Sam Seder's guest just said the Blue Dog Dems had a meeting with Bush.

[madfloridian]

(On edit: Until I can hear more on this...which will be hard since I only have XM and don't pay for AAR premiusm...I edited to "had a meeting with".
Also adding this article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/12/MNGN7MTPEH1.DTL

I try to be very careful, though often others are not held to that standard...)

We knew about that, and we also talked here that the New Dems did as well. I wonder how much affect that had on the Iraq funding deal last week, and the rather secret trade deal before that.

Since some Democrats are not willing to be open about things, we need to keep an eye out.

Here are the Blue Dogs and New Dems, followed by a list of their freshmen members. It has posted before, but we tend to forget.

Lists of the Blue Dog and New Dem Coalitions

And here is a list of the new members.

* indicates member of both groups

New members of House New Dem Coalition.
Gabby Giffords (AZ-8)
- Michael Arcuri (NY-24)*
- Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
- Joe Courtney (CT-02)
- Ron Klein (FL-22)
- Tim Mahoney (FL-16)*
- Joe Sestak (PA-07)
- Heath Shuler (NC-11)*
- Bruce Braley (IA-01)
- Chris Carney (PA-10)
- Nick Lampson (TX-22)
- Jason Altmire (PA-04)
- Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20)*
- Baron Hill (IN-09)
- Chris Murphy (CT-5)
- Patrick Murphy (PA-8)}*

New Blue Dogs...

Heath Schuler*
Tim Mahoney *
Patrick Murphy*
Kristin Gillibrand*
Brad Ellsworth
Joe Donelly
Michael Arcuri*
Charlie Wilson

[aquart]

1. Did he say WHY?

And WTF they think they'll get out of it?

[StudentProgressive]

2. Ah yes, the GOP wing of the Democratic Party

And the nonsense claim that they'd lose their seats had they voted with the liberals has already been put to death by others; many of these districts voted 70-30 democrat...

[Cleita]

5. Delete. Duplicate.

[Cleita]

7. So maybe it's time to start installing Greens in those districts

if they can't come up with liberal Democrats.

[StudentProgressive]

12. I'm a Kucinich supporter too and I'd say this about Greens:

having worked with a few here and there I have to say that the party has very poor organizational capabilities. Also, our voting system is not proportional or with instant runoff voting -- so it'd be very dangerous to run greens and that might cause republican victories.

The best bet under these circumstances I think would be to have primary battles.

[Cleita]

13. Some have actually run and won in my area at a local level

and I live in an area of California that is more Republican than Democratic. However, I agree that they need to get organized. Ralph Nader didn't help them at all.

[wyldwolf]

21. interesting you would bypass the electoral system and "install" someone.

[Cleita]

23. I thought that is what voting does,

install politicians into office by election. The electoral system or college only selects presidents.

[StudentProgressive]

24. Don't be alarmist my fellow Georgian friend

I know sometimes you jump to attack progressives a little too quick, but that's obviously not what he meant. Do you know that? I can't tell : P

[wyldwolf]

28. it's even more ludicrous to think greens can be elected in these districts.

The notion on the left that they are some invisible majority - even in red districts - isn't based on reality.

[Clark2008]

25. No - in many of those districts you would have Republicans if

the other choices were liberal Democrats or Greens.

Take Heath Shuler's district, for example.

[Coexist]

3. what was the name of his guest?

[madfloridian]

8. It was the woman...Christy Hardin Smith, I think.

Don't hold me to that...he had Glenn Greenwald on as well. Things were moving pretty fast.

We had talked of this before. Bush called them in to meet with him, and he did not invite the Progressive Dem Caucus.

[hlthe2b]

4. It was Chistie Hardin Smith from FDL--- she is speculating...

with good reason, mind you, but still speculating.

[madfloridian]

9. Not really, Bush did call them in for a meeting.

I have a post here, will have to search. Not speculation. The speculation is how much we went along with them.

