The Blue Dogs have been showing their colors this week. Not a true shade of blue.

[madfloridian]

Dan Boren, OK, refuses to endorse Obama. Here are his words, which I find totally unacceptable.

U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., said Tuesday he will not endorse Barack Obama for president.

"I still remain very concerned about the (Obama) voting record being the most liberal of the United States Senate,’’ said Boren, a superdelegate to this summer’s national Democratic convention in Denver. He expressed support for what he described as a "centrist” agenda, adding his party’s presumptive nominee’s record does not reflect that approach.

Boren won't endorse Obama

Joining him is Nancy Boyda, Blue Dog from KS.

Nancy Boyda of Kansas represents a district that is part of Obama’s family story — his mother was born into a military family at Fort Leavenworth and has ties in the area around the University of Kansas.

But Boyda probably won’t be escorting Obama around campus in the foreseeable future, and she says she may even skip the convention. “I’m going to stay focused on doing my job. The good people of Kansas are fine with that,’’ Boyda said."

Blue Dogs keep their distance from Obama

Also mentioned in the CQ article are Blue Dog Charlie Wilson of Ohio, Don Cazayoux of Louisiana, and Charlie Melancon of Louisiana.

More from the article:

Barack Obama’s Democratic colleagues in the Senate seem ready to turn to the fall campaign and rally behind him as the party’s soon-to-be presidential nominee.

But in the House, some members of the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats say they’ll keep their distance from Obama, at least until after the party formally nominates the Illinois senator at the Democratic National Convention in late August.

Of the roughly 30 House members who have yet to declare a preference in the presidential primaries, which ended June 3, 16 are Blue Dogs.

Florida's Blue Dogs Allen Boyd and Tim Mahoney are not planning to endorse. Mahoney said he doesn't "owe the party anything."

I found myself chilled after reading this article about the goals of this group. They are like a party within the party, and they have their own concerns....and they don't like what they call "liberals.

Blue Dogs building sway on the campaign trail

"Tanner and "Blue Dog" Democrats — conservative fiscal hawks "choked blue" by their party's liberal flank — are building their own political operation to propel like-minded candidates to victory this fall. They're also quietly raising their own influence within a party personified by liberals like Sens. Edward Kennedy and presidential candidate Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

..""The Blue Dog philosophy is catching on in a lot of the country," Tanner said in an interview in the Capitol. "The American people are looking for pragmatists rather than ideologically driven candidates, and they want people who pledge allegiance to the country first and to a political party second."

Added Charlie Melancon, D-La., "The candidates who can win now are the ones that are like us."

They are in opposition to much legislation that many of us think should be passed.

That dilemma has already flared on Capitol Hill. Blue Dogs recently blocked Pelosi's plan to tack a multibillion-dollar GI education benefit onto an Iraq war spending bill without paying for it, thus adding to the rising deficit. The conservative revolt within their party forced Democratic leaders to cancel a vote on the measure and add a tax surcharge on millionaires to finance the program.

"Sometimes we stand between (Democratic leaders) and the rest of the caucus that wants to do every program in the world and not pay for it," said Allen Boyd, D-Fla., who joined Tanner and Melancon campaigning for Childers. Of the recent Iraq measure, Boyd said, "We put our foot down and said, 'You know, if you don't pay for it, we're not going to help you with our votes.'"

I believe in being financially responsible...but why don't they put their collective feet down about funding this failing illegal war? They don't get irate about that...just about education benefits for veterans. :shrug:

They are so responsible financially that against the pleas of most of us, against all common sense...they joined with New Dems to give us the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill. Many are losing their homes now through no fault of their own because of illness, such as the elderly and caregivers who have nowhere to turn.

The Blue Dogs and the New Dems sold us out on the Bankruptcy Bill.

Guess what is NOT in the bankruptcy bill. There is a lack of exemptions for the ill, the disabled, the elderly who might have large bills from ill health....nothing to protect their homes and cars.

It does not exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing. It does not provide protection for medical debt homeowners. Homes and cars could be lost under this new plan if you have medical problems.

It does not preserve existing bankruptcy protections for
individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.

There is no provision to insure elderly people in financial trouble who seek bankruptcy could keep their homes. Republicans voted down a provision for it, and 3 Democrats from states with big credit card industries joined them.

Making the minimum payment on a credit card can often cause you to go
further in debt with the credit card company. An amendment was voted down by all Republicans and a few Democrats that would have required this disclosure on the danger of minimum payments.

The Republicans when they controlled Congress really and truly controlled it. They were loyal to what they believed, wrong-headed as it was.

That segment of our party in Congress is not really a part of the Democratic party. They have said their own priorities come first as shown in the bankruptcy bill.

The worst part is this statement from the link above: "The coalition has more than enough members to deprive Democrats of the votes they need to push through any piece of legislation over Republican objections, particularly given the party's slim margin of control — they control 236 seats to Republicans' 199.

I don't know about others, but Mahoney is now being mocked by Republicans for his fear of taking a stand with his party. He doesn't even seem to be ashamed of it.

I call it political cowardice to refuse to stand with the nominee because you might lose your seat in Congress.

[robinlynne]

1. Thank-you for this OP. it confirms what we know, but they are more overt than I

imagined. They used to pretend to be Democrats.

[lovuian]

40. we are a ONE Corrupt party system and that boded badly

for the people

[Lorien]

52. Imagine a repug saying "I still remain very concerned about the (McCain)

voting record being the most conservative of the United States Senate,’’. Why does our party love to hate itself so much-and advertise it? To be a Democrat is to be liberal. If you want to be a conservative, there's a party for that. Obama has voted against the liberal position many times. Most of them have.

