Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot

[defendandprotect]

Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot
Pushing conservative Democrats out of Congress could help the party stand up to the GOP.
By Glenn Greenwald

Jul. 29, 2008 |
excerpt . . .


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.

Other than (arguably) the resignation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general and a very modest increase in the minimum wage (enacted in the first month after Democrats took control of Congress), one is hard-pressed to identify a single event or issue since November 2006 that would have been meaningfully different had the GOP retained control of Congress. The Congress of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi has been every bit as passive, impotent and complicit as the Congress of Bill Frist and Denny Hastert was. Worse, in contrast to the Frist/Hastert-led Congress, which at least had the excuse that it enabled a wartime president from its own party while he enjoyed high approval ratings, the Reid/Pelosi Congress has capitulated to every presidential whim despite an "opposition party" president who is now one of the most unpopular in modern American history. It's difficult to imagine how even Reid and Pelosi themselves could contest the claim that the Democratic-led Congress, from the perspective of Democratic voters, has been a profound failure.


MORE . ..

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/29/blue_dogs_die/print.html

[BlooInBloo]

1. More and better Democrats is what we need....

Unfortunately it takes some time to get both of them together.

[Crazy Dave]

3. Term limits and a life-time ban from working for lobbyists

If that ever happens you wouldn't have a bunch of already rich people running for office just to get richer.

[stray cat]

4. Now that I would definitely agree with - ethical people in government

[BlooInBloo]

8. I'm almost never in favor of limiting the people's right to vote for whomever they want....

So no new term limits for me.

[Crazy Dave]

9. So the hell with people's civil rights and access to health care

As long as people who want to can keep voting for the same incumbent numb-nuts who never fix anything that's what's really important :sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

10. Yes.... That's clearly the only possible conclusion to draw.

[Crazy Dave]

11. Hey I'm agreeing with you

500,000 jobs lost since the beginning of 2008 and more jobs going overseas, gas and food prices up while education funding goes down...

I agree we all should be able to keep voting for that if that's what we want :P

[BlooInBloo]

12. Sure. For someone who's suitably hopeless, that IS the only possible way things could turn out.

[Crazy Dave]

13. Hey, maybe it's good support for starting another war too

Screw the hopeless, but praise the uninformed and the just plain stupid who are the enablers. I think you've done a piss poor way of explaining why you love such a flawed system.

[defendandprotect]

26. I think we need to establish a REAL PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC PARTY . . . !!!

[defendandprotect]

25. This isn't about "term limits" . . . . this is about supporting progressives ....

vs right-wingers . . .

[question everything]

14. The problem with term-limit - as seen in California

is that, first, you lose institutional history. People who know how it is done, what can be done and what cannot. People who do want to achieve something so that they can be re-elected.

Second, after a while you end up scrapping the bottom of the barrel to get good people who are willing to run and who are well known to be elected.

Instead, you just have office hopping from one office to another as they are being termed out.

If someone is really bad, we, the voters, should be able to run them out (yeah, I know..)

[Crazy Dave]

15. And replace them with more Ah-nolds with big fat campaign and PR budgets

Just what we need more of

[mike_c]

2. recommended-- congressional dems are a dismal failure....

:grr:

[jobycom]

5. File this under "we had to destroy the village to save the village."

Turning seats over to Republicans will not help us stand up to the Republicans. And in 99% of the cases, the "blue dog" is there because a liberal wouldn't win in that district, so it's a blue dog, who still helps us gain control of the Congress, or a Republican, who does nothing but evil and enjoys it. Nick Lampson isn't the most liberal Congresscritter, for example, but would you really prefer Tom DeLay?

And the writer of that article is an idiot. If the Democrats hadn't won in 06, we'd be complaining about the war in Iran now.

[paulk]

16. well said...

If someone is going to call for getting rid of the blue dogs they need to come up with some way to elect liberal Dems in conservative districts. When that magic trick is accomplished, then it's worth talking about.

In the meantime we live with what we've got, which is bluedog John Salazar in Colorado's western slope district - because he's a heck of a lot better than the right wing fundy Republican moron he replaced...

[mitchtv]

6. a little late with that kind of talk

primaries have been mostly complete, I believe. If i am correct, what are we to do, vote GOP?.

[defendandprotect]

27. Let's move in a progressive fashion --- support true ideals of Democratic Party ---

NOT corporate ideals ---

[defendandprotect]

7. See the Blue America Campaign . . .

which targets the "blue dogs" . . .

http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/11689

[jody]

17. Electing Blue Dogs gave Dems control of Congress. How does the anti-Blue Dog clique propose to give

Blue Dogs the boot while supporting the very policies that got the Blue Dogs elected in the first place?

It appears the anti-Blue Dog clique oppose Blue Dog policies and not Blue Dog politicians personally.

Be careful you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

[alarimer]

18. What good is control when the blue dogs ALWAYS vote with the republicans?

They are the ones that have given the Republicans and Bush every single thing he wanted. So what good has having control done us? Not one damn thing because of these traitors.

[jody]

21. What do you accomplish by calling Blue Dogs traitors? Our nation is diverse and one-size

political party does not satisfy Democrats in all congressional districts, e.g. Wyoming with its one congressional district versus California with 53 congressional districts.

Do you want a party ruled by a powerful few that browbeat congresspersons into always voting the party line?

[alarimer]

23. No, I want Democrats who actually believe the party platform

Not Democrats in name only, which is what those Blue Dogs are. They are sellouts to our principles and values.

[jody]

24. I agree re Dem Party platform. Should we kick out those politicians who were elected under our Dem

Party banner but who aggressively oppose our platform?

[alarimer]

36. No, give them primary challengers

And lots of money to those challengers.

Joe Lieberman comes to mind (although I am not sure he is a Blue Dog, he sure is a turncoat). When he ran as an independent, the Party should have poured money to Lamont, but they didn't.

Congress is too much of a club. Those people are all way to chummy with each other. Inouye even had a fundraiser for Stevens! It's no wonder that Congress has a 9% approval rating.

[defendandprotect]

28. And, you know, that's an excellent point which we really should be discusing . . .

Voters are actually voting for a party, in theory ---

This whole thing about personalities needs discussion and ironing out ---

And you're right . . . what's the difference between a Republican and a DINO who votes

like a Republican . . . none!

[butterfly77]

19. I am so tired of these..

republicon lites, are they now pretending like the Cons that they are for the people when they have been voting with Bush all along and giving him everything he wanted.

[notadmblnd]

20. bills get passed in the House and dead end in the Senate

where the is a majority of Dems by 1. This is why I think more has not been accomplished.

[defendandprotect]

29. Oh, please . . . evidently you've never noticed that when the GOP is in the minority . . .

they get what they want ---

when they're in the majority they get what they want ---

When Dems are in the majority --- they give the GOP what it wants ---

In fact, George Mitchell turned the Congress over to Bob Dole ---

[leftchick]

22. way too late for that

they are as embedded in the party as neocons are in the repuke party. The DLC will continue to pour money and cultivate conservative candidates across america, while squashing real liberal candidates. Just ask Nancy and Rahm.

[defendandprotect]

30. They may outsmart themselves yet . . .

One day progressives may get together to move on ---

[leftchick]

32. one can only hope

I myself have lost hope for my lifetime. Perhaps my children will see it.

:(

[defendandprotect]

33. We don't have a lot of time . . .

Global Warming is closing in on us very seriously ---

Progessives would have to do something they've never done before --- come together ---

unions/women/labor/civil rights/reproductive freedom/human rights --- basically all of us.

And we'd have to move as a BLOCK ---

It could be a really NEW Democratic Party . . .

[orleans]

31. blue dog trembles: "not me! not me!"

[defendandprotect]

34. Not yet, perhaps. . . . but if enough Democrats figure this out -- they may!

[orleans]

37. no, no, no. i wasn't talking about the human "blue dogs"

(i'd like to see them gone too)

i was talking about the one and only Blue Dog:

by ellen booth

[New Dawn]

35. Agreed, this Congress has proved that...

QUALITY, not quantity, is what matters the most.