[hlthe2b]

14. Yes.... She is speculating on what occurred at a meeting

which we all know did occur, but at which she was not in attendence and did not make any suggestion that she had "inside knowledge" from one who had attended.

As I said, it is a good bet this kind of agreement occurred, but CHS is just speculating. She did not make claim to anything more than that.

[madfloridian]

15. I edited my post until I get either a transcript or pay for the archive.

I try to be very very careful. I wish others would do so as well.

[hlthe2b]

16. ....

:thumbsup:

[madfloridian]

17. It is always a puzzle...

that I am held to such a high standard...while too many others just go into attack mode and stay there even though they are wrong.

I value my reputation more than that.

If you read my other links in this thread, you will see that it is most likely true they affected the funding for the war.

We will never get out of Iraq because too many have fallen for the "support out troops" stuff that has been thrown at them for years.

They are afraid of the right wing, afraid to stand up.

[hlthe2b]

20. Madfloridian..

I agree that both the implication that CHS and the interpretation that you took in listening to her is probably correct. However, knowing that CHS is an attorney and is very careful with her words, I simply felt it important to point out where she was drawing the line. As you seemingly agree, we have a need to increase the overall accuracy of information put forth on DU, since I'm sure both have seen how quickly goes the "viral spread" of threads around here.

I certainly was not meaning in any way to attack you, to make you feel defensive, or to hold you indiscriminately to some higher standard. 'Just trying to help you clarify the issue, since I too heard it on XM and there is no transcript available to either of us. :shrug:

While I share your frustrations, I really don't wish to confuse an attempt to discuss accurately, with timidity on an issue. That is a very very different issue. I can assure you, that I do not have "Stockholm Syndrome" and I doubt that applies to anyone on DU.

[Peace Patriot]

29. "...too many have fallen for the 'support our troops' stuff..."

First of all, I strongly suspect illegitimate elections--in both primaries and general election. We KNOW the elections are non-transparent--outrageously non-transparent, mind-bogglingly non-transparent--and that the pro-war crowd, led by Christopher Dodd, supported outrageously, mind-bogglingly non-transparent vote counting, and pressured everyone else to shut up about it. The "Help America Vote for Bush Act" was passed in the same month as the IWR--October 2002--with even more Democratic Congressional votes than the IWR. And the two items are closely related. You can't perpetrate an unjust, illegal, heinous war, in a democracy--especially one with the Vietnam War in living memory--without fixing the elections.

We also now know about Rove's "voter caging lists"--purges of black voters, U.S. soldiers serving overseas, students and other likely anti-war voters from the voting rolls, and his hiring/firing of U.S. Attorneys to influence elections; we of course know about Ohio '04--blatant, illegal suppression of black and other minority and poor voters, miscounting of the provisional ballots, voting machines counting backwards, voting machines changing Kerry votes to Bush votes, numerous anomalies and "breakdowns," shredding of Democratic voter registration cards, with the Democrats nevertheless--or, I should say, the grass roots Democrats--blowing the Republicans away in new voter registration, nationwide, nearly 60/40, in 2004 (where did all those voters go?); we know of the numerous warnings of the computer experts, the GAO and others, that these machines are extremely unreliable and insider hackable; we now know about FL-13 in '06, with an ES&S (brethren to Diebold) machine 'disappearing' 18,000 votes for Congress in an election decided by some 400 votes (an injustice that Congress has still not remedied).

Am I "conspiratorial" to suspect that some or many of these "Blue Dogs" were (s)elected by Diebold/ES&S (rightwing Bushite corporations), and other election theft methods, for just this purpose: giving a Democratic color to a war-funding Congress?

I don't think lame-brained "talking points" like "support our troops" have much to do with it. That is just the blather covering the war profiteer lard--one hundred BILLION more of our future money--to the 7th generation--for an ESCALATION of this goddamned war!