[rocktivity]

2. How many of them can we vote out in November?

:headbang:
rocknation

[madfloridian]

5. The problem is the leaders have chosen our candidates...put their own in

and gotten progressive ones out of the race.

[defendandprotect]

25. This is the DLC selecting these candidates . . . to compete with liberal Democrats ---

[Bucky]

3. It might be political cowardice, but it's also democracy.

We call if fascism when Republicans who know better never bother to dissent from Bush on one of his more-idiotic stances, like saying something isn't torture when it's clearly torture in order to keep on doing it.

Democrats really are a much more diverse party, so you can expect us to have a wider range of opinions and voter bases that we draw from. Winning in purple and even red districts is what keeps our chairmanships.

I'm not defending their choices, but I don't think threatening a party purge is exactly helpful. We at DU keep saying this country needs to grow up a bit, politically speaking. Did you think that it was going to happen overnight all at once, or that it would happen gradually?

[madfloridian]

4. Where did I threaten a purge?

I think they should be replaced because they do not care that we all should have voices. I don't call it purging, I call it voting. I think they are as close to being Republicans as any could be. In fact I know for sure that Boyda and Mahoney were Republicans.

They don't want to be Democrats. They don't know what they want. They are fearful of standing up for Democratic issues.

[penndragon69]

23. I'd just call them dirty LIBERCRATES !

[bunkerbuster1]

96. "Bush Dog Dems" works for me.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

69. It almost sounds like some "Blue Dogs" want a purge of liberals and progressives from the party

To me, "Blue Dog Democrats" is almost as much of an oxymoron as "Gay Republican" but I'll assume for the sake of argument that there has to be SOME good reason that they decided to run for office as a Democrat instead of a Republican. However, I believe that the intolerance and the implicit desire to eliminate/minimize liberal/progressive influence from the party as indicated by some of the aforementioned "Blue Dog" Democrats' comments seem totally out of place within our party and I would hope that, just as we progressives/liberals should hold up the principle of "Big Tent" politics and welcome all kinds of people (including THEM) into our party even if they don't always agree with us, vote in lockstep with us, or even support our party's presidential nominee (although that still seems kind of wierd to me) that they would similarly refrain from so viciously attacking others within the party and allow us to all unite and stand together against the GOP.

[defendandprotect]

89. I think you're understanding the "purge" the wrong way around . . .

FIRST . . .
The corporate-wing of the Democratic Party --- the DLC --- works to move the party to the RIGHT --
and the DLC continues to try to solicit more "conservative" candidates to displace liberal Democrats.

SECOND . . .
And the group of 40-45 Democrats known as the Blue Dogs who consult with the GOP and
usually vote with their agenda so they move the party to the RIGHT --

The PURGING of the party has long been in the hands of those co-opting the Democratic Party and
its ideals ---

WE are simply fighting back in trying to remove these corrosive forces within the party.

[Lerkfish]

6. ye shall know a tree by its fruits.

[Echo In Light]

35. Bingo

[KatyaR]

7. I think if they're not going to support the Democratic candidate,

they should lose any and all support from the DNC. Let them see how well they do without it.

They're nothing but Republicans in sheep's clothing. :grr:

They need to learn they can't play both sides of the fence.

[warren pease]

12. Yup... They need to understand that there are consequences for being obstructionist...

...assholes hiding behind the little "d" after their names.

Pull their DNC support and let them try and raise their own damn campaign money.

Better yet, kick Pelosi's worthless ass out and find a speaker who understands the use of velvet gloves and iron fists, and when to apply them.

She can't even control the moderates, much less these pieces of shit.

Voting with republicans should be automatic grounds to assign them to the least important, least visible subcommittees, where they'll have plenty of time to reconsider their positions out of the eyes of the cameras they love so much.

Worst comes to worst, some of them lose to a real GOPer in November. Big fucking deal. Who could tell the difference? It's not like floor votes will turn out any differently.

And if dems keep or add to their majority, they still get to own the committees, which is a fair trade for putting these frauds back into the workforce. I'm sure they'll enjoy the power and prestige that comes with owning their own janitorial service, with a little Stanley Steamer franchise on the side to help make ends meet.

Bye bye, rat fuckers. Leave fast before you get run over by progressives.


wp

[Dr.Phool]

17. Unfortunate reality.

These assholes already have more corporate money than they need. The DNC cutting them off wouldn't make a bit of difference.

The DCCC just recruits more of them, and funds them until they can raise their own. They won't even talk to you unless you've already raised over $100k, and preferably $250k. Thats the sad reality of how it works.

Been there, Done that.

[warren pease]

19. OK. Then what about marginalizing them by giving them all the shit assignments?

[RedLetterRev]

55. Which is precisely why

I quit pissing money away on DCCC and DSCC a couple of years back and pointedly told them why. Not that my measly few bucks make any difference to either, but I feel better about donating directly to individual campaigns, where rubber meets road. If DCCC and DSCC want to swim with the corporate tide, AFAIC they can drown in it. The 50-State Strategy is speaking loudly; the bigcorp donors might be able to give more at a single whop, but we're showing that there are more of us who are willing to give all 12 coppers. Yeah, the old guard are stubbornly refusing to catch on, but I believe that their day is waning. Good riddance to them and their corruption.

[Dr.Phool]

65. Same here. DSCC and DCCC get precisely nothing from me.

I'll donate directly to the candidates I like.

