Blue Dogs, I do not weep for Thee

[KonaKane]

Not to pour salt in the wounds of those among us who are uncomfortable with recent Blue Dog losses....aw screw it, let the salt penetrate because it has to.

This little tidbit from the DailkyKos really crystallized for us, what losing Blue Dog Dems mean for the greater Democratic vision...

How this works is pretty simple. If Democratic primary voters keep kicking Democrats who frequently side with Republicans and Wall Street out of office, then all Democrats in Congress will be motivated not to side with Republicans and Wall Street. So, if Blue Dogs and other corporate Democrats keep losing Democratic primaries, pretty soon we will have a more effective and progressive Democratic party.

There it is. And how is that a bad thing, again?

[jaxx]

Yep!

[yowzayowzayowza]

(04-29-2012 08:29 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  There it is. And how is that a bad thing, again?

...if a few victorious blue dogs in the place of losing moderate candidates would hand Pelosi the gavel, tiz a really, really bad thing.

[KonaKane]

(04-29-2012 08:53 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote:  ...if a few victorious blue dogs in the place of losing moderate candidates would hand Pelosi the gavel, tiz a really, really bad thing.

In the primaries??

[yowzayowzayowza]

(04-29-2012 09:23 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(04-29-2012 08:53 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote:  ...if a few victorious blue dogs in the place of losing moderate candidates would hand Pelosi the gavel, tiz a really, really bad thing.

In the primaries??

[sandnsea]

I bought an old steamer trunk at a yard sale yesterday. It had several old newspapers in it. Mostly local. One interesting one from Washington state, front page article about Joseph McCarthy sailing through the primary. I haven't read the whole article yet, just thought it was interesting that it was front page news in Washington state.

But to your point, there were also two separate articles on back pages about Democrats conspiring to give their states to Eisenhower. Texas and Louisiana. Turncoat Dems isn't a new thing apparently. Although in the election, the core southern block were still the only ones to stay true to the party, even though it meant voting for Adelai Stevenson. Which somehow reminds me that New Yorkers have voted in a Republican Mayor for, how many years now?

People are weird. That's all I know.

[Peacetrain]

Kona, here is where I part company with everyone who demands purity.. try walking a few steps in my shoes ..or any others who are in 70% republican registered districts. If we can get a blue dog through that.. we will take it.. I will take 80% over 0% any day of the week.

Redistricting might actually work in our favor this time.. but only if we can get those conservative democrats and liberal republicans who are stuck in the middle to work with us.

And those who post that it is okay to lose to the republicans because after a few elections that those same said 70% districts will miraculously turn deep blue are not dealing with reality.

It must be wonderful to go to a restaurant or coffee-shop, and talk progressive politics and feel safe. But not all of us are in such areas.

And the damage the deep red can do.. to overturn all the progress we have made since the Roosevelt New Deal is not worth the such a purity test.

[suzie]

(04-29-2012 08:29 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Not to pour salt in the wounds of those among us who are uncomfortable with recent Blue Dog losses....aw screw it, let the salt penetrate because it has to.

This little tidbit from the DailkyKos really crystallized for us, what losing Blue Dog Dems mean for the greater Democratic vision...

How this works is pretty simple. If Democratic primary voters keep kicking Democrats who frequently side with Republicans and Wall Street out of office, then all Democrats in Congress will be motivated not to side with Republicans and Wall Street. So, if Blue Dogs and other corporate Democrats keep losing Democratic primaries, pretty soon we will have a more effective and progressive Democratic party.

There it is. And how is that a bad thing, again?

I read that the losses in Pennsylvania were largely due to redisctricting.

So, I'm wondering how many statehouses Democratic purists are willing to give up to Republican control? 35, 40?

And how do you get a Democratic Congress or President when all the "progressives" care about is defeating other Democrats? Winning back state legislatures--where the control of districts and voting laws happens--not interesting.

Also, that one of the sitting Democratic candidates that defeated the other sitting Democrat is even further to the right than the losing Blue Dog on many issues and the same on the rest.

Yeah, that's a big victory.

[jaxx]

Am I missing something here? Democratic primaries are where the voters choose the Democrat they want to run in the general, right? If the voters choose a more progressive Democrat over a blue dog Democrat, then the voters have decided they want A over B, right? Where is this coming from that the winner of the primary is going to lose the seat?

Demographics change, issues change, and voters will have their say. If I am reading this right, I am seeing that you must not run against a blue dog in the primary because that person is safe and the progressive might lose.

I live in a blue county, and in 2010 the R's got more voters out and won the House seat from a known progressive Democrat in the GE. The arguments aren't adding up.

[Peacetrain]

(04-30-2012 07:45 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Am I missing something here? Democratic primaries are where the voters choose the Democrat they want to run in the general, right? If the voters choose a more progressive Democrat over a blue dog Democrat, then the voters have decided they want A over B, right? Where is this coming from that the winner of the primary is going to lose the seat?

Demographics change, issues change, and voters will have their say. If I am reading this right, I am seeing that you must not run against a blue dog in the primary because that person is safe and the progressive might lose.

I live in a blue county, and in 2010 the R's got more voters out and won the House seat from a known progressive Democrat in the GE. The arguments aren't adding up.

You make the point jaxx.. if the local community picks a blue dog, and let me tell you there are places you can get blue dogs elected and you cannot get a purely progressive ( I am a liberal not a progressive.. so I am never sure if I am using the term correctly, or if they are the same..call it a generational thingy).. if you can get a majority red district to put a blue dog in place, I am not going to turn my back on them because I do not agree with 100%..

We might actually get Christy Vilsack to take win over from Steve King. And I have been in more than one heated discussion on line that Vilsack is someone such and such would not vote for.. Nearly always someone in another state .. but I think we might be able to get Vilsack in there.. and I am working for her 100%

If the local Democrats (and I am talking Democratic Party here) put forward a non blue dog progressive.. they get my same 100% support. (and again, I do not always agree 100% with the every issue on the purely progressive side)

I get 80% I am a happy camper and then I work for the next 10%.. I will never ever get 100% agreement with where I stand on all issues.

[jaxx]

(04-30-2012 08:04 AM)Peacetrain Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 07:45 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Am I missing something here? Democratic primaries are where the voters choose the Democrat they want to run in the general, right? If the voters choose a more progressive Democrat over a blue dog Democrat, then the voters have decided they want A over B, right? Where is this coming from that the winner of the primary is going to lose the seat?

Demographics change, issues change, and voters will have their say. If I am reading this right, I am seeing that you must not run against a blue dog in the primary because that person is safe and the progressive might lose.

I live in a blue county, and in 2010 the R's got more voters out and won the House seat from a known progressive Democrat in the GE. The arguments aren't adding up.

You make the point jaxx.. if the local community picks a blue dog, and let me tell you there are places you can get blue dogs elected and you cannot get a purely progressive ( I am a liberal not a progressive.. so I am never sure if I am using the term correctly, or if they are the same..call it a generational thingy).. if you can get a majority red district to put a blue dog in place, I am not going to turn my back on them because I do not agree with 100%..

We might actually get Christy Vilsack to take win over from Steve King. And I have been in more than one heated discussion on line that Vilsack is someone such and such would not vote for.. Nearly always someone in another state .. but I think we might be able to get Vilsack in there.. and I am working for her 100%

If the local Democrats (and I am talking Democratic Party here) put forward a non blue dog progressive.. they get my same 100% support. (and again, I do not always agree 100% with the every issue on the purely progressive side)

I get 80% I am a happy camper and then I work for the next 10%.. I will never ever get 100% agreement with where I stand on all issues.

If the local D's pick the blue dog, then the voters have spoken. Either way, I support the D in the general. I'd vote for Vilsack in a heartbeat.

I'm not a per se progressive either, but a liberal Democrat. I use the word as the opposite of a blue dog in this conversation. Don't let it put you off, I think we are on the same page here.

I've never agreed with anyone 100% in my life, and surely not in a political vote. When it comes to the primary I am going to vote for the person who most represents what I think. I want a liberal, someone who will uphold the safety net, who will have the guts to uphold Roe v Wade, who will take the tough vote to move the country and the D party forward. I'm not a one issue voter. When it comes to the general I am for the D over the R.

[Peacetrain]

[/quote]

If the local D's pick the blue dog, then the voters have spoken. Either way, I support the D in the general. I'd vote for Vilsack in a heartbeat.

I'm not a per se progressive either, but a liberal Democrat. I use the word as the opposite of a blue dog in this conversation. Don't let it put you off, I think we are on the same page here.

I've never agreed with anyone 100% in my life, and surely not in a political vote. When it comes to the primary I am going to vote for the person who most represents what I think. I want a liberal, someone who will uphold the safety net, who will have the guts to uphold Roe v Wade, who will take the tough vote to move the country and the D party forward. I'm not a one issue voter. When it comes to the general I am for the D over the R.
[/quote]


Thats me too.. I am always D over R... that is the winning equation..if a republican truly reflected my values.. and the Democratic canidate did not.. I might consider running myself.. I just don't have it in me to ever vote republican because of the baggage that comes with them.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-30-2012 07:45 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Am I missing something here? Democratic primaries are where the voters choose the Democrat they want to run in the general, right? If the voters choose a more progressive Democrat over a blue dog Democrat, then the voters have decided they want A over B, right? Where is this coming from that the winner of the primary is going to lose the seat?

Demographics change, issues change, and voters will have their say. If I am reading this right, I am seeing that you must not run against a blue dog in the primary because that person is safe and the progressive might lose.

I live in a blue county, and in 2010 the R's got more voters out and won the House seat from a known progressive Democrat in the GE. The arguments aren't adding up.

Of course all the arguments are missing this obvious point because they're arguing about something else. They're arguing about whether there should be Blue Dog Democrats at all, and why Democrats in the South tend to be more conservative than those elsewhere, all other things being equal. I think you're right - it's the voters that decide. I think Democrats should always try to run the most liberal candidates possible and let the chips fall where they may.

[jaxx]

(04-30-2012 09:13 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 07:45 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Am I missing something here? Democratic primaries are where the voters choose the Democrat they want to run in the general, right? If the voters choose a more progressive Democrat over a blue dog Democrat, then the voters have decided they want A over B, right? Where is this coming from that the winner of the primary is going to lose the seat?

Demographics change, issues change, and voters will have their say. If I am reading this right, I am seeing that you must not run against a blue dog in the primary because that person is safe and the progressive might lose.

I live in a blue county, and in 2010 the R's got more voters out and won the House seat from a known progressive Democrat in the GE. The arguments aren't adding up.

Of course all the arguments are missing this obvious point because they're arguing about something else. They're arguing about whether there should be Blue Dog Democrats at all, and why Democrats in the South tend to be more conservative than those elsewhere, all other things being equal. I think you're right - it's the voters that decide. I think Democrats should always try to run the most liberal candidates possible and let the chips fall where they may.

[yowzayowzayowza]

(04-30-2012 09:13 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I think Democrats should always try to run the most liberal candidates possible and let the chips fall where they may.

I vote for the most liberal candidate that I think can win which means I may hold my nose and choose a blue dog who I agree with only 50% of the time over a true blue liberal who is much closer to my taste.

[Velleity]

(04-30-2012 10:14 AM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 09:13 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I think Democrats should always try to run the most liberal candidates possible and let the chips fall where they may.

I vote for the most liberal candidate that I think can win which means I may hold my nose and choose a blue dog who I agree with only 50% of the time over a true blue liberal who is much closer to my taste.

I understand this and I appreciate it. I would do the same. However, what exactly is a Blue Dog?

One of my problems here is how does one say they "fiscally conservative but socially liberal?" A friend of mine pulled this one on me over the weekend and I didn't challenge her. But what was she really saying?

She favors government action but, so sorry, we can't afford it? Isn't that rather weaselish? I mean I like this person but is she part of the solution here, or part of the problem?

[yowzayowzayowza]

(04-30-2012 10:28 AM)Velleity Wrote:  However, what exactly is a Blue Dog?

One of my problems here is how does one say they "fiscally conservative but socially liberal?" A friend of mine pulled this one on me over the weekend and I didn't challenge her. But what was she really saying?

She favors government action but, so sorry, we can't afford it? Isn't that rather weaselish? I mean I like this person but is she part of the solution here, or part of the problem?

Both. You don't always know what you'll get, but at a minimum a vote for a Dem majority leader is an upgrade over a repub.

[suzie]

(04-30-2012 10:14 AM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 09:13 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I think Democrats should always try to run the most liberal candidates possible and let the chips fall where they may.

I vote for the most liberal candidate that I think can win which means I may hold my nose and choose a blue dog who I agree with only 50% of the time over a true blue liberal who is much closer