HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » How do we make peace with...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:08 PM

 

How do we make peace with Blue Dogs without giving them their way?

To me, the GOP eating themselves is a beautiful sight. Love watching the crazies eat the lazies...

But don't think it couldn't happen in our party.

Our party is a fragile coalition too: of blue collar, greens, the middle class and the blue dogs.

The Blue Dogs have much more in common with the GOP: They want to lower taxes, keep our wars burning and start a few more, and they love the idea of fracking.

They also hold a lot of power in our party.

So we can either split the party and be the mirror image of Republicans,

Or we can keep that uneasy alliance, but prevent the Blue Dogs from getting anything of note.

I vote for option #2.

73 replies, 3682 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 73 replies Author Time Post
Reply How do we make peace with Blue Dogs without giving them their way? (Original post)
Taverner Jan 2013 OP
donco Jan 2013 #1
leftstreet Jan 2013 #2
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #3
donco Jan 2013 #10
Taverner Jan 2013 #12
donco Jan 2013 #30
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #47
bluestate10 Jan 2013 #62
Taverner Jan 2013 #63
Taverner Jan 2013 #6
Bucky Jan 2013 #20
Taverner Jan 2013 #28
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #37
Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #4
vi5 Jan 2013 #5
Glitterati Jan 2013 #11
Taverner Jan 2013 #13
Glitterati Jan 2013 #18
cali Jan 2013 #7
Taverner Jan 2013 #8
MineralMan Jan 2013 #21
mmonk Jan 2013 #9
MineralMan Jan 2013 #14
Taverner Jan 2013 #16
MineralMan Jan 2013 #34
bluestate10 Jan 2013 #65
MineralMan Jan 2013 #66
Recursion Jan 2013 #15
RC Jan 2013 #17
jody Jan 2013 #19
Taverner Jan 2013 #24
jody Jan 2013 #29
Taverner Jan 2013 #31
jody Jan 2013 #35
Taverner Jan 2013 #27
jody Jan 2013 #32
Taverner Jan 2013 #40
jody Jan 2013 #44
Taverner Jan 2013 #53
NV Whino Jan 2013 #22
NickB79 Jan 2013 #23
Taverner Jan 2013 #26
derby378 Jan 2013 #36
bemildred Jan 2013 #25
wyldwolf Jan 2013 #33
Taverner Jan 2013 #42
Blecht Jan 2013 #38
MineralMan Jan 2013 #39
regjoe Jan 2013 #41
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #43
jody Jan 2013 #45
Taverner Jan 2013 #48
jody Jan 2013 #51
Taverner Jan 2013 #52
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #55
jody Jan 2013 #58
LWolf Jan 2013 #46
Hekate Jan 2013 #49
Taverner Jan 2013 #50
B Calm Jan 2013 #54
bluestate10 Jan 2013 #67
B Calm Jan 2013 #71
B Calm Jan 2013 #73
neverforget Jan 2013 #56
marlakay Jan 2013 #57
Erose999 Jan 2013 #59
bluestate10 Jan 2013 #60
Taverner Jan 2013 #61
bluestate10 Jan 2013 #69
Chan790 Jan 2013 #64
bluestate10 Jan 2013 #68
bluestate10 Jan 2013 #70
LineNew Reply k
butterfly77 Jan 2013 #72

Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:12 PM

1. I consider myself

a blue dog and this dont describe me.

"They want to lower taxes, keep our wars burning and start a few more, and they love the idea of fracking "

Looks to me like you're painting with a pretty wide brush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to donco (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:14 PM

2. How do you describe them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to donco (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:14 PM

3. Why do you consider yourself a blue dog?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:23 PM

10. I dont

believe in abortions and i have plenty of guns,mostly for hunting.Other than that i'm pretty liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to donco (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:25 PM

12. Do you "not believe in abortions" or do you not believe in abortions being legal?

 

Per guns, there are quite a few dyed in the wool hippie green leaners that love their guns here, so I wouldn't consider that a factor so much