I'll be sending more to Kucinich, and some to an Independent running against one of the DCCC's bastard stepchildren.

[defendandprotect]

90. Right --- I will give DIRECTLY to a non-DLC candidate .... but very careful about anything else!!!!

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Absolutely

[madrchsod]

8. foster won the illinois 14th and was rewarded

with a sponsorship of a tax bill that favors elderly home owners.around these parts most old folks are republicans so by giving foster this bill it just could put him back into the house for two full years.

to the victor goes the spoils.

[madfloridian]

10. Who is Foster?

Is he D or R?

[madrchsod]

14. foster is a democrat that took hastret`s seat in the illionis 14th

foster won the special election over the republican that received over a million two from the republican party. he won with obama endorsement and hard working grassroots democrats. as i said as soon as he won he was rewarded with this issue and has mailed out information on this bill at least three times so far.this is how the party will reward those who get elected and keep the majority in the house. it`s not going to be easy in november because the repubs will vote for john but i think we can pull an upset in the 14th.

[madfloridian]

56. Thanks, I remember the name now.

:hi:

[VP505]

9. Boren is a DINO,

the only thing that makes him a Dem, IMO, is the D after his name, his position on way too many issues sure doesn't show it.

[Middle finga]

11. They' re just representing the views of their intolerant and racist

constituents This primary season showed be to my surprise that the Democratic party still have race and gender issues to deal with.

[lonestarnot]

15. And Landrieu and Reid. hmmmmf are they blue asses too?

[madfloridian]

16. MS Democrat Gene Taylor may not even vote for Obama in November.

What a bunch of scaredy cats. I am going to keep a real close eye on these guys. Why even have control of congress if they stand so distant from the party?

http://www.picayuneitem.com/local/local_story_162132932.html

"JACKSON — A Mississippi congressman, who’s a Democratic superdelegate, says he probably won’t attend his party’s national convention this summer.

U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor said he might not even vote for the Democratic presidential nominee in the fall.

“I just try to use my time well. I just don’t know what I would accomplish by spending three days (at the convention),” Taylor said in an interview Monday.

Taylor has been in Congress since 1989 and is a conservative “Blue Dog” Democrat who often bucks his own party on the budget and other issues. He represents a south Mississippi district that has gone for Republicans in recent presidential elections."

This really appears to be well-organized. But who is behind it?

[sazemisery]

18. I live in Dan "DINO" Boren's district

His father, former Governor David Boren and present President of the University of Oklahoma, endorsed Obama. Mike Synar was the last true Democrat to hold this seat. All the candidates now run with out even putting their party affiliation on their signs. Androgynous candidates.:puke:

[paulk]

20. we should purge these people and run progressive

candidates in their place!


Of course they would lose, and we'd have one less Democrat in our caucus, and then we'd have to find something else to be outraged by.

[wyldwolf]

60. yes! A principled loss is a ...well... loss.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. DINOs... fifht column, et al

that is what I like to call them

[KingOfLostSouls]

22. Dean's 50 State Strategy

time to begin looking for primary challengers whenever candidates term limits come up.

the democratic candidate is BARACK OBAMA

not joe LIEberman

not james carville


its BARACK OBAMA and the democratic party isn't and doesn't need to be driven by "yellow leg bedwetter" democrats anymore


time to begin culling the herd

[Heather MC]

24. Hillary is behind this, she can't be trusted!

I am just going to eat my :popcorn: and enjoy the fire works when this blows up in their face!

[defendandprotect]

26. These are party issues which have to be regularly discussed at DU --

to ensure that all Democrats understand how the party is being moved to the RIGHT ----

[madfloridian]

28. I agree. They are not pleasant, but they are necessary. More about Blue Dogs.

They are not like other Democrats.

A few other journals about the Blue Dogs. They have taken many stances that
concern the rest of the party. If there continues to be an influx of
Democrats who don't support the nominee, who don't align with the Democratic
party.....then we are going to in effect become Republicans.

Mahoney said the Blue Dogs are hawks. Says Bush can stay in Iraq, his call.

Blue Dogs don't play general about the war

"Iraq is a good example," Boyd said. "The majority of the caucus would say, 'Let's be really strong in forcing the president out of here.' Well, some of us are really uncomfortable playing general, and you're going to see that reflected in what we vote on."

Blue Dog leader says they won't give loyalty to either "leadership"...

“There’s a group of Democrats who aren’t going to give their voting card to either leadership,” Tanner told The Hill in July.

[defendandprotect]

85. Agree -- Serious co-opting of the Democratic Party -- moving it to the RIGHT . . .

[mmonk]

27. I call them rightwingers or republicans.

They are why there is a nascent rightwing dictatorship in America. The two party system has proven itself a failure.

[defendandprotect]

87. Unless we BREAK this corp/r-w hold on the Democratic Party . . .

the only other way around it is with third parties ---
And, not only the right-wing, but the Democratic Party have both worked to block that option.

For our own protection, we have to unblock our ability to use third parties ---
IRV voting is one way.

[magellan]

29. Warned

Some of us have been warning about this for a while. Moving the party to the right is leaving lots of people behind while compromising party integrity, as illustrated.

I won't be voting while holding my nose any more. When the people we elect are as bad as the other side, there's no point.

[Autumn]

44. I wish I could recommend your post

:toast:

[eilen]

30. Excuse me if my question seems ignorant

but what exactly is the difference between the "blue dogs" on the Democrat side and the staunch old fashioned "big C" conservatives (who hate the neocons and are the lost wing of the Repbus) on the Republican side?

