The problem with Blue Dogs

[DonCoquixote]

First off, let me give credit to this thread for inspiring my post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9508130

OK, the question talked about how loyal Senators should be. Yes, Senators should be loyal to the people that voted for them, however, there is one big problem that needs to be addressed. In the case of the Blue Dig senators, especially from the South, the main way they get elected is by promising to block Obama's agenda. They get away with this because their opponent on the right is some shambling mess to the right of Sarah Palin. Of course, some say "they need to back the liberal agenda", but when they do, their voters slam them. Worse, when they do things firmly to the right, they get rewardrded, and sadly many of those same "democrats" support them.

Want an example, ok, take Mary Landrieu. She blatantly holds up an appointment for Obama because she wanted those Oil drilling rigs on pronto, Gulf be damned. Sure enough, when DU complained about that, out came the Landrieu supporters that said this was all about jobs, and how DARE we take on Mary when she is the only democrat that can win there. Yes, they had a point, but it also meant that efforts to enforce anything against BP were hamstrung, regardless of the fact that people in the rest of the Gulf (especially Florida) were not happy about having to get oiled on. I can tell you that it did influence the election, as some people felt that if they were going to get oil spills, they might as well have those "good paying jobs" (barf, sarcasm)

I know a meme that has floated around here is that the Blue Dogs got their butt kicked, the prgressive stayed. Well, that might work for the House, but sadly, the Senate has not changed much. Indeed, many Senate Blue Dogs are frankly happy, because now they can act like they have to compromise (barf) and that they are more important being that they are the few liberal votes left (barf barf barf).

So, here is an ugly truth, what do we do to these Blue Dogs in the senate. Do we call their bluff, and risk handing the senate to the GOP, or do we try to work with them. Honestly, I see where it could go either way, as one of the hand, these Blue Dogs did more actual damage to reform than the GOP did, on the other, the prospect of the Tea party being a legitimate force scares the crap out of me, and I say this in Florida, where the Tea party scored a home run thanks to a Blue Dog named Charlie Crist, and another named Alex Sink.

[elocs]

1. The truth is that the Senate is likely to be gone in 2012 anyways. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

6. what do you mean

You mean to the GOP or something else?

[elocs]

9. Yes, to the GOP. Check out the map:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9501769

More than twice as many Democratic seats to defend than Republican seats. I am guessing that here in Wisconsin Kohl will likely retire at age 77 rather than face a nasty reelection battle.

[butterfly77]

2. This is what I have been watching and waiting for..

which bluedog will demand something for some issue and then they start piling on and really making Harry and Nancy beg or give in to their demands. They give in to the repubs demands instead making them answer and cry wolf show the bluedogs for who they are.

Just watch what goes on this week and watch Dems blame Obama when it is really these so called Democrats who stop all of the progress we could gain.

The started as before Obama took office they are the reason the healthcare debate went on as long as it did with the media's help

[stray cat]

3. Well now that we have handed the house to rabid conservatives we can see I'd that works better

[hayu_lol]

4. If Blue Dogs bark like a duck, waddle like a duck, fly like a duck...

then by Zeus, they are ducks--in this case, Repugnants and Libertarians.

They must be forced out by any legal means.

We have a party platform that the Blue Dogs refuse to acknowledge.

Essentially, they are Quislings.

[DonCoquixote]

7. OK,

I ask this question not as sarcasm, nor to stifle debate, I actually want to hear an answer.

What do you say if, minus Blue Dogs, we end up as minority party?

[kentuck]

8. Minority status is not the end of the world.

It gives you time to fix your Party. For the better.

[DonCoquixote]

10. Yeah

But does it let you actually do anything?

[dflprincess]

13. Because the Blue Dogs have been such a help

getting things done.

[jeff47]

12. Your assertion is based on a false assumption

You are assuming that only blue dogs can get elected in "conservative" districts.

However, we've got election results hot off the presses. Yes, 'proud' Democrats in conservative districts lost. But they lost by smaller margins than the blue dogs. So we should turn away from the blue dogs not because we're evil, nasty liberals, but because their strategy doesn't work.

On a more philosophical level, the blue dogs prevent the Democrats from appearing like they stand for anything. The result is the Republicans get to define what it is to be a Democrat, and that's never going to work well for our party.

[TheKentuckian]

5. When the Blue Dog and the TeaPubliKlan want the exact same thing it makes little difference

The handling of the Gulf was a treasonous act of war against our habitat and citizens.

What is it we are doing that would be considered "winning" in these situations? We don't come out far enough ahead to offset the baseline damage of allowing whatever crap the Republicans and assorted conservadems insist on.

There isn't enough space between the various breeds of conservative, regardless of party to pretend there is a net benefit of picking one or the other.

THEY WANT THE SAME THINGS.

[jeff47]

11. What you do is end the filibuster

On the first day of the new Congress, the Senate will set their rules for the new session. To pass those rules, they only need a simple majority.

Get rid of the filibuster, and the few "conservative" Democrats become the least important people in Washington.