I hope the next time someone goes off on a rant about the Blue Dogs

[onenote]

they pause to remember that Gabby is a Blue Dog. But as her votes on any number of issues make clear, she's an asset to the Democratic Party.

[xchrom]

1. unrec

[pintobean]

5. rec

[William769]

10. self delete.

[cali]

2. I've thought a bit about the vitriol some here direct toward

the Giffords type of dem in the Congress.

[still_one]

15. If someone disagrees with someone on the issues, is there something wrong with that?

As a hypothetical, If a blue dog wants to cut social security or medicare, should I support that just because they are a "dem"

you have to be kidding me

and because I do NOT support them politically does NOT mean I wish them ill

[jonnyblitz]

32. yeah we often advocate shooting the bluedogs here at DU.

:eyes: come on, you're not that fucking STUPID.

[KG]

52. !

:rofl:

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

53. Yes she is,

do an advanced search.

[tigereye]

50. she is pro-choice- you would think that would give her

some cred.


I really am not a fan of folks trashing the Blue Dogs as a group - there are some good Dems in there.

[still_one]

51. Her views are not even close to the blue dogs from the deep south /nt

[Suji to Seoul]

3. I called her a DINO many times. This will not change my opinion of her politics

Personally, she's a wonderful person. Politically, she's a Blue Dog DINO and will remain a Blue Dog DINO. . .a necessary "evil" (for lack of a better word. It is 3:30 AM where I live in China) in the Democratic Party.

[onenote]

4. "evil" is exactly the kind of rhetoric I would hope we could avoid here at DU

[still_one]

20. bullshit. There are blue dogs who want to privatize social security, and yes that is an evil policy...

Does that mean I wish them ill?

NO, but I sure won't support them in an election

There are a million people dead because of a war based on a lie. That was Iraq.

A million people dead because of Viet Nam, another war based on a lie.

These are evil policies

[Suji to Seoul]

25. Which is exactly what I said.

I know her. She's a wonderful person. I just don't agree with her being in the Blue Dog caucus and think she's a DINO. I will exercise my first amendment remedy and vote against her in primaries. . .then, if she wins, against the Republican and not for her.

[still_one]

28. That is the way it should be in our republic /nt

[treestar]

33. you can disagree without labeling people evil

I don't want SS cut but those who do are not evil, they think that it's best for some reason. Instead of meeting that issue, you resort to calling them evil.

That is what the right does. Labels us unAmerican, evil, etc. and that's what people have been objecting to for the past 24 hours. Yet you still do it.

And moderates get it from both sides. We're sick of it. Learn to debate the issue, defend SS on the merits, rather than just labeling opponents.

[still_one]

I will not mince words if a policy is evil, especially if it will hurt me or my children. War is a

perfect example. In Viet Nam there was a draft, you had no choice, even though the government lied you into that war. That WAS an evil war and an evil policy, and if you or your child was involved in that obscenity, there are no nice words for it

[treestar]

40. Yet that would not have been obvious to anyone who thought

communism was evil and had to be fought, and you would not convince them just by saying, "you are evil for supporting this war."

That's the very thing we have been chiding the Republicans about. Quit labeling everyone as evil and meet the issue. Not everyone disagrees with you because they are "evil."

that includes Blue Dogs and whatever they stand for.

[still_one]

47. The entire war was based on a lie which had nothing to do with communism. The Gulf of Tonkin

was a lie, that killed over 60000 Americans

There are issues that ARE right and wrong

For years our country thought slavery was perfectly alright. You know something, slavery is evil, it isn't just a simple disagreement

Saying something is evil, is NOT hate talk, it is calling it what it is

[DCKit]

57. How'd y'all make the jump from "necessary "evil"" and "evil policy"...

to someone calling people evil?

I don't like that game.

[Suji to Seoul]

23. poor choice of words. my apologies.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. She is a southwest Democrat, fairly typical in that regards

pro gun
pro military
supported AB1070
pro gay
pro choice
supported the President on health care

She is were most of the Democratic Party is out there.

[still_one]

41. Actually, that isn't even particularly blue dog /nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. So how would you describe someone with those positions?