Is it name only or is there something more substantial? Could they be the seeds of a third party?

The biggest difference I can see so far is that the old line big C conservatives on the Republican side strongly dislike Hillary and Bill Clinton (at least they did 8 years ago) don't know about that now. Anyone trolling the Freeper boards that can enlighten?


Again, my intent is not to offend, I just want to learn about this.

[Jack_DeLeon]

31. I dont have a problem wih Blue Dogs...

then again I'm probably one myself. I dont think the central government should do everything, I think more should be left up to the individual states so the people living there can decide what kind of government they want for themselves, freedom of choice. I also support gun rights, believe in a free market.

[harun]

39. I don't think all Democrats are opposed to those things. Although

their opposition is good at selling this idea to people that all Dem's are opposed to that.

The problem comes with Big Corporations using this free system to exploit people who don't have the means to protect themselves. People are realizing they want a stronger Federal government to help with those protections. A number of corporations are now bigger in terms of capital than 90% of the countries on Earth.

If you think those freedoms to govern the way you want locally are going to still be there when you have Corporations represented more than individuals, Corporations that have leaders accountable only to their shareholders, you have another thing coming.

[defendandprotect]

88. Ok . . . you're a blue dog ---

I don't think that any of us think that the central government should "do everything."
However, in a nation as wealthy as ours -- at least it once was pre-Bush --- I don't see that
some states should suffer poverty and financially deprived schools while other wealther areas
have food and infrastructure. I guess some of us think that we are all in this together.

On the other hand, it also sounds like you'd like to see 50 individual governments . . . ?
...so the people living there can decide what kind of government they want for themselves, freedom of choice.

That sounds like a problem . . .
should every citizen have the right to public education?
to be treated without discrimination?
access to birth control?
human rights?
Seems like a bit of a right-wing Libertarian point of view?

Gun rights ...
I don't see anyone but Bush planning to take guns away from anyone.
I do see that sane people are trying to regulate guns and how they are handled to keep them
away from people who use them for widespread drug-dealing, etal -- and, of course, safety locks
to help protect children.

Free market . . . ???
What a joke ---
Do you actually believe that --- ?

What we have always had is welfare for the rich and free enterprise for the poor ---

Capitalism is a ridiculous King-of-the-Hill System ---

Indeed, unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime ---

[a la izquierda]

32. This is really interesting...

I attend OU and live in Norman, OK. I read the Oklahoman everyday, which is one of the more conservative newspapers in the country, at least in terms of the editorials. Weeks will go by before I'll read any editorial from a citizen with a leftist bent to it. With the exception of Norman, this is an extremely conservative state. I'm in a strange position, because I moved here from Los Angeles, by way of New Jersey, two fairly "liberal" places (at least overall). Some of the comments on other threads yesterday bothered me because of the knee-jerk "racism" reaction. While this may be true of some of Boren's constituents, many of them are likely of Native American descent (E.OK has a heavy Native concentration) or are simply too conservative to like Obama. This is a very valid possibility that has zero to do with race or intelligence. I do not agree with any of my conservative relative's viewpoints but I'll be darned if they're accused of being racist because they live in Mississippi (they're not from there anyway). These are hard-working folks. Boren's lack of support is bothersome, and I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a dinner between him and his dad, the President of OU who has already endorsed Obama (and been raked across the coals in editorials). The governor here has as well and he too is being vilified.

Now, I think Boren's non-commitment is total b.s., but I'm a bit aggravated at the immediate jump to racism as the excuse. This hasn't appeared on this thread though. Boren is a wuss and should prostrate himself in front of Obama in November and beg his forgiveness...heck, his dad has done a ton for this state outside of the government. If selling out your own beliefs and standards is what politics is coming to for certain people in certain places for fear of reelection, get the hell out of office!!!

[Mr. Blonde]

48. "I attend OU and live in Norman, OK"

I'm very sorry. I really feel for those attending that other university. :hi: (surely there is time for a little college partisanship even during a heated debate on other topics)

More directly related to the topic at hand, it isn't just the eastern part of Oklahoma that has a heavy Native American concentration. And don't be fooled just because someone doesn't appear to be one. My mom is a nurse and has seen blonde haired blue eyed kids pull out their indian card. It is really amazing how the politics of that system works.

[a la izquierda]

54. oh lordy, one of YOU guys...

haha! One of my good friends here is an OSU alum. It's hilarious because one day he'll come in with his OSU gear on and the next with his OU gear on. It's like he's got split personalities (no offense to anyone who might have that disorder--you have to understand the situation here between the universities).

And you're absolutely right. I saw this girl once who was a Citizen Pottowattomi (sp?) princess. She was whiter than me...and I'm Irish. A good friend of mine is a "full-blood" as it were and gets pretty tired of the "card-carriers" who get the benefits but could give a rat's arse about the culture.

Oklahoma politics are pretty weird. I don't have a whole lot of time to follow them, and I suspect if I did I'd go completely mad. But every once in a while I'll get an email from someone about some dumb-ass thing Inhofe says. Grr.:grr:

[Mr. Blonde]

95. I was very amazed at

the people on OSU's campus who would wear OU gear. I just figured something like that wasn't done.

On the subject of Inhofe, have you seen the new ad of his that lists all the places in Africa he has been including Iraq. Come on seriously? The sad thing is he will probably be re-elected by a wide margin.

