We would be in a better position if we had kept the blue dog representatives.

[LoZoccolo]

[Kaleva]

1. Yes.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

7. For what does the "SOS" stand?

[MadHound]

11. Think about it n/t

[krispos42]

4. We would have been in an even better position if we didn't have the BD in the 1st place n/t

[LoZoccolo]

8. We would be in a better position if I had won my 2004 presidential run.

[krispos42]

25. That is true!

:D

[ThomWV]

5. No. That's like asking if you'd have been better off not having the cancerous tumor removed.

[LoZoccolo]

13. How many of the seats will be replaced with new Democrats in 2012?

[ThomWV]

14. If we do our jobs all of them and more.

[bluestate10]

33. Democrats are looking at a bumper election year. People like Walsh are as

good as dead. Endangered democrats like Doggert are in better shape day by day. Scott Brown could very well loose in Massachusetts, undercut by extremist in his party and a solid, hard working democrat rival. The voters to win over are democratic leaning indies and moderate indies that swing either way. I am afraid the Left is lost and warrants no effort to placate, their numbers are marginal as is.

[KittyWampus]

28. WRONG. We'd have a clean debt ceiling passed weeks ago.

[bluestate10]

34. Exactly. If not months ago. nt

[OmahaBlueDog]

6. That depends. Did you prefer Speaker Pelosi or is Boehner more your style?

:dem:

[LoZoccolo]

10. I prefer Madame Pelosi.

[spanone]

9. really? i still have my blue dog dem and he voted FOR cut cap & whatever

[LoZoccolo]

12. Twenty out of twenty-five of the remaining blue dogs didn't.

[KittyWampus]

29. That's because the Republicans have the majority.

[tosh]

15. I'd much rather have my blue dog back

than this piece of crap teabagger that I now have.

http://southerland.house.gov/

:puke:

[Vincardog]

16. Right we are much better off with our representatives working AGAINST us

[GoCubsGo]

17. Mine does anyway. He's a teabagger.

He voted against this cut, crap and steal plan, but not because he thought it was a bad idea. He thought it didn't go anywhere near far enough. I'd take a Blue Dog over that shitbag ANY DAY!!! They do not always work against us, unlike every last GOP representative.

[Chan790]

31. He'll likely be gone in 18 months.

Most all of the tea-scum are setting up to be one-and-out termers. They've managed to alienate their constituents, piss-off the mainstream right and step in every pile of crap possible...someone did a poor job vetting the fringe loons who wanted to run for office to ID the ones that should have been quietly hamstrung before they ever became viable in the primaries. There were enough of them who wanted to run for the GOP to be choosier and marginalize the chaff.

Lucky for us they didn't. (Mixed-message of aggravation fully intended. They're destroying America as fast as they're destroying GOP viability.)

[Shagbark Hickory]

18. Love the new avatar. It's very fitting.

[sufrommich]

19. Obviously,yes. nt

[Davis_X_Machina]

20. No! No! You need a smaller House caucus...

You overlook the vital importance to a political party of consistently losing general elections.

Look at the Republicans in Congress. They have party discipline, a unified vision, a narrow focus on readily identifiable values, and above all, coherent messaging. They have all that, though, only thanks to decades out of power, the mid 30's to the mid '90's.

We must do likewise. I'd aim at a House caucus about sixty seats, max. Then by God, we'll get things sorted out.

Reduction of the bag of cats that presently calls itself the "Democratic Party" down to a cold, hard, small, disciplined, progressive Democratic party is the only thing that will save the country.

We can't achieve anything till we're freed the party, as a party, from distractions and encumbrances like winning elections, having a majority, passing legislation, or governing. That's the path towards muddle, and compromise.

Oh, sure, people will carp, and point out that during this process real people will suffer real pain that could otherwise be averted. But I am sure if it is explained to them properly, when they see how wonderful things will be in the future, they will understand the necessity of their sacrifice.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Not our call. They got voted out. n/t

[pampango]

22. In conservative districts I'll take a Blue Dog over a bagger. Anywhere else-no BD's allowed.

:)

[TheKentuckian]

23. They ran the independents off for many of the same reasons they disgusted liberals.

They believe in the same basic ideology as the Teabaggers but were lukewarm resulting in not attracting sane folks and not being bought by the nutters and as such couldn't muster the votes which means there was no option of keeping them.