[still_one]

48. Moderate to liberal. You won't find many true blue dogs that are pro-choice, pro-gay, or even for

the HCR, no matter how good or bad the existing HCR is

[dmallind]

62. It's not a fucking adjective! It is a group with defined membership, one of them Giffords

That's like saying "she isn't even particularly Library board of Trustees" or "isn't even particularly 113th Congress."

The Blue Dogs are a group. Giffords is a member. It's a binary condition a or not a.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

[demmiblue]

6. OMG

:wtf:

Way to exploit this tragedy.

[xchrom]

9. +1 -- we knew it was coming though.

moderates and republicans always feel oppressed.

[treestar]

37. Er, no the progressives are the big victims

Whether they are not being obeyed by the President when they gave him a few dollars to his campaign or knocked on a few doors. Whether they sit home and then don't want to take blame for the results. Whatever tack they take, victimhood is their stock in trade.

They did not get enough and did not get it in 2 years. They were entitled to that and therefore are the victims of those horrible centrist DLCer coporatist Blue Dogs. Who should have delivered what they promised. Just because, well, the progressives are more important than anyone else. The rest of the party is supposed to be serving the progressives and just shutting up about their own opinions.

[xchrom]

49. poor thing -- i feel so sad for you moderates.

:rofl: at least the shit you make up about progressives is funny.

[Dappleganger]

60. Oh my.

Get over yourself.

[cali]

11. you're actually serious. wowzer. have you fucking been reading DU

over the last day?

[pintobean]

14. Thank you

I was laughing too hard to reply

[treestar]

30. the progressives have been exploiting it all day

Against Palin - Palin is guilty of murder, indeed? She wanted them replaced with Rs hardly more than the progressives did (since their pipe dream of a progressive in that seat is ridiculous, but let's not bother progressives with "pragmatics.")

OMG indeed. Typical of progressives to make themselves the victims. No, this time a centrist was. DLCer Blue Dog. One of those most hated on this board - until there was a chance at victimhood. The progressives are all Blue Dogs now.

[frylock]

61. and *click*

sayonara asshole

[still_one]

7. What a unrelated bunch of bullshit, to try and take advantage of a terrible tragedy /nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I'll gladly trade my recently retired blue dog for the repuke who replaced him

Just sayin . . .

[whathehell]

13. Same here...n/t

[Tippy]

21. So would I.....

I have more respect for those who run as blue dogs than I do for those who run as democrats then jump ship after elected..

[Bobbie Jo]

56. + 1000

Any day.

[no limit]

12. What a sick post. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[sabrina 1]

16. Unrec for tasteless politicizing of a tragic event.

And for implying that DUers who express political opinions about the DLC wing of their party are in any way comparable to the rabid, rightwing responsible for the kind of violence that occurred this weekend.

[Rex]

17. I hope the next time someone tells a liberal to sit down and shut the fuck up

they realize they are playing right into the RWings political agenda.

[mmonk]

65. Yep.

It's an affirmation.

[myrna minx]

18. Disgusting post. Unrec.

[bushisanidiot]

19. Blue dog dems keep repukes from holding that position

blue dogs usually represent conservative areas. it's not rocket science to figure out that they vote the way the HAVE to in order to hold their position.

Giffords is a pretty amazing woman and a good democrat, from everything I've read. And I'm thankful that she has kept that seat from being taken over by her tea party opponent, which he ALMOST DID! For those to demonize "blue dogs" because they aren't always voting with the pack, is to ignore the realities of politics and how things work.

[TheKentuckian]

22. Gingrich is of more use than Rand Paul?

So the fuck what?

[valerief]

24. Blue Dogs are Not Extremist Republicans. They serve the wealthy.

That said, Giffords should not have been shot. A progressive should have been elected instead of a Blue Dog.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Never from that district

[valerief]

31. Never say never. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. OK, it will be a very very long time coming

[valerief]

39. I know, not until it becomes a lower income area. nt

[DCKit]

59. With the current crop in Congress, that shouldn't take too long. nt

[whatchamacallit]

29. Nice exploitation for political advantage! You do your Blue Dog brethren proud. n/t

[Lucian]

34. So, we shouldn't say we dislike Blue Dogs because one got shot?

What happened yesterday was a tragedy and should never have happened, but I still think Blue Dogs don't do any good for the party.

[treestar]

42. Hate?

Why do you use such an extreme word? You disagree about politics, that is all. Why is it needed to hate the person you disagree with? That's what we expect from Republicans, and what we've been railing against all day.

[Lucian]

45. Sorry.

Changed the wording to dislike.

And it's not the person I dislike. It's their politics. I still say Blue Dogs do no good for the party.

[Cleita]

43. Also, there is this meme out in DLC Democratic

circles that you have to hold your nose and vote for any Democrat, preferably one of them, or a Republican will take over. I noticed in the last election, when many Blue Dogs lost their seats to Republicans, that they didn't preserve the seat for Democrats. Why? Because the Democrats didn't hold their nose and vote this time and the Republicans voted for another Republican and not a Blue dog. Those Democrats who used to vote for the Blue Dog really want a progressive Democrat to vote for and figure if they are going to have a Democrat vote with Republicans time and again, they might as well have a Republican in office until they can find a candidate they can get really excited about.

[Lucian]

46. Exactly.

I hate it when we're supposed to "hold our nose" and vote for Blue Dogs. I'm not going to do that anymore. Like you said, if they're going to vote along with Republicans, might as well have a Republican in office anyways.

I want a more liberal and progressive Democrat to vote for. If I have to vote third party to accomplish that, so be it.

[dmallind]

64. So you got what you wanted. Defeated Blue Dogs.

That however EVERY time meant a Republican. If you think there's no difference let me know your most hated departed BD and I will gladly track the voting record with or against the Dem position of their successor and remind you every fucking time it falls below that of the Dem you wanted gone.

[Cleita]

67. Yes, it did and we know how they are going to

legislate. There are no disappointments or surprises and in the meantime those districts can find a real Democrat to run in 2012. The fact is the Democrats have to take their Party back from the infiltrators who have pulled it so far to the right.

[dmallind]

68. And when the "real Democrat" loses, as they almost certainly will

will you still celebrate the exchange of an 80% Dem party line voter in Congress - including on speaker elections, commitee make up, etc - for a 95% Republican party line voter. Kucinich could not win Giffords seat. Expecting a leftist to win in Shuler's district is a pipe dream. Why not have an 80% Dem voter instead of the 8% that is the only realistic alternative?

I wonder how many BD seats now lost you think a Dennis-style Dem could win. I'd like to see your list.

[Cleita]

70. They may lose, but I think they won't because the

Democrats who stayed home and didn't vote this time will come out and vote again. The Blue dogs won in the past because many Democrats held their noses to vote for them. This time they stayed home because they were tired of having those people crammed down their throats, so the Republicans won. If a true progressive runs, the Republicans will still vote for the Republican but the Democrats will turn out to vote for the progressive Democrat. Those people who are doing the stats are missing that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Apples and Oranges much? Unrec.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kaleva]

54. K & R

[Crystal Clarity]

55. K & R

Speaking as a person living in a red congressional district, I'd much rather have my bluedog Rep. Mike Michaud in Washington, as opposed to ANY generic R... which would almost certainly be the case if the few D's we have in this area insisted on liberal purity. Hey, I'll take an 80% liberal voting record over NOTHING anyday.

[whatchamacallit]

58. I will pause to remember that Gaby is a "Blue Dog"...

... say a prayer for her, then go right back to railing against the crap polices blue dogs often champion.

[JI7]

63. the problem is not disagreeing with their votes, but the ones who go on about how they are cowards

evil and other shit.

and only those who are most liberal are the brave ones.

the blue dogs are usually blue dogs for a reason. there are some like Dianne feinstein who should be criticized more because she comes from a dem state when she votes with republicans.

[tekisui]

66. What a stupid post.

[Jamastiene]

69. It must have taken you ages to come up with that incredibly

insightful post.

:sarcasm:

Unrec for posting this divisive condescending smart mouth meme.