[salin]

33. At least two Hoosier Blue Dogs have endorsed Obama

Baron Hill and Brad Elsworth. Hill endorsed Obama prior to the May 5 primary in Indiana.

[droidamus2]

34. Who me worry?

The thing that worries me about these Dino/DLC candidates is that they remind me of the right wingers in the Republican party of the 1970's. Those arch-conservatives decided they needed a major party base to work from so they convinced the Republicans that their way was the only way to win. As we know the result was that they eventually took over the party all together. Conservative Democrats must realize that they are still Democrats and that as a party we are the voice (at least major party voice) of the progressive movement in this country. This DLC idea that Democrats have to be more like Republicans to win is just wrong. I think voters react more to candidates that show a true belief in their convictions be those liberal or conservative. The voters want to see their representatives fight for what they believe in even if it means losing. They also want to see their 'party' have a cohesive voice in pushing these ideas. Yes Democrats are more diverse and therefore individually we'll speak with many voices but when it comes to winning he presidency and controlling the house and senate they need to put their personal 'agendas' on the back burner, at least until November, and help the party as much as they can. I guess what that comes down to is if you don't have something good to say about the Democratic candidate or the party then don't say anything at all.

[beltanefauve]

94. I think it was Ted Kennedy who said,

"If you give people a choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican, they'll choose the real Republican every time."

[Canuckistanian]

36. "allegiance to the country first"??

WTF is THAT supposed to mean? :wtf:

[MasonJar]

37. Inexcusable! They need to be voted out this election! They are wrong

anyway because the American public is sick of conservatism and its proponents.

[MuseRider]

38. Nancy Boyda is NOT a Blue Dog

She was not accepted into their group. Yes, she is way too conservative for me and I do not always agree with her however after spending some time with her I see her as an independent thinker.

So she has other things to do than to show someone around an area they have history and family in? Ohhhhh. Yes, she does have better things to do. May not go to the convention? Why don't you ask her specifically why? She has much to do here and a very difficult re-election coming up with a huge target on her back.

She may not be my cup of tea but she has held her promise to me and I appreciate and remember that even when I disagree with her. She is NOT a Blue Dog, they rejected her.

"The Blue Dogs say remarkably little on the House floor. Representing shaky districts (except for Charlie Wilson), they don’t want to offer anything that will come back to bite them. However, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.) let her emotions get the best of her last year at a Congressional hearing on Iraq. When the respected retired Gen. Jack Keane testified that the surge is working, she walked out of the hearing and said: “There is only so much you can take.” After upsetting the world famous miler and five-term Congressman, Rep. Jim Ryun (R-Kan.), in 2006, she applied for membership with the Blue Dogs but has broken with Democrats only on FISA and energy out of the selected bills."

Ewww Robert Novak but here is the article http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26694

More

http://www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html

About her upcoming race

http://www.nrcc.org/news/view_article.asp?id=292

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Niether is Dennis Kucinich, and he hasn't endorsed Obama yet either

[MuseRider]

43. ??

WTF does that have to do with the topic?

I thought he had but so? Endorsements mean what to those of us who prefer to make up our own minds?

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. The OP was criticizing Blue Dogs who have not endorsed Obama. Apperently there are other

Democratic Congressmen who a far away ideologically from the Blue Dogs who have also not endorsed Obama.

[MuseRider]

47. Whatever

I got my morning chuckle just by seeing you equate a story about Blue Dogs with Congressman Kucinich.

I think he did endorse Obama but I pay no attention to endorsements so I can't site it for you. Anyway, who cares? Does everyone now have to be in lockstep or out? If so we have become them.

[madfloridian]

59. Please see my two responses to Mabus below.

CQ Politics in its article from June 4 2008 I quoted has her as one. I have seen other lists with her on them. Novak and others have quoted her as such, as I posted below.

So you need to contact CQ politics as their article is being quoted all over the web.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002888488

[Mabus]

72. And the GOP is trying to paint her as one and you are helping

The GOP is doing whatever they can to erode the Democratic support that Boyda has in Kansas. It is one of their targeted districts to try to win back. She has a huge fucking target on her back and you're helping to do their work.

I don't know how you'll be able to sleep tonight knowing that you're working against us, not for us. Citing Novak. My god, how low can you go?

[paulk]

74. you make an excellent point regarding MF's activities

on this board.

We were able to win these conservative districts by running conservative Democrats. There is not much separating victory from defeat in many of these races, and targeting the bluedogs w/o any realistic alternative is a fool's strategy. Unless one is ok with a Republican as Speaker of the House. And losing all those committee chairmanships, too.

[Mabus]

82. Thank you for understanding my point

All of Kansas isn't the liberal oasis that my hometown Lawrence is but we're trying. And not everything is as it appears. We can't push things to the left if we don't have anyone there to nudge them that way.

[madfloridian]

83. My "activities"? Contact the mods, please..

if you think I an into anything I should not be doing.

[MuseRider]

77. I cited Novak too.

I will go to my corner now.

In defense, it was pretty apparent from the article that she had broken away from the Blue Dogs, possibly the reason she was rejected.

Why do you suppose she went with Moore and decided to join? Was it just security as a newbie or the thought that she could use their support?

[Mabus]

81. Armed Service Committee

She's on the Armed Services Committee and applying for the Blue Dogs helps build her credibility in that area. She's against the war. She protested against it before it began. What better way for her to keep her credibility in a district with military bases while working to make sure troops have what they need and work to try to get them out.

