate" Dems don't seem to have done anything to counter the legal or especially the ILLEGAL tactics that are driving them from power. When was the last high level conviction for "caging"? When was the last maximum sentence for caging on a low level operative? Not only do "moderate, reasonable" Democrats apparently not want to fight this battle, they seem frightened to even acknowledge it's existence.


Psst... your condescending tone stinks of DLC failure.