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:06 PM

30. I do

"not believe in abortions.i'm not radical about it but its their.Most of my guns were inherited from my father.I didn't need to buy none of my own,the only automatic is a twelve gauge shotgun that hold three shells.Well used i might add.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to donco (Reply #30)


Response to Taverner (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:30 PM

62. I would rather women give children up for adoption rather than abort, except in cases where the

mother's health or life is at risk and abortion is the only sensible option. What I won't do is tell women that they can't have an abortion if that is their decision, nor do I support politicians that would restrict the right to abortion services in any way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #62)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:31 PM

63. There's the catch

 

There are many Pro-Choicers who are against abortion in that they are against the idea personally - and that's your choice.

But they will defend the right to that choice...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to donco (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:19 PM

6. Looks to me like you aren't really a blue dog

 

Sounds to me you're more of a centrist

Blue Dogs are not centrists - they are center right


What's a Blue Dog?

Think Clinton: bombs the SHIT out of Iraq all throughout his 8 years, no taxes raised, health plan is even less coverage than Obama's, pro Death Penalty, very pro business...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:43 PM

20. Get your facts right

Clinton did raise taxes. It cost him the House in his his first term, but he did it. That's a small piece of how he balanced the budget, which he did four times. He didn't "bomb the shit" out of Iraq, but he did enforce the UN sanctions against Iraq when it refused to comply with weapon inspections. He didn't invade Iraq--he knew that would've been madness--but the Desert Fox operation was perfectly in-line with the US's mandate for policing Iraq. And it worked, seeing as how Saddam still didn't have any weapons of mass destruction ten years later.

He got the best health care law that he could have out of the Congress he had to deal with. Like most successful progressives, he knew that real progress in a large country is going to move slow an in increments. I don't understand "pro-business" as a complaint against a president. Can you name me one American president who wasn't pro-business? But unlike the Republicans who preceded him, Clinton was also pro-union and pro-worker training and pro-education, insuring that the next generation of Americans would have the skills to fill the jobs that were being created in the 90s.

I don't defend everything Clinton did, but calling him a conservative Democrat is wide step off target. He was a moderate, to be sure, but he did a lot of good for a lot of people and the nation prospered while he was in office. I don't think we should argue against success.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:56 PM

28. I can somewhat agree with you on most of those, but not Iraq

 

Every day, the No Fly Zone was repeatedly bombed.

In addition, our blockade starved thousands in Iraq, none of them Baath party members of course

No, I am ashamed of everything we have done in Iraq, from selling them WMDs in the 80s, to the first gulf war, to the NFZ and onto the Iraq war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:28 PM

37. "very pro business"? I agree if you mean pro-big-business and pro-business in foreign countries.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:15 PM

4. Blue Dogs are all over the place.

You have Fiscal Blue Dogs, Social Blue Dogs, and some that are a mix of both to varying degrees.

And the way that you corral them is the old, time-honored way that works fairly well...fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:15 PM

5. Are they even a factor any more?

The problem is not that we have so many of them and what do we do with them. It's why do we give such a small minority such power? The GOP is afraid of the tea party because they represent a large enough coalition within their party. Democrats react the complete opposite way and give the Blue Dogs and conservadems more power and do everything they can to shun the larger, most motivated groups within their base (unions, greens, etc.).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:24 PM

11. They're not

Blue Dogs lost seats in every election. In 2012 there are only 14 Blue Dogs in Congress.

The only ones who give them any power are we here at DU by talking about them as if they matter.