And, don't forget that she walked out of a meeting about a month after being rejected by the Blue Dogs, citing her frustration with Keane's rosy testimony about how well things were going in Iraq.

Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Topeka, said she left the House Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday for about 10 minutes during the testimony of retired Gen. Jack Keane.

"There was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while," Boyda said after she returned, according to a transcript of the hearing. "So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things — after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

Keane had testified that since the troop surge began, U.S. forces "are on the offensive and we have the momentum." He also said security has improved in every neighborhood and district in and around Baghdad, and that "cafes, pool halls, coffee houses that I visited are full of people."

When Boyda returned to the hearing, she ridiculed Keane's description of Iraq "as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation — things are going so well — those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, 'Here's the reality of the problem.' "

****

"She was frustrated with how the administration is handling the war, that no one wants to have a real conversation about ways to move forward and our brave men and women oversees are being played like a political ping pong ball," Guinn said. (Guinn is her chief of staff).

The NRCC has made Boyda a top target for defeat in next year's election. She narrowly unseated Republican Rep. Jim Ryun in 2006.

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/073107/kan_188000742.shtml

It's called playing politics. Don't you think that she could have had a fellow Kansan bend the rules if she applied enough pressure? She's got some good instincts and is figuring out the game and how to play it effectively.

You can come out of your corner now.

[MuseRider]

84. :)

She is quite bright. I don't like the political game all that much but I agree that is most likely what she was doing. You would know more, I am always running around doing stuff on the outside.

There is a new discussion of this going on now. :hi:

[BlueJac]

42. It' time to clean house......

unreal. Thanks for the post.

[kentuck]

46. Kick their asses out !

They are up for re-election in November also.

[The Wizard]

49. The DNC needs to take charge

cut off their funding and let them run as Republicans if that's how they vote. They are a minority trying to impose its will on the majority. They have to understand they have no where else to turn but Republican. Let them challenge other Republicans in primaries.
We have them in this cyber community called DU. We call them disrupters when we feel like being polite.

[ooglymoogly]

50. KR NT

[Mabus]

51. Nancy Boyda is NOT a Blue Dog, please quit smearing her

You've never lived in Kansas and I doubt you have ever visited there. Boyda is not a Blue Dog so please quit trying to paint her as one.

I usually respect many of the things that you say but I can't sit back and let you smear Boyda like this. Sure, she's not as liberal as I would like her to be but we're working on her. You've got to remember that she beat incumbent fundie Jim Ryun and that the district she represents has military bases. She's looking out for some pretty economically depressed communities and some pretty uptight residents. She's walking a very fine line and, in my opinion, she's doing it pretty well.

Personally I think she's overly cautious at times but when you start painting her in a corner and excoriating her with Blue Dog smears it makes our work on the ground and on her more difficult.

[madfloridian]

57. I can only find sources from right wing blogs....apparently she was excluded

though she applied.

I did not smear her, but I think any Democrat who does not support the nominee should be pointed out over and over. I posted a great post about her one time because a speech she gave so impressed me.

Tell me you think this is a smear....I don't. I was impressed. I am not impressed by her distancing herself from the party and the nominee. There is no way in hell that is right.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/900

Here is one source...the others mostly repeat the theme.

http://rightdemocrat.blogspot.com/2007/06/blue-dog-caucus-wrong-to-reject-nancy.html

"As a grassroots Blue Dog, I am annoyed and disgusted by the decision of the Congressional Blue Dogs to exclude conservative Democrat Nancy Boyda of Kansas from membership. http://tinyurl.com/2b64g3 Boyda is a fiscal conservative and a strong supporter of gun rights. She has been a outspoken voice in the fight for border security and against amnesty for illegal aliens. http://tinyurl.com/38axj2 The excuse given for failing to admit Boyda is that the Blue Dog Coalition has a membership cap of 47. Of course, the Blue Dog Caucus could have lifted the cap and allowed Boyda to join. Common sense would suggest that accepting Boyda into membership would help to provide further gender and geographic balance within the Blue Dog Caucus.

The fact that the Blue Dogs would decline to accept Nancy Boyda's application proves that most members of the caucus are little more than self-serving, power-hungry jackasses. Some of the Blue Dog Caucus members are true populists but many are simply shills for big business interests. In refusing to admit Boyda, Congressional Blue Dog Caucus members are showing that they are more interested in their own personal power than rebuilding the moderate-conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
Posted by RightDemocrat at 4:40 AM"

So you are right. Here is Novak column...as I said I see only right wing stuff on this.

http://peoplewithhart.com/news/blue-dog-blues/

"The Blue Dogs say remarkably little on the House floor. Representing shaky districts (except for Charlie Wilson), they don't want to offer anything that will come back to bite them. However, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.) let her emotions get the best of her last year at a Congressional hearing on Iraq. When the respected retired Gen. Jack Keane testified that the surge is working, she walked out of the hearing and said: "There is only so much you can take." After upsetting the world famous miler and five-term Congressman, Rep. Jim Ryun (R-Kan.), in 2006, she applied for membership with the Blue Dogs but has broken with Democrats only on FISA and energy out of the selected bills."

There is more from a site called Bounce Boyda, but I don't want to link to that.

So apparently she applied but was not accepted for some reason. I did have some lists with her on it, but can't find it.

I apologize, it is too late to edit....but she is still very wrong for not supporting the nominee.

[MuseRider]

63. And it the nominee was

Lieberman?

"I am not impressed by her distancing herself from the party and the nominee. There is no way in hell that is right."

