Why do the "blue dogs" even belong to the Democratic party?

[Politics_Guy25]

Like I don't get it. Those 39 house democrats that voted no on HCR last night along with some of the so-called Dems in the senate, why do they even belong to the Democratic party? I mean, if I felt more comfortable with Sarah Palin and Terry Jefferies, I certainly wouldn't stay a democrat. I'd join the Republicans. I don't get why they are part of a party that they disagree with on so many issues. The thought had crossed my mind that they are infiltrators designed to divide us. Anyway, what are they doing in the Democratic party?? Please explain. I don't get belonging to a party that you disagree with on all the key issues. Maybe they should start their own party called the "corpocrat" party?

[tekisui]

1. Because the Democratic Leader ship values power over a

liberal agenda.

[Individualist]

2. DLC can do more damage to the party within

That's one of their goals.

[Politics_Guy25]

4. So we have been infiltrated practically...

Well to the dem leadership...keep this up and soon you will have no power and no ability to push your agenda. Those that would sell their souls inevitably pay in the end.

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. Because their whole purpose (along with the DLC) is to undermine the Democratic party from within.

Look at what "we" allowed them to pull off. The weakest possible excuse for a corporate blowing "health care bill" which STRENGTHENS the corporate stranglehold, and the sons of bitches STILL vote against it.

For that reason alone, we should throw the piece of shit out and start over, ignoring anything they have to say on the subject.

[Politics_Guy25]

6. All right...let me play devil's advocate for a moment here

A DLCer would tell you that we lost the 1980, 1984, and 1988 presidential elections because we were preceived as en elitist out of touch "wild-eyed" liberal party and it took President Clinton and his "third way" of 1992 to restore us to power after 12 long years in the wilderness forced to suffer under Ronald Reagan's agenda. They would go on to say that 1994 proved that the public was unwilling to accept liberal principles and that Bill Clinton's third way is the only way for the democrats to keep and maintain power. That's their argument. How do you counter it? Also, what is your explanation for the 1980-1988 losses? They'd probably throw in our face the argument "what Michael Dukasis and Walter Mondale weren't liberal enough?"

That's not my argument but that's the argument that the DLC would present. How is it factually countered?

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Ask Creigh Deeds or Jon "Goldmine Sucks" Corzine about that.

They ran on DLC fake "Democrat" corporate "centrist" platforms, and lost.

Bill Clinton is the only President to win on a DLC platform, and he only did so after 12 years of Reagan and Bush with an assist from Perot. Obama might have a lot of those useless fucks in his cabinet, but he didn't campaign on their platform. Hillary did, and she lost. Even Edwards, for the short time he was in the mix, was far to the left of where he was in 2004.

The DLC argument exists mostly in their own minds, and in the marketing budget of their corporate partners. But not with the majority of actual Democrats.

[WeDidIt]

5. Because on any major vote to progress the Democratic agenda...

you can count on about 35-40% to go along with the vote. The actual blue dogs that side with the Democrats will vary depending upon the issue, but the percentages hold true. Plus, when you add the blue dogs to the caucus, the Democrats hold the majority, the chairmanships, the majorities on every committee, and they get to set the legislative agenda.

Or, you can prop up "progressives" like Kucinich who votes against every major Democratic intiative on "principle".

But hey, most people around here seem to prefer to be in the minority and live in pie in the sky fantasyland over reality of legislative sausage making because that's too icky,

[AlinPA]

12. OK with the part about "the majority, the chairmanships, the majorities on every committee,

and they get to set the legislative agenda", but they vote straight republican to protect their seat. There are no votes that mean much where they will go along with Democrats. So the OP is correct to question their value, IMO they are of no use on actual legislation.

[rucky]

15. Any other progressives vote against the bill?

didn't think so.

[BeatleBoot]

7. And Al Gore and George W. Bush are pretty much the Same Choice.

Please.

I have had enough of the immaturity and bullshit for one day.

It's gotten to be a bit much today.

The street lights are on - don't let the bedbugs bite!

[HughMoran]

8. If we kick them all out, we can enjoy watching the Republicans set the agenda in Congress

Even though blue-dogs are not really Democrats, the benefit of having them is 1) they help give us the majority in Congress and 2) they do vote with Dems on many issues (though not the ones we care the most about)

[KharmaTrain]

9. +100000

They are elected by their constituents from predominately red and purple areas...it's either dealing with them or a teabagging rushpublican.

Damn it being a majority party with diverse interests. People here laugh about how the rushpublicans are killing themselevs with their "purity" tests while they're bitching that the Democrats should do the same.

[AlinPA]

13. Yes, its about the "majority", but their important votes are all republican so that

they can preserve their seat in the red districts.

[treestar]

10. They are from conservative states

Where even the Democrats are conservative.

Repukes from those areas could only be worse.

[rucky]

14. They'd get primaried out if they ran as Republicans. n/t