Members in the 113th Congress

John Barrow (GA-12), Co-Chair for Policy
Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
Jim Cooper (TN-5)
Jim Costa (CA-20)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Jim Matheson (UT-4)
Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
Mike Michaud (ME-2)
Collin Peterson (MN-7)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Adam Schiff (CA-29)
Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
David Scott (GA-13)
Mike Thompson (CA-1)

Members who retired or were defeated in 2012 election

Jason Altmire (PA-4) - Lost renomination
Joe Baca (CA-43) - Defeated
Dan Boren (OK-2), Blue Dog Whip - Retired
Leonard Boswell (IA-3) - Defeated
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) - Resigned
Ben Chandler (KY-6) - Defeated
Tim Holden (PA-17) - Lost renomination
Larry Kissell (NC-8) - Defeated
Mike Ross (AR-4), Co-Chair for Communications - Retired
Heath Shuler (NC-11), Co-Chair for Administration - Retired

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition#Members_who_retired_or_were_defeated_in_2012_election

Look at the list of losers in the 2010 election at that link!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glitterati (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:26 PM

13. What about the New Democrat Colation?

 

To me they seem like a repackaging of the Blue Dogs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:39 PM

18. It simply doesn't matter

They have no power. The only thing they can do is vote with Republicans and if they do, they can just change parties or be primaried in 2 years or less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:20 PM

7. Name a powerful blue dog in the House

there are far fewer now. many have been replaced by rethugs. In the Senate there are a few but they generally vote with the majority. I don't think the blue dogs are as powerful as you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:21 PM

8. I hope you're right

 

Now that Evan Bayh, whom I considered the Alpha Dog of the Blue Dogs, is gone, you may be right


However, there still is the New Democrat Coalition, which is the same thing, different name:

Alabama

Terri Sewell (AL-07)

California

Lois Capps (CA-23)
Adam Schiff (CA-29)
Karen Bass (CA-33)
Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Susan Davis (CA-53)

Colorado

Jared Polis (CO-2)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-7)

Connecticut

Joe Courtney (CT-2)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Chris Murphy (CT-5)

Delaware

John C. Carney, Jr. (DE-At Large)

Georgia

John Barrow (GA-12)
David Scott (GA-13)

Hawaii

Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)

Indiana

André Carson (IN-7)

Louisiana

Cedric Richmond (LA-2)

Michigan

Gary Peters (MI-9)

Missouri

Russ Carnahan (MO-3)

Nevada

Shelley Berkley (NV-1)

New Jersey

Rush D. Holt (NJ-12)

New Mexico

Martin Heinrich (NM-1)

New York

Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4)
Gregory Meeks (NY-6)
Joseph Crowley (NY-7), Chair
Eliot L. Engel (NY-17)
Bill Owens (NY-23)
Kathy Hochul (NY-26)
Brian Higgins (NY-27)

North Carolina

Mike McIntyre (NC-7), charter member

Oregon

Kurt Schrader (OR-5)

Pennsylvania

Jason Altmire (PA-4)
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13), Vice-Chair

Puerto Rico

Pedro Pierluisi (PR-At Large)

Tennessee

Jim Cooper (TN-05)

Texas

Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20)

Virginia

Jim Moran (VA-8), charter member
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)

Washington

Rick Larsen (WA-2)
Adam Smith (WA-9), Vice-Chair, charter member

Wisconsin

Ron Kind (WI-3), Vice-Chair, charter member

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:44 PM

21. OK, let's take Lois Capps, who used to be my

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

my rep when I lived in CA. I know her, and helped her get elected early on.

Look at her ratings by all the various organizations who like to rate congressional members.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/16886/lois-capps#.UOXRBuRWyuI

In many areas, she's great. In a few, she could do better. If you understand her district in rural California, though, you can understand some of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:22 PM

9. No need for me to. I'm a gerrymandered voter now. My votes don't count anymore.

I don't have to make nice with any corporatist for any reason anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:32 PM

14. You know, here's the thing about Blue Dogs.

If you look at their voting records, they almost always vote with the Democratic caucus. When they don't, it's usually due to some local preference in their own district of some kind.

Time after time, when some blue dog votes on one issue differently than the rest of the caucus, people start screaming about it, without ever looking to see why that might be the case or ever looking to see how that person voted on a host of other issues.

Our Democratic legislators are not homogeneous. Each comes from a district or state and has to run for election. They will not always vote the same, especially when a particular issue has a large impact locally. To expect that is to expect something that will not occur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:36 PM

16. Yes, but think about the a$$holes we've had in the past...

 

Evan Bayh and Lieberman come to mind...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:14 PM

34. You know, you aren't really saying anything at all.

The past? That's gone. We're thinking about now and tomorrow.

I offered an exercise in my post 21, just above. Try it on anyone you consider to be a "blue dog." Unless you're willing to look at the entire individual and the entirety of that person's votes, you're not saying anything really. There's not a single politician in the US with whom I agree on every issue. there are a lot of politicians I will vote for, though, despite that.

In post #21, I look at Lois Capps, a California house member of long standing who represented my district when I lived there. I know her well, both personally, and through campaigning for her. Go look at her, as I suggested. I'm sure you'll find areas of disagreement with her. I do. And yet, I not only voted for her, but worked to get her elected, starting with the first time she ran. Why did I do that, do you suppose, despite disagreeing with her in some areas?

Every last elected official has to be elected by the voters in their particular district. What that takes varies widely, and may or may not coincide with your personal political positions. I suspect that it will not coincide with them in about 75% of all congress members. So, what to do? I cannot vote only for those who agree with me on everything, nor can I vote based on a single issue that is important to me, because that is not the only issue that matters.

Life is real. Life happens. Vote like you understand that, and things will work out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:42 PM

65. Great post. The purists make me physically ill. They can't see anything but their logic.

Blue dog democrats are democrats in every sense of the word. They stay with the party even though they live in districts or states where it would be easier to be a republican. Their voting support democratic initiatives except in cases where those initiatives go counter to what they view as best for them and their district. Democrats won't get back the majority in the House without blue dog democrats getting elected or holding office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #65)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:48 PM

66. Well, the thing is that the person asking the question self-identifies

as an anarchist, in the first place. As an anarchist, his or her opinion about the validity of any democrat isn't really worth noting, at least in my view.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2042069

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:34 PM

15. They're pretty much gone, aren't they?

How many do we have left?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:37 PM

17. Although Kent Conrad(DINO ND), was in the Senate, he is a good example of a Blue Dog.

 

“My own belief,” Conrad said, “is what we ought to do is take Speaker Boehner’s last offer, the president’s last offer, split the difference, and that would be a package of about $2.6 trillion.”

Chris Wallace, to his credit, pressed Conrad for details. And Conrad provided them. “The spending cuts would be $1.45 trillion. The revenue would be $1.15 trillion. So, you see there, that’s a combination of $2.6 trillion.”

This in an amazing offer for a Democrat to make. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has already accepted that “a balanced deal,” by his definition, would include a ratio of 1:1 spending cuts to tax increases. Indeed, his second offer included $1 trillion in tax increases in return for $1 trillion in spending cuts ($1.3 trillion if you count interest). By averaging Boehner’s second offer with Obama’s third offer — that is to say, by starting from a baseline that includes more rounds of Democratic concessions than Republican concessions — Conrad is proposing a more lopsided deal than Boehner is currently asking for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/26/the-white-houses-kent-conrad-problem/


Good riddance! In reality, Blue Dogs are as big a problem as the Republicans are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:41 PM

19. Start by learning to listen & stop insulting those who don't agree with you. Neither you nor anyone

 

else has a corner on truth.

ON EDIT ADD Your subject "make peace . . . without giving them their way" says you don't want "peace" but to impose your opinion on them. Perhaps a first step is to change that attitude?

Our Constitution does not create a democratic government where a simple majority can impose its will on a minority.

Our Constitution acknowledges rights that preexist it and do not depend upon it. Those rights are recognized by many states as natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable.

We the People as individual sovereign entities did not delegate all our powers to each state when we approved state constitutions and certainly did no do so when we ratified our Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment is our protection against any who want to establish a tyranny at the federal level regardless of cover for such an effort.

Some might frame the battle as Individualism versus Socialism as loosely discussed at the links provided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:46 PM

24. Oh I listen. But no matter how many blue dogs say the sun is green...

 

I know for sure it isn't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:04 PM

29. See my edit change after your post. IMO color of any object is a useless example because some people

 

are color blind, perhaps even you?

I'm a scientist and use mathematics to model cause and effect relationships subject to the laws of nature.

I find laughable how other fields are called "this or that" science as if adding the word "science" makes legitimate their endless ruminations about the latest collection of opinions.

At the very first stage of education we begin to teach reading, writing, and speaking but never formally offer courses in listening.

IMO the dozen or less divisive, polarizing political issues are used to divide and control government.

That may be effective for small populations but not for large populations.

For example, what might be effective laws for a crime ridden city like Chicago or Detroit won't work in remote areas of states like Wyoming or Montana.

If you don't recognize that, then you have to face the simple fact that Wyoming's 600K citizens have two senators and California's 38 million citizens have two senators.

Like it or not, any crime bill that passes Congress should satisfy the needs of Wyoming and California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:07 PM

31. The Blue Dogs have done almost as much damage as the GOP

 

Consider the PATRIOT act, the Iraq wars, arming the Taliban, the Vietnam War, the arms race, etc....

I have a big problem (in case you haven't noticed) with our role as self appointed world police

Not only is it immoral, it is what will destroy us, just like it did the USSR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:19 PM

35. It seems unlikely you will find anyone that agrees with all your opinions and that's all they are.

 

You might meet someone that you find has diametrically opposite opinions on issue A and you end up hating she/he and belatedly find out much later that same person agrees with you on issue B.

You might discover that person had published dozens of LTTE opposing Bush's wars, participated in public demonstrations opposing them, and other actions.

If you reject that person precipitously without at least trying to find common ground, then are you not your own worst enemy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:52 PM

27. Besides, "giving them their way" has hurt us in the past. IWR anyone?

 

That was fully bipartisan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:11 PM

32. OP sought general answers for a path to "peace". No scientist would attempt to use special cases

 

to derive general rules.

You assert "'giving them their way' has hurt us in the past" but that's your opinion.

Who is the "us" for which you speak?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:56 PM

40. Want me to be specific? NO HAWKS!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:04 PM

44. Define Hawk? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:48 PM

53. Empire. For or against?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:44 PM

22. Whip? Cat-o-ninetails?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:45 PM

23. How they handle gun control legislation will be interesting to see

Good luck getting many of them to go along with any significant gun control legislation, since most come from areas where gun ownership is very common. And expect the ones that do to be voted out and replaced by Republicans almost immediately afterwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:51 PM

26. To be honest, I think there is less of a gun divide than we think

 

Nobody is calling for a total gun ban

And most gun owners (in our party at least, and on DU) are in favor of more regulation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:25 PM

36. Depends on the regulation

I'm open to strengthening the NICS check, safety classes, and other concepts such as civilian armories, but there are some positions I cannot and will not budge on despite my Yellow Dog status. This has attracted the attention of some Blue Dogs just out of the nature of the discourse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:48 PM

25. Anybody that will vote the Democratic way in the Congress is fine with me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:13 PM

33. I used to thrive on discussions like this, now they just make me weary...

I'll give you my own opinion, an evolving one, as it stands right now. Take it for what it's worth. I already have a head ache in anticipation...

1. If there is any kind of 'civil war' in the Democratic party, the progressives will be the one painted as the crazies. I'm not saying progressives are crazy but I'm saying they - we - whoever - will be the ones perceived as unbending and ideologically rigid like the tea party on the right.

2. I've been considered many things on DU - centrist, conservative - but to the average Republican, I'm a socialist. Apply that to entire Democratic party as you consider this issue. To the outside, the opposition, the unlearned novice politico (voters), we're all socialists.

3. Some bluedogs are such out of political necessity. Same with Third Way dems (not the same.) I'd rather have a Democrat who votes conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues than a Republican who votes conservative on all issues.

4. I know a little bit about Democratic party history from Wilson on but I'm by no means an expert. But this has been on ongoing conflict since forever. FDR was viciously attacked from the left and right. Truman was opposed by left and right factions of the party in his re-election campaign. Liberals threatened to revolt when JFK picked LBJ as his running mate. And so on and so fourth. Every election has some kind of similar conflict.

So keep this in mind - these inner-party squabbles may be important to us and fascinating to argue about, but that has almost always been the case and outsiders see very little meaningful difference in Progressives/liberals, Blue Dogs, Third Wayers, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 03:47 PM

42. Good assesment nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:30 PM

38. Vote them out in the primaries

And wish them well in their lives outside of politics. That's the only way I could make peace with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:37 PM

39. Who's "we," Taverner?

You use that word pretty freely. But, I don't really think I know to whom you are referring. Maybe you can offer a clear definition of which "we" you're discussing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 03:09 PM

41. The best way

 

is to get voters to replace them with progressives instead of moderate Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 03:48 PM

43. Make it clear that they can come along for the ride for progress, civil liberties, economic

justice, and peace or they can roll with the TeaPubliKlans.

No middle ground, no Turd Way.

If you think we are nuts then pick your nuts. Teabaggers or the kRaZy center-left of a generation ago.

No matter what spin they have, excuses, or reasons all it ever is reverse Robin Hood and taking power from the many for the benefit of the few so they get teeth in the floor or to sit in the corner or they can join the TeaPubliKlans and we all get hell on earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:07 PM

45. Do you support ALL civil liberties or just some? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:46 PM

48. Yeah - we can't deny people's liberties to deny other people's liberties - that would be wrong!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:08 PM

51. Taverner you changed #45 from "civil liberties" to "liberties". Was that because you aren't able to

 

answer "45. Do you support ALL civil liberties or just some?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:48 PM

52. It's because adding civil twice would exceed the character count

 

Jeez - touchy aren't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #45)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:15 AM

55. All of course. No 2nd carve out here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #55)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:42 PM

58. Understand, some people don't know or ignore that the 2nd Amendment is a civil right. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:40 PM

46. If you figure it out, let me know. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:51 PM

49. Ne-go-ti-ate. Com-pro-mise.

It's how you get things done in the Senate and House. You give a little, you get a little, and bit by bit you move your agenda forward.

We need the Blue Dogs. They need the rest of the Dem Party. America needs us all.

Hekate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:52 PM

50. Problem is in the past the Blue Dogs took a vanguard approach

 

Steering the party rightward

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:59 PM

54. Blue Dogs are REPUBLICANS! You don't be nice

to them, you run them out of office!

We just got a new one from Florida, Patrick Murphy who beat Allen West. Patrick Murphy was a registered Republican up until he decided to run against Allen West!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #54)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:00 PM

67. Bullshit!!! If they were republicans, it would be easier for them to simply join that party. They

are democrats for a reason. All of them come from districts, where frankly, being a republican is easier. Patrick Murphy said from the outset that he tends to be conservative fiscally but doesn't believe that denying money that should be spent is rational either. Murphy's family runs a large lumber supply business and he is a financial planner or accountant by training. He has stated that he is socially moderate and agrees with the democrats stand on all social issues. I am fiscally moderate, so I am not far from Murphy. I believe that every dollar spent should be spent properly and that waste always must be eliminated. I don't waste money in business and don't want to see governments wasting money, whether that be money for defense or social programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 04:37 PM

71. Thanks for pointing out

Patrick Murphy is a conservative!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:02 AM

73. Palm Beach Post : Patrick Murphy

started out in 2011 as a registered republican and now is the best-financed congressional candidates in the nation!

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/broward-builder-patrick-murphy-erects-candidacy-to/nLrrL/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:24 AM

56. I don't know. Here's my Dem Congressman on the Fiscal Cliff Bill:

Congressman Kurt Schrader (D-OR) tonight released the following statement after passage of a deal to avert the "fiscal cliff" in the House of Representatives:

"This is yet another short-term, Band-Aid solution that has become prevalent in Washington as of late," Rep. Schrader said. "It neither tackles the largest drivers of our deficits, nor lays a framework to say we will do so in the future. I remain staunchly committed to passing a big, bold deficit reduction and jobs package that puts everything on the table, including revenue, spending cuts and entitlement reforms, puts our nation back on a fiscally sound trajectory and promotes growth and certainty for our businesses."

http://schrader.house.gov/press-releases/schrader-statement-on-house-passage-of-fiscal-cliff-deal/

Ooohhh. Entitlement Reforms! Oh and businesses must have certainty! RW talking point from a Democrat. He also loves Simpson Bowles

http://schrader.house.gov/schrader-in-the-news/kurt-schrader-casts-lonely-vote-for-simpson-bowles-deficit-reduction-plan-the-oregonian-march-29-20121/



And to think I was in Congressman Blumenauer's district until now

I really don't like this guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:05 AM

57. I was actually thinking about this today

About how the reason Canada has conservative leader is they have two split parties on the left, which if joined together would win.

I think we have to remember that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:17 PM

59. Do what the GOPee does, and don't give them committee chairs or memberships unless they toe the line



Theres no reason why the likes of Joe Liebermann should have even been given a spot for his lunch in the office refridgerator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:26 PM

60. By realizing that they are democrats too and come from districts where it would easier for them to

be republicans. Blue dogs tends to be more fiscally conservative than urban democrats. I don't think there is much of a difference anymore on social politics. We need blue-dogs to expand our numbers in rural districts and in the South. The trend is that most people in the country are moderate or progressive. I think northerners that vote republican are seeing how that serves them with the republican party being controlled by southern and rural republicans, those northern votes are going to be available to democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:29 PM

61. True - most blue dogs have finally come to their senses on marriage equality

 

Now if we can address the war on women...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #61)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:08 PM

69. I don't know of any blue dog democrats that are engaged with republicans is the war on women.

If you know of some, call them out by name and district now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:35 PM

64. You've lost a part of consideration of the issue.

If the districts are such that being a Republican would be easier...I'd rather still run a liberal and lose than run a conservative-Democrat and win...because then at-least the electorate is being exposed to progressive ideas.

A victory is never made by co-opting the other side's ideas...we can win in the long run by holding to our principles. Keeping blue-dogs plays into GOP/conservative strategy by moving us right as they move further right. We're now proposing the policies they used to run on and they're laughing as they move further right to see how much more conservative they can go. We're now losing by winning by not running left even if we'd lose for it.

Also, your argument is an argument towards regional parties. That's a loser every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #64)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:06 PM

68. The old Nader 2000 in Florida logic. I say B U L L S H I T !!!!!!!!

Voting in a way that insures that one continues to get screwed is fucking outrageously stupid, there is no gentle way to describe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #64)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:25 PM

70. "Also, your argument is an argument towards regional parties. That's a loser every time."

????????????. So according to your esteemed logic Tip O'Neill was wrong when he observed that all politics is local.

Let me remind you that Senators and Representatives are elected in their home state. Ignoring that fact won't accomplish any objective but cede power and any chance of influence.

So, we should go back to 1972 when liberals ruled our party? What did that get us? Well, how about 16 of 20 years of increasingly conservative republican rule until Bill Clinton, a Centrist, broke that fever. Bush II got a chance to lead because the Left had to show how fucking smart and pure they were and voted for Nader in big numbers, including 97,000 votes in Florida that handed Bush II the Presidency. Where did the Left protest get us? How about two devastating wars, massive giveaway's to the rich, setbacks to women's rights that we will be working for several decades to reverse, attacks on learning and science. Your point of view failed royally, time for people that have that POV to step back and STFU because in just four short years the measured, fact based point of view has done more to reverse Bush II damage than the Left could accomplish in four decades with it's hair on fire, my way or the highway POV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 05:39 PM

72. k

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread