Blue Dog Democrats: In or out?

[Panasonic]

This is a revisited question that was very recently hidden, just better rephrased to meet the DU's guidelines.

The question I find valid: Which Congressional Democrats will you NOT vote for?

I was the only one that found it valid and voted to leave it alone.

So when I finished the jury duty, I went to that questoin immediately and gave my opinion only to find it locked.

Here's what I said:

Heath Shuler and the remaining Blue Dog Democrats should be removed.

In 2010, 75% of the Blue Dogs were replaced by teabaggers because the old adage is true: People who sees Republican lite and Republicans will always vote for the Republicans.

I expect the remaining Blue Dogs being removed in favor for progressive Democrats who truly represents the constituents.

The question is valid.

Under DU's rules, this discussion is fine, as long as we're not being too negative about the blue dogs, except I want them to go away for good, and stop kissing up Republican's asses. That's not how we Democrats operate.

[OldDem2012]

1. Just curious, but if you vote out the Blue Dogs....

...with whom do you replace them?

Think about it.

[Autumn]

6. Republicans. The more exposure those nuts get the better for

our party. If republicans want to run as Democrats because that's the only way they can win, let the people vote for a republican. After all it seems blue dogs like the republican policies. People will get sick of them and that can only help the republican party crash and burn.

[MrsCorleone]

21. A loss of any democrat, Blue Dog or otherwise, leads to Republican majorities. It's that simple.

When Republicans are in the majority, they head the committees and block progressive legislation from even getting to the floor for a vote.

Blue Dogs are Blue Dogs primarily because the majority of their constituency are too RW to vote in a liberal Democrat. Educate their constituents going forward, because the media certainly will not give them the facts. But, don't throw out the very Blue Dogs that are imperative now in holding and/or gaining control of the Senate and House and those oh so important committee chairmanships.

Work on constituency education in red districts. Give them the facts! If you're succesful, these constituents will push their Blue Dogs left. And, if you're really lucky, they may primary in a more liberal Dem down the road.

With your tactic of weeding out the blue dogs in exchange for Republicans, you are directly handing power over to the Republicans.

[Autumn]

22. Blue dogs lead to watered down Democratic policies.

My blue dog, when I gave him fact's, his reply was I will vote the way I want to. In 2016 I will work my ass off for anyone who runs against him in the primary.

[X_Digger]

23. So republican policies are better than "watered down Democratic policies"?!? n/t

[Autumn]

25. Nope. Not what I said.

Watered down Democratic policies are republican lite policies. Will I vote for a blue dog? Yes I will and have done so. Do I like blue dogs? No I do not. Blue dogs IMO damage and weaken the Democratic party.

[MrsCorleone]

31. "Blue dogs IMO damage and weaken the Democratic party." Take a look at their constituencies.

Some regions/districts have nothing but RW media 24/7. If the voters in these regions believe nothing but the alternate reality put out by the RW, how do you suppose these red district Democrats get elected and/or hold onto their seats?

Educate voters with facts.

[Autumn]

36. If they believe the alternate reality put out by the RW, then they should prefer a republican.

If they will only accept a politician that leans toward republican beliefs calling themselves a "Democrat" because the republican party is too crazy to appeal to them it seems to me they need a chance to learn to loath republicans and discover just how bad their policies are. And yes, I have voted for blue dogs, don't like it one bit, but will do so when I have to.

[MrsCorleone]

41. These people are not necessarily crazy, just horribly misinformed. They live in a RW media bubble.

Sadly, most of these voters do not realize it, hence their support of far RW policies and candidates.

..."seems to me they need a chance to learn to loath republicans and discover just how bad their policies are."

Yeah, unfortunately, we've been suffering under those bad RW policies for a long while and, yet, they still cannot connect the dots back to the Republicans because of our media.

[bluestate10]

42. Republicans lead to a fucking scorched earth that

none of us will see corrected. If Romney is elected, he will stuff the federal judge pipeline with extreme conservatives, some young enough to serve for the next 40-50 years, even if democratic Presidents are elected.

[tabbycat31]

2. I've worked in many Blue Dog districts

The reality is that someone more liberal would not win the race period. When the choice is between a Blue Dog who will vote with the Dems 80% of the time vs a teabagger who will vote with the Dems 0% of the time, the choice is clear.

The takeaway I have from working in politics (more often than not in the more Blue Dog districts as progressive districts are very safe and therefore don't require a large staff to win the race) is that if the progressives put half as much effort into defeating the Republicans as they do into defeating the Blue Dogs, then Democrats would be much better off.

Note-- I expect backlash on this, I personally am a progressive. However, I know that you don't wear that on your sleeve in certain parts of the country. I've worked on campaigns in four states.

[Panasonic]

10. I have no Blue Dog Democrats here in Colorado

except for Bennet. He's slightly Blue Dog, but barely acceptable - we tried to primary him to replace him with a much more progressive Democrat and was my state representative. He lost.

He'll still be voted out in the primary '16 unless he decides to call it quits.

[Autumn]

15. Bennet is one of the most rude politicians I have ever dealt with.

I will work my ass off to get rid of him in 2016.

[Panasonic]

30. You and me both.

I wonder who'll be the likely primary candidates are...

I voted for Romanoff over Bennet and was pissed that Bennet won. I didn't even want that jerk as my Senator when Ritter appointed to take Salazar's unexpired seat. I think we all wanted Romanoff too.

I refuse to acknowledge him as my Senator, and I like Udall, because he's smart, and is close to my type of politician that I'm looking for.

DeGette is my representative.

[Autumn]

33. I worked hard at getting Romanoff in, when Obama came here and campaigned for Bennet

it just broke my heart.

[Panasonic]

35. Yup. Obama needed to stay out of that.

But it is his "policy" to support the incumbent - which Bennet was most certainly not.

If Obama didn't interfere, I am positive it would have been a Romanoff victory.

[ieoeja]

16. Which came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

I grew up in a swing district. Swung back and forth between left of center Democrats and right of center Republicans. Then Clinton won the presidency by ignoring his Republican opponent and concentrating on distancing himself from "those" Democrats. This prompted local Democrats to move Right.

With nobody even attempting the Liberal argument, the choice where I grew up is now between staunchly Conservative Democrats and Teabagging Republicans.

Which came first: the Blue Dog or the Red District? Where I grew up it was the Blue Dog.

[shraby]

3. 5 blue dogs are better than 1 republican

[msongs]

4. what about blue dogs who share similar views oF SS with romney?

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. We need a majority in the House. The color of the dog is irrelevant.

A majority allows us to set the agenda, especially in the House, where the minority only has the right to sit down and shut the "f" up.

We are never going to have an ideal, completely anti-corporate Democratic majority. Without that majority, the Republicans in Congress continue to stop any meaningful attempt to solve the real problems we face as a nation in a way that will actually try to help the middle class and poor.

Advocating voting against a Democrat, even a blue dog, in the General is cutting everyone else's nose off to spite your own face.

Fights against Conservative Democrats are good in a primary, where we can choose better Democrats to run. But, calling for people to vote against a Democrat in the General election is monumentally short sighted and self destructive.

The Tea-Party does that, and I applaud them when they do, because their stupidity can help us get a majority that we desperately need.

[BlueMTexpat]

28. Exactly. eom

[DonViejo]

32. Very well stated! Thanks

Primary season is purge time, NOT in general elections

[elleng]

7. I don't mind the question itself,

but recognize that we NEED DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES, in the House and Senate. The leadership is critically important, and I've been working like crazy for Wayne Powell, to get rid of eric cantor in VA #7 AND to get him away from House leadership.

Given the choice, I would NOT HESITATE to vote for a 'blue-dog,' the leadership is that important, imo.

[X_Digger]

24. +1 n/t

[backscatter712]

8. I tend to vote for the party, rather than the candidates.

So straight Democratic ticket for me.