They had money and all the bonuses of incumbency and could not hold the line. There is no winning based on this base ideology, it is a fucking fraudulent failure and they can't even attract minority and youth votes without popular coattails to ride in on. The numbers are pretty clear, there was no way to make the blue dog scam fly again this past cycle. The whole deal is predicated on holding the base while bringing in some independents. The independents did not hold the youth had no interest and minorities were not excited and we got a fuckload of fail, they got the base votes and couldn't hold up the premise that allows us to fuck with the frauds.

[Chan790]

37. This post alone is the wheat among the chaff of this thread.

Literally, nobody else gets it. The Blue Dogs were terminally un-viable circa 2010. The basic premise of their organizational theory doomed them and us to defeat & this pain was inevitable.

Despite their somewhat-successful attempts to take the reins of the party and their capable fundraising machine, nobody outside the Blue Dogs was buying what they were selling, nor were they ever likely to. Mainstream Democrats went along out of pragmatism...until they did not. If anything we're fortunate that it happened while we had a Democrat in the WH, even if his prioritization of compromise over principle makes him seem like a heresiarch against Democratic values many days, he still comes out right as often-as-not and he keeps the worst of the GOP scheiss pinned-down.

Things could be much worse. Imagine if the inevitable collapse of Big (money, centrism, pragmatism) Blue had come two years earlier under Bush.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Sure. If the "position" you speak of involves the simultaneous use of knees and elbows.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

50. I was going to answer your question.

[treestar]

27. True,

A Democrat is always better than a Republican, period.

[Rex]

30. Yeah and water is wet.

:eyes:

[bluestate10]

32. The Left is going to froth at you. But you are exactly right.

The fortunate item is that 2012 elections will come fast and republicans will get crushed if they continue their current path.

[YankmeCrankme]

35. Obviously, their constituents didn't like the job they were doing and voted them out. nt

[Marr]

36. Too bad our Democratic leadership chose to use a losing strategy then, right?

[bluestate10]

40. No. Republicans outright lied. Voters are on to their lies now.

Do you seriously expect a Walsh to win again in Illinois? Or expect many northern and more than a few southern republican extremists to win re-election? If democrats field hard working candidates, even bluedog ones where only a bluedog can win, democrats take back the House and retain the Senate, as well as re-elect President Obama.

[Marr]

42. If they lost, they employed a losing strategy-- by definition.

I'm referring more to the national leadership, who allowed the who political environment to swing so broadly in the space of two years-- but the same point does apply to the losing Blue Dogs as well.

[bluestate10]

38. Based upon some of the irrational responses to your OP looks like

you drew in the "70% Fringe" as they optimistically call themselves. As I wrote, you are right, a bluedog beat a teabagger any day. At least bluedogs vote with democrats greater than 80% of the time.

[NNN0LHI]

39. Recommended

And bookmarking this thread for future reference.

Thanks for posting it.

Don

[Jakes Progress]

41. So they could vote with the republicans and make the president look even more impotent?

Yeah. We need a lot of people with Ds by their name voting with the right wing so that republicans can say how bipartisan they are?

Gee. What a swell idea.

And for those without any idea of what is going on::sarcasm:

[LoZoccolo]

51. The remaining ones have mostly voted with the Democrats.

[Edweird]

54. Maybe that's why they 'remained'.

[Jakes Progress]

56. Bingo. People like their Democrats straight up. Not watered down.

If republican lite won the day, the gop wouldn't have been hijacked by the tea party.

You can't win, or get anything done, by being a half-assed anything. Serious times call for serious people. The electorate respects this.

[stranger81]

43. No, we wouldn't.

No matter which caucus they're in, they'd still be voting with the Repukes.

Wolves in sheep's clothing should be shown the door,IMHO.

[LoZoccolo]

55. Every blue dog democrat had a significant partisan voting record.

[saras]

44. Perhaps - they may have implemented the same bad programs faster and more competently

[Forkboy]

45. Which one, doggy style or missionary?

[fishwax]

46. perhaps, perhaps not (but mostly, so what?)

[LoZoccolo]

53. Some people are calling for more blue dogs to be voted out in general elections.

[mmonk]

47. On what basis?

We are where we are because of them and the New Dems IMO.

[LoZoccolo]

49. The blue dogs have largely opposed the Republican debt ceiling proposals.

[Zorra]

48. If they weren't Third Way corporatists, they'd still be in office. nt

[LoZoccolo]

52. How do you know that?

[Arkansas Granny]

57. The Blue Dog Democrats were a lot better for us than the Tea Party Republicans that replaced them.

[Juche]

58. Yes, but they came from the most conservative districts

So in an electoral shift they will get the brunt of the pain. That is just the way it is. The most liberal republicans (whatever is left of them) are also going to be the most targeted in 2012.