So they are now into loyalty oaths, pledges of support regardless of who it is? Sad sad sad thing for this to happen to the Democrats. What if they happen to really disagree? Is it wrong for disagreements now too? Not supporting the nominee is nothing more than publicly stating a disagreement. Why is that wrong? Have they really become so much like "the others" just to win? Disgusting. Have the Democrats gone from the big tent party to the handcuff party? To quote you, "There is no way in hell that is right."

There is no room for individual thought and values huh?

[madfloridian]

66. She is pretending not to be a Democrat. No, that is NOT okay.

It is not okay in any state.

It has nothing to do with loyalty oaths.

[MuseRider]

68. That is total bullshit

and you know it. If you knew anything at all about her you would not say that. Good lord, you do not know anything except for a few articles and you make that kind of comment?

Bullshit. Mabus and I both know the woman, proud2Blib does as well. We have all had personal conversations with the woman and she is not as liberal as we would like but she is a damn site better that Ryun or anyone else we might have had. BTW, I heard her talk about some of the most liberal things I have ever heard from someone running for office in our state, she knew everything we were all talking about here. So once again I call bullshit when you know absolutely nothing about the woman or her beliefs or her situation. So she has not endorsed your candidate? She might not like him or she might not want to for other reasons, forcing an endorsement or you will hammer her is a loyalty oath even if you chose to call it something else.

[Mabus]

71. I call bullshit too

She's not pretending and it is rude to insinuate that she is. You don't know her. And you obviously don't want to know anything about her except what you want to believe.

All we Kansans are asking is that you do something other than cut and paste erroneous information and try to pass it off as the truth.

fwiw, I'm in contact with her office and I'm trying to get her to join the LGBT caucus. She has a gay son and has worked on GLBT issues in Kansas. This is an issue and a milestone that is very dear to me and others in KANSAS. You know, her constituents. If you and your personal agenda/vendetta help derail this I will not forgive you. In fact, I will make sure everyone knows that you are the one working against our party, not Nan. Please quit trying to paint Nancy as something she's not.

Have you called CQ and asked them to print a retraction yet? Hmmmm?

[MuseRider]

73. MABUS!!!

I had no idea she had a gay son! All this work with KEC and all the times I have had personal conversations with her about these issues and I was not aware of that! Color me embarrassed :blush:!

Well I know that two of us are encouraging that she joins that caucus. Post on that thread if you hear from her please.

I think if she spends her time doing exactly what she is doing, spending every waking moment while home visiting all the small communities and making acquaintances there she will be fine against the big bad Rep machine. She has done a lot for the liberal cause here. Every little bit helps, you know how far we have come.

I will answer your nice PM when I have time. I got a great email yesterday, perhaps you did as well, about all the Dems running. Only one seat in Sed. county is a Rep running without challenge. I will share it in case you did not.

It really sucks to have come this far and worked this hard for one of the people asking for loyalty to make it far more difficult for us.

[Mabus]

79. You may not know this but I do know Nancy personally

When she was wondering about running in 2006 she called me and Rex and invited us on a long weekend to discuss it. I wasn't able to go but I wish I could have. I don't talk about this kind of stuff because it, well, blows my cover and could endanger her but goddamn it I will not let Nancy be smeared. I don't know if you remember when someone in the Kansas forum was asking how I knew so much about what was going on behind the scenes, well, now you know. Everyone knows.

Since I met her back in 2003 at DemoFest in Wichita we've had a lot of conversations. I remember how pissed she was when the DCCC pressured her in 2004 to back down on gay rights. We had a long talk after one of the fundraisers at Burton's Hollow about it. She had thought about dropping out because she thought she was betraying her son. It was really hard on her. Her son was disappointed but understood that gay rights would have to take a backseat if she wanted to defeat Ryun. You know, I know and she knows that in Kansas gay rights aren't something that are real popular.

I'm crying right now, remembering that conversation (and others) and how much it hurt her to not come out and stand up. It just wasn't the time. You know, I'm the one who told her that she had to stay in the race and take things slowly. Change doesn't happen over night and if she didn't win that seat, things would never change. Maybe I was wrong to tell her that. I don't know. I do know that I love Nan and I have an enormous amount of respect for her. I remember our hug (me, Rex and Nan) and how hard she cried over this. And this one of the reasons she turned her back on the DCCC in 2006 and ran her campaign her way. She didn't want to be beholden to the DCCC and their agenda. I guess you might say I have my own gay agenda. I wanted a gay friendly congress critter from Kansas. fwiw, most of her campaign staff on her elections have been members of the GLBT community.

I asked her what she would do if she dropped out. She said she would devote her life to two issues: global warming and gay rights. She's there for us. She really is. I just get so pissed off at how people, who have no clue about her, her life and what's she's been through, are trying to destroy her. And to use Novak as a source to hurt Nancy just boils my blood.

I may not agree with everything she does or how she does things but goddamn it, we have a better chance with her to make changes - real changes - than any other Dem from the 2nd District that I know of. I wouldn't have worked so hard for her - making those mobile signs and driving them all over Kansas or going out and recruiting in redneck, backward places like Jeff County - if I didn't know her and believe in her as I do. Rex is the same way. His ex-wife is openly gay and one of the reasons that Rex and I have gone to the mat and defended Nancy so much is because we know how strongly she believes in gay rights.

I hope that I haven't done anything (by posting here) about this. But by god, I want Nancy in Congress. She's trying. She really is. But the only way she can do anything is to go slowly. Otherwise her district will turn against her. You know this. I'm not telling you anything you don't know. You live in Kansas. You know what it's like.

[Mabus]

67. I say smear because this isn't the first time you've said it

I saw a post the other day where you said you were going to go look for information that Boyda was a Blue Dog. Apparently you were so intent on finding something to support your position that you overlooked all the information that said she wasn't a member. Posting erroneous information is irresponsible on your part. And not doing proper research before proclaiming something is a smear.

Like I said, I usually have a lot of respect for information that you post. I'd have more respect for you if you'd admit you were passing on erroneous information and apologize for it.

As for contacting CQ, I suggest you do the same.

[madfloridian]

78. I just posted this. I wrote it back in 2006. But she should stand with Obama.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2220

[Mabus]

80. As you may have heard, Kansas politics is a different kind of creature

I appreciate your retraction but I still don't think you understand politics in Kansas. Like other states there is an art to it. I know Nan, she may not be endorsing Obama now but she will work for him. Just as she didn't endorse Kerry but worked for him. She is a Democrat through and through. Did you know that in 2004 the GOP came after her as a turncoat and then showed pictures of her going to DC to protest the war in Iraq? Not only did she protest, she organized some of the bus trips out of KC. She's a different breed of Democrat but she's one of ours. And I am proud that she represents Kansas. I am proud to support and defend her. I don't always agree with her but goddamn, she is a DEMOCRAT.

There are some issues that are important in Kansas and she doesn't want to spend her time explaining the differences. If she endorses Obama but disagrees with anything that he says, she will spend her entire campaign trying to explain the differences she has. These differences will then be used against her in Kansas. She'll be called disloyal and she'll be called a turncoat. That's the way the game is played in Kansas. It's a fucking tightrope and she's walking it the best she can. Please, please, I implore you to quit posting things that can be repeated to destroy the gains we're making in Kansas.

I remember back in 2000 when I was out campaigning for Gore. I kept being told what the media said, Kansas is a Republican state. Guess what? A lot of us did not give up. We got determined and worked our asses off. In return, we got a Democratic governor in 2002 and we started making giant inroads. Then that fucking "What's the Matter with Kansas" book came out and our job got harder in 2004. We recovered and thanks in large part to the good Doctor we were able to replace a lot of Republicans in state offices in 2006. Please, for the love of god, don't undo the work we've done. That's all I'm asking.

btw, did you call CQ and ask them to retract their article?

[madfloridian]

58. You need to contact CQ Politics. The article has her listed as one.

They are apparently confused as well. I do not appreciate being told I am smearing. No, I don't live in KS, but I believe every Democrat should support the nominee or not gain reelection.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002888488

From June 4

‘Blue Dogs’ Keep Their Distance From Obama

"Barack Obama ’s Democratic colleagues in the Senate seem ready to turn to the fall campaign and rally behind him as the party’s soon-to-be presidential nominee.

But in the House, some members of the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats say they’ll keep their distance from Obama, at least until after the party formally nominates the Illinois senator at the Democratic National Convention in late August.

Of the roughly 30 House members who have yet to declare a preference in the presidential primaries, which ended June 3, 16 are Blue Dogs.

“Frankly, none of the presidential candidates for either party is doing real well in my district. It’s not a good idea to get close to any of them,” said Charlie Melancon of Louisiana.

“No, I won’t be endorsing anyone,” agreed fellow Blue Dog Charlie Wilson of Ohio.

Nancy Boyda of Kansas represents a district that is part of Obama’s family story — his mother was born into a military family at Fort Leavenworth and has ties in the area around the University of Kansas.

But Boyda probably won’t be escorting Obama around campus in the foreseeable future, and she says she may even skip the convention. “I’m going to stay focused on doing my job. The good people of Kansas are fine with that,’’ Boyda said."

[Mabus]

70. I called Mr. Ota and got his answering machine

I gave him my telephone number and asked him to print a retraction.

fwiw, I met Nancy at DemoFest in 2003. Nancy was a Deaniac back then and she attended several of our Dean Meetups. She tried to make it the kick off of the 50 State Strategy when Dean was in Lawrence. Something our governor (who is now on the short list for VP) went out of her way to avoid. I know. I was heavily involved with the KSDP and helped put together the private reception for Dean/DNC when they were in town.

Also Nancy did not come out and endorse Kerry in 2004 until after the convention although she was running for office then. And even then, she concentrated on winning over voters to take the 2nd District seat. She's being consistent. Again, a little background work on your part would help.

[bean fidhleir]

53. In other countries, they would have to toe the line or be tossed out

And doesn't that sound nice. Because many of them couldn't be elected without that D after their name on the ballot.

[JAbuchan08]

61. Isn't the term "blue dog" supposed to imply

that they'd vote for a "blue dog" if it was a Democrat?

[Romulox]

64. You're thinking of yellow dogs. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Blue poodles...

[Cha]

75. Since blue dogs have an agenda

that doesn't help people how could it be "catching on"?

[Thrill]

76. When Obama is elected we'll run Progressives against them in Primaries

[Sundoggy]

86. What the world needs at this moment...

...is another spoof of the Big Dog robot called "Blue Dog".

Someone get busy.

[devilgrrl]

91. I basically called the Blue Dogs wolves in sheeps clothing the other day and was roundly flamed.

Where are all the naysayers now?

[Sundoggy]

92. Like a stovetop burner? n/t

[defendandprotect]

93. They generally seem to not want to be clear about who they are and

what they are supporting in the party . . . IMO --

Kind of Cheney-like, in the shadows ---


:evilgrin: