Segami
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:09 AM
Original message |
Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot |
|
Pushing conservative Democrats out of Congress could help the party stand up to the GOP." That a Democratic Congress is so deeply unpopular even among Democrats may be historically unusual, but it is hardly surprising or difficult to understand. On key issue after key issue, it is the Bush White House and Republican caucus that have received virtually everything they wanted from Congress, while the base of the Democratic Party has received virtually nothing other than disappointment and an overt repudiation of its agenda. Since the American people gave them control of Congress, the Democrats in Congress have given the country the following:
* Unlimited and unconditional funding for the Iraq war.
* Vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and retroactive amnesty for their telecom donors -- measures the administration tried, but failed, to obtain from the GOP Congress.
* The ability to ignore congressional subpoenas with utter impunity.
* A resolution formally decreeing parts of the Iranian government to be a "terrorist organization."
* A failure to outlaw waterboarding.
* To apply the torture ban to the CIA.
* To restore the habeas corpus rights abolished by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
* To impose the requirement of congressional approval before President Bush can attack Iran.
* Confirmation of highly controversial Bush nominees, including Michael Mukasey as attorney general even after he embraced the most radical Bush theories of executive power and repeatedly refused to say that waterboarding was torture.
With those depressing facts assembled, the only question worth asking among those who are so dissatisfied with congressional Democrats is this: What can be done to change this conduct?
Mindlessly electing more Democrats to Congress will not improve anything. Such uncritical support for the party is actually likely to have the opposite effect. It's axiomatic that rewarding politicians -- which is what will happen if congressional Democrats end up with more seats and greater control after 2008 than they had after 2006 -- only ensures that they will continue the same behavior. If, after spending two years accommodating one extremist policy after the next favored by the right, congressional Democrats become further entrenched in their power by winning even more seats, what would one expect them to do other than conclude that this approach works and therefore continue to pursue it?
If simply voting for more Democrats will achieve nothing in the way of meaningful change, what, if anything, will? At minimum, two steps are required to begin to influence Democratic leaders to change course:
1) Impose a real political price that they must pay when they capitulate to -- or actively embrace -- the right's agenda and ignore the political values of their base, and
2) decrease the power and influence of the conservative "Blue Dog" contingent within the Democratic caucus, who have proved excessively willing to accommodate the excesses of the Bush administration, by selecting their members for defeat and removing them from office. And that means running progressive challengers against them in primaries, or targeting them with critical ads, even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress.
cont'
<http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/29/blue_dogs_die/>
|
virginia mountainman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:15 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Be carefull what you wish for.. |
|
Push all the "Blue Dogs" out we could end up with filibuster proof Rethug majorities.
And have NO control or say in what is ram-rodded down our necks.
|
madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. You mean the blue dogs would go republican? |
virginia mountainman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
I know them well, I live among them. I talk politics with them, I help them to go vote (when they are on our side)
They are solid Democrats. They just don't ascribe to the "urban" Democrats ways on many things. Most of them and their family's have been Democrats for generations.
|
madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
16. Tell me about "urban" Democratic "ways" |
|
I have trouble with people pretending that needs of people in cities and rural areas are different.
|
LWolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
20. There's a difference. |
|
Living rurally, I can't tell you much about "urban democrats," other than that there is a disdain for people who live rurally; an impatience, a sense that they, and their issues, don't matter.
I'm seeing it here now. Our Republican Senator, Gordon Smith, is running ads appealing to the more rural voters in Oregon, suggesting that the Democratic contender doesn't "get" the rest of us. It's an urban vs rural theme.
There ARE rural Democrats. We're not all Republican, but we don't get much respect from the majority.
|
madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
22. The basic needs are the same. |
|
If rural voters need Blue Dogs, then rural voters are Republican at heart.
It is the reason the party is becoming all religious now.
|
LWolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
24. I don't think they need "blue dogs." |
|
I think it's other Democrats, more than the candidates or reps themselves, that create the divide.
Oregon is a perfect example; the urban centers are west of the Cascades, and they are strongly Democratic. East of the Cascades, outside of Bend, it's rural and republican. The rural Democrats don't get any respect from their republican reps, and don't get any respect from urban Democrats, either.
I REALLY want Merkely to beat Smith this November. In a big way. I hope he will address rural issues; I don't think he can do it if he allows Smith to frame it as "urban vs rural."
|
Segami
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Do you really think its any different now with a Democratic controlled congress? |
virginia mountainman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
It is different, at least now the Conservatives don't have free rein.
And those of you that THINK, they do, really have no idea what they WOULD do if they had filibuster proof majorities.
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
17. They don't have free reign? |
|
They are freakin above the law.
|
blue52power
(83 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
25. I understand what you are saying |
|
I live in a small town/rural county and we are going to have some problems with those voters due to Obama being seen as overly liberal. They are usually somewhere between liberal and moderate. Union working men and women, they don't want guns taken away but are ok with limitations. But they really resent the "wine and cheese" crowd both Dem and Rep. And they don't appreciate being mocked for their religious beliefs.
But they have been generation after generation of Democrats in their families. They are liberal to moderate Democrats. Some of their grandparents or parents were Reagan Dems back in the early Reagan years. But most of the younger one's are much more liberal than their parents/grandparents.
|
Warpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:16 AM
Response to Original message |
2. This year, we're stuck with them. |
|
However, giving them the boot should start now, at the state primary level.
They really do need to go, but it's unrealistic to expect all conservative backwash states to start electing progressives. Getting rid of them will likely be a long term process, never complete.
The only thing that will convince a brainwashed electorate is results and that will mean governing in spite of the Blue Dogs, not because of them. However, they will still count toward a majority.
|
Segami
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. I agree. The process will be long and will take time but it needs to be vetted. |
|
Edited on Tue Jul-29-08 11:59 AM by Segami
|
virginia mountainman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Then prepare to Loose two senate seats right of the bat... We would loose Sen Webb, and upcoming Sen Mark Warner.
They ARE Democrats, but they have some Conservative leanings...
Push them out, with a Diane Finestine, or a Carolyn McCarthy "type of canadate" and the Rethugs wont need to steal the election. And there goes two, Democratic controlled Senate seats..
Loose a couple more, and their goes the Majority in the Senate...
Mr Webb, and Mr Warner, are both, well liked in Virginia, I have NO problems getting folks to vote for them... But, you will not, in many years, get them to accept a full blooded Urban Democrat.
Times are a changing, but that will be many years down the road.
|
Warpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Perhaps you should have read the whole post |
|
instead of the first sentence.
You are agreeing with me, you know.
|
virginia mountainman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
I need to go take a nap...B-)
|
robinlynne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
19. ummm Feinstein would be the first one we would want to get rid of! |
|
She aint exactly a liberal!
(unless of course you consider lieberman a Democrat, in which case he goes first.)
|
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:39 AM
Response to Original message |
10. All moderate dems and independents are now to vote republican! |
MGKrebs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:47 AM
Response to Original message |
11. "Pushing them out" is the same as |
|
"convincing your neighbors to vote for somebody else", right?
It's our job. We have to find the candidates we like and convince them to run, and support them, and populate our local Parties with like-minded people who will also accept and support them. Then we have to talk to our neighbors about them.
It's a lot of work. Might take a long time. But if not us, then who?
|
Segami
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. Well said. Its time we begin nominating stand up candidates who are NOT afraid of promoting a better |
|
Democratic way on issues and governing for all instead of the ' poll-taking, double-talking ' candidate who wants to be anything & everything to everyone and never leads the way through his/her beliefs.
|
Enrique
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
Tierra_y_Libertad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 12:07 PM
Response to Original message |
15. I'll be doing my part come November. |
|
But, my rep is in a safe seat, so it won't count for much.
|
bvar22
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 01:00 PM
Response to Original message |
|
"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone
|
MGKrebs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 03:27 PM
Response to Original message |
21. This is actually an issue I have with my state Party. |
|
I have heard it said, even from the Chairperson, that our goal is to elect more Democrats. I, however, think our goal is to enact more Democratic policies. Electing more Democrats is just the mechanism that gets us there. But when we are focused only on "electing more Democrats", we avoid establishing party principles and robust platforms. We don't really always define what it is we are electing democrats FOR.
It's no wonder many voters only know us from what the repubs tell them. We are so dependent on candidates that we live and die by their ability. The Party adds very little. I would like the "D" by someones name actually HELP an unknown candidate. I don't think that's the case right now in much of my state. We need to build the brand some more.
So often in politics though, we don't get the choice between "good" and "bad". It's more like "better" or "worse". We do the best we can and try to get a little better next time.
|
TexasObserver
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-29-08 05:27 PM
Response to Original message |
23. Democrats are about growing the party, not kicking people out. |
|
Why would anyone who wants us to win the election want to be kicking Democrats out?
Why would any Democrat do that?
I do not trust the bona fides or judgment of any such advocate.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 12th 2024, 02:29 AM
Response to Original message |