Even the most obnoxious Blue Dogs are a thousand times better than the least obnoxious Republicans - while Blue Dogs often have to be dragged kicking and screaming by activist constituents to vote for something decent, at least it's possible, though arduous to work with them.

The Republicans will cockblock and obstruct solely because they don't want Democrats to get a victory, so absolutely nothing will get them to be cooperative.

[quinnox]

9. I'm not a fan of DINOS

Cut them loose and let them man up and join their true party, the GOP. Fuck 'em is my view. I do know we have a fan club who seems to adore these suckers though.

[awake]

11. The time to replace any Democrat is during during the primary not the general election

In most cases the replacement for any Democrat in the general election will be a republican. I call that a no brainer unless you happen to like voting in republicans.

[SidDithers]

20. Nailed it...

Sid

[MrsCorleone]

43. Exactly.

[mitchtv]

12. I wil vote against a state senator-Juan Vargas when he runs

No blue dogs running for federal afound here. Vote against equal marriage, nad you lose my vote, D or R

[Brother Buzz]

13. Fifty percent of everything or a hundred percent of nothing. Blue dog Democrats are a necessary evil

especially with districts the would turn red before they elect a progressive Democrat. I'd rather they Caucasus with the Democrats then strolling across the aisle.

[GoCubsGo]

14. I wish I had a Blue Dog for whom I could vote.

In my district, Joe "You lie!" Wilson is running unopposed. I'll take any Blue Dog over him ANY DAY. As it is, I get to hear the incessant commercials for and against Blue Dog, John Barrow day after fucking day. I am not crazy about Barrow, but he's a far sight better than the teabagger whacko running against him. And, he's the best you are going to get from neck of the woods. That Broun kook in the neighboring district is running unopposed, too. He's in the district that has the University of Georgia. One would think a more progressive candidate might win there. But, they can't even find a conservative Democrat to run. You can bitch all you like about the Blue Dogs, but if you think you're going to get anyone better in those districts, you are deluding yourself.

[Glitterati]

17. And, eventually Barrow will lose as well

Barrow is a Blue Dog Democrat as well as a member of the New Democrat Coalition. Based on Barrow's bill sponsorship, the GovTrack website has classified him as a centrist Democrat.[7] In 2011 he was described as “the last remaining white Democrat in the Deep South.”[8]

In November 2009, Barrow was one of 39 Democrats to vote against the Affordable Health Care for America Act.[9] In March 2010, he was one of 34 to vote against the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. The bill passed the House 219-212.[10] In January 2011, Barrow voted against repealing the law.[11]

Barrow has received a 25% rating by the Human Rights Campaign,[when?] which indicates a “mixed record” on gay rights; a 75% rating from the NAACP, which indicates a “mixed record” on civil rights; 83% from U.S. Border Control, indicating a “sealed-border stance”; 25% from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, indicating a “mixed record on church-state separation”; 0% from Citizens for Tax Justice, indicating opposition to progressive tax structure; 100% from the Campaign for America's Future, indicating support for energy independence; -10 from NORML, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance; 36% from the National Right to Life Committee, indicating a mixed record on abortion.[12]

Barrow's voting record on abortion is mixed. In 2007, Barrow received a 100% approval rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, a pro-choice group, and also received a 0% approval rating from the National Right to Life Committee, a pro-Life organization. However, in 2006, he received only a 35% approval rating from NARAL,[13] and in November 2009, he voted to amend the health care reform bill to prohibit private health insurance companies from offering insurance plans covering abortion to subsidized citizens except in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother.[14]

Barrow voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.[15] He was one of 44 Democrats in the House to vote against the American Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as the cap and trade bill.[16]

In 2011, Rep. Barrow became a co-sponsor of Bill H.R.3261 otherwise known as the Stop Online Piracy Act.[17]

In April 2011, the National Journal named Barrow one of the ten most endangered Democrats.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barrow_%28U.S._politician%29
---------

[GoCubsGo]

26. Maybe. Maybe not.

If he does, it will be to someone farther to the right than he is. I doubt we'll be seeing anyone resembling a progressive in that district in our lifetime.

[porphyrian]

18. Ironically, my actual intent was not to suggest that people vote against Congressional Democrats.

I was under the perhaps-mistaken impression that some other posts were suggesting it due to secret plans to cut Medicare. I explained myself in Meta- here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240152286

That said, I would like to see some more true leftists in our government. When all of our representatives are center to right, I am not really being represented. In this election, however, I would vote for any Congress critter with a (D) after their name just to regain the ability to get anything done.

[Glitterati]

19. I don't think anyone is suggesting that

Certainly not me. But, thankfully, I don't live in John Barrow's district, because that voting record would just encourage me to stay home.

[OrwellwasRight]

27. Don't you think it depends?

There are definitely Blue Dogs who choose to be, instead of HAVE to be, and those should be taken out in favor or more progressive Democrats. In a relatively fewer districts (much fewer than people think), more progressive Dems could not win, and the choice is a shitty Dem or a Republican. In that case, the shitty Dem is better, so long as the Dem Leadership makes clear they are outliers and will not be catered to in legislation (e.g, Lieberman nearly single handedly killing the public option). The problem is that Democrats are so timid that we too often cede ground to the Blue Dogs, assuming (wrongly) that we can do no better. And then we get the shitty, pro-business, anti-worker government we deserve.

[hrmjustin]

29. I am willing to vote for a moderate democrat as long as they do not kiss gop but.

[aikoaiko]

34. its a valid question, but problematic during election season.

Its particularly valid during primaries, but at this point the question invites open campaigning against Democrats and that is counter to the mission of this board.

I'd rather a blue dog with some republican tendencies than an average, regular republican.

[DevonRex]

37. In a general election I'll always vote D over R.

Every single time. And it's the general coming up, right? Maybe I'm not understanding.

We can work to get more liberal candidates in at the primary level. If it doesn't work we still have to vote D over R in the general.

[Teamster Jeff]

38. Out. Like a malignant tumor

Jim Matheson (D?) running in Utah was on Fox where he bragged that he voted against Obamacare 3 times (because tort reform is the way to go) and he wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for the millionaires and billionares. Also, he is quite proud to have the Chamber of Commerce and John Huntsman's endorsement.In the last session of congress 12 Republicans had more progressive voting records than him.

Blue Dogs are mostly corrupt and are a cancer to the Democratic Party. Fuck em

[awake]

39. We will need every house seat that we can get to take back the House

the only way to get back in control of the House is by electing as many Democrats as possible, be they blue dog, green cat or red bull. As said before now is the time to elect Democrats not republicans no mater what color or animal the republican happens to be. The time to vote out a blue dog is in the primary not the general election.

[davidn3600]

40. A dyed in the wool progressive cannot win in a moderate Republican district

Matheson is in a very RED Republican state. If he votes hard progressive on everything, he'd lose.

House representatives are up for re-election every 2 years. That's by design of the system because the House is supposed to reflect closely to the population. By being up for re-election so often, everything they do is criticized far more than a Senator who only faces re-election every 6 years and is elected by a much larger population.

Look, the reality is that the United States is not a far-left nation. It is not a far-right nation. This is a center nation. Our political landscape is divided right down the middle. The keepers of power right now are moderates that flip back and forth. And that won't change unless the landscape of the population changes. It's not about winning elections...its about the political beliefs of the population. Look at that electoral college map. We are a divided nation. We have people in this country that have sometimes extremely different views on government.

And yes there is a "party platform" but there is no requirement that a party member has to stick to everything in it. I've always considered the platforms passed during conventions to be an absolute farce. They have no binding ability. It's only a guide. There are some Democrats that are pro-life just like there are some Republicans that are pro-choice. Even though their respective party platform completely disagrees with their position.