I think there are many things that produced this result. Our election system has been corroded over several decades, with filthy campaign money--money that goes straight into the pockets of the 5 rightwing billionaires CEOS who control our "Alice in Wonderlandish" national political narrative, via their war profiteering corporate news monopolies--for campaign ads. Our Fourth Estate has been corroded over several decades by the unchecked growth of rightwing news monopolies, loss of public control of the airwaves, and loss of the "Fairness Doctrine." So, yes, of course, some politicians are afraid--afraid of being "swift-boated," afraid of being smeared, afraid to stand up for their principles, and for the rest of us. Some are no doubt further intimidated by pervasive, illegal, domestic spying--blackmail, black ops set ups--and other kinds of threats. But--and this is the problem--many WELCOME being the tools of the "military-industrial complex" beast. Many are recruited for that purpose. Many offer themselves for that purpose--they want the power and the filthy lucre.

And now, with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote "counting," they can pretty much be guaranteed election. Add 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote counting to all the other corruption, and you have a system that cannot change course, that cannot correct itself. If our democracy were a heart, you could say that it is about to stop beating, due to hopelessly clogged arteries. A democracy in its last days. A democracy that can barely catch its breath any more, the pace of deterioration is so fast.

That's the political establishment. Near death. Beneath it, though, we have a population that has proven itself to be rather amazingly resistant to the 24/7 fascist, warmongering tripe that is shoved at them on all channels, all the time. Over 70% opposed to the war and wanting it ended. 56% opposed to the war from the beginning (Feb. '03). They go to the polls. They vote. They sign petitions. They register people to vote. They drag their friends and relatives to the polls. They pay attention. They are informed. They give the Democrats two whopping victories--2004 (if the truth were known) and 2006--desperate to push the political establishment to change course. And nothing changes.

The American people DO NOT BELIEVE the blather about "support our troops." So, why do ANY politicians use that excuse? It's because they are NOT beholden to the voters, and they don't care a damn what they think. They are beholden to Diebold/ES&S and to the war profiteering corporations that slipped that one in under the radar: extremely insider hackable, 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting.

They are not speaking to US when they say "support our troops." They are speaking to their paymasters and the guarantors of their (s)election.

I DO believe we must fight on the issues--and fight the brainless "taking points"--however hopeless a battle it is, against corporate news monopolies who ALSO don't care what we think. But I also believe that Priority No. 1 for saving this democracy must be a strategic focus on our actual power: our vote. Until we have restored vote counting that everyone can see and understand--and get it out of the hands of private Bushite corporations--and start electing real representatives, we are powerless to change anything. We can complain all we want. What we need is THE POWER to do something about it. We need to RE-ENFRANCHISE the American people. Best venue for this: state/local. How? Start by demanding a handcount of the Absentee Ballots, and posting of the results before any electronics are involved. The AB voters are a big constituency for paper ballot voting. That will give us a significant check on machine totals in the 30 states with AB voting. In venues where AB voting isn't allowed, or is too restricted, demand handcounting (or, first of all demand a ballot, if there is none) of some significant portion of the paper ballots. (55%, which they do in Venezuela, is a good number.)

With transparent vote counting, anyone who throws shit at us like "support our troops" will be thrown out of office, if not thrown in jail for the lying, deceitful, corrupt bastards that they are.

[madfloridian]

27. I am going to see if I can pay for archived show.

Because what I posted first is what I heard. I think I was right that she said they had a meeting with Bush about the funding bill.

It is worth it to me to pay for it or try to get a transcript.

Unfortunately for those of us on XM, the archives of AAR are not free and we much pay not only for XM but for premium AAR as well.

White Rose archives some, but not Seder's show.

I expect to be questioned over anything I post, so I changed it until I know just what she said.

[hlthe2b]

30. That's great MF, but I have a feeling something is bothering you

other than being absolutely "right," on what is overall, a very minor point. No one here disagrees that the Blue Dog Dems are selling us out on their presumed attempts to compromise. But a suggestion just to save yourself a few $$-- why not email CHS directly over at Firedoglake.com and ask her to clarify what she said?

Really MF, I am truly sorry I brought it up... I never in my dreams thought it would make you so defensive...nor wished it to do so...:shrug:

[partylessinOhio]

6. They were not elected to make deals with the Devil.

If they are repugs wearing a democrut coat they should be thrown out or impeached.

[madfloridian]

10. More from Taylor Marsh about Bush meeting with them.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25281

Good post with links.

[madfloridian]

11. A longer article from San Fran Chronicle

Bush courts Democrats -- but may be 6 years too late

"Bush met with leaders of the 44-member Blue Dog Coalition and the 62-member New Democrat Coalition at the White House last Friday, at his invitation, and all pledged to try to cooperate in the new Congress. But beneath the surface, the tension and the Democrats' pique at being ignored by the Bush White House until now were obvious.

"It was productive,'' Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a Blue Dog leader, said after the session that lasted almost an hour. "It was a good first step toward opening a line of communication.

"But it took losing control of the House to make him do it.''

[depakid]

18. Bunch of suckers and enablers

If the Dem leadership fails to marginalize them, I predict that:

1. People will stay at home in 2008, and

2. There will be a resurgence in the 3rd party movement(s).

[madfloridian]

19. We are afraid to take on unpopular issues...too many years of speaking cautiously

Almost like the Stockholm Syndrome, we try to please those who were in charge for so long.

"The Bush people rely on us to be chicken to talk about the tough issues."

Dean...""The problem with the Democrats is that we run away from controversial issues," he said, "and that turned out to be a big mistake."

"What I want to know is what you think about the stuff that worries them, that's confusing them, and that gets them passionate," Dean added. "The Bush people rely on us to be chicken to talk about the tough issues."

The New Dems and Blue Dogs are still holding us back from speaking out honestly. We need to not hold back when our country is dying.

[Peace Patriot]

22. "Blue Dog" Democrats: Think Gary Condit.

He was their leader, and darling of the White House, in early 2001. He led the group of 10 traitor Democrats who voted for the first Bush/Cheney tax cut for rich--a very close and controversial vote--on May 3, 2001--and met with Dick Cheney during a 3-hour hole in his (Condit's) schedule two days before, on May 1, 2001--the same day, and during the hours, of Chandra Levy's disappearance--a meeting no one--not the FBI, not the DC police, not any of the so-called news organization in DC--ever asked Cheney or his staff about, not even to verify that it had taken place. Condit reportedly had at least three mistresses, and one of his proposals was to display the Ten Commandments in all public buildings. That's your "Blue Dog."

The name came from a painting of a blue dog on some old Louisiana Congressman's office wall--and symbolizes (in my opinion) the old white southern KKK mentality of keeping the land, the money and government lard, especially military lard, in the control of the white male southern "old boy" establishment. I heard these new "Blue Dogs" on C-span radio, just after the '06 election, and they were for cutting everything in the budget except war spending. They are the ones calling for "fiscal responsibility" (except for war) now that the federal government coffers, state coffers, and the pocketbooks of the poor and the middle class have been thoroughly looted by the Bushites, with a debt that will extend to the 7th generation. No talk of getting some of our money back from these criminals and war profiteers. Take it out of the hides of the poor! No talk of the kinds of government programs needed to recover from such a disastrous junta--stimulation of the economy with "New Deal" type programs and protecting the poor from penury and homelessness. "Fuck the little guy!" "Send 'em to Iraq as cannon fodder!" That's your "Blue Dog."

I think that every one of their elections should be investigated for electronic and other forms of election fraud. I think this is what Diebold/ES&S voting machines, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, were/are FOR: to keep Congress in the clutches of the "military-industrial complex" monster, no matter who holds the gavel. Also, to prevent any real populist and antiwar candidate from winning either nomination and becoming president.

[Totally Committed]

26. They probably just needed to know how high he wanted them to jump.

TC

[mitchum]

31. Blue Dogs are the dogs who prefer to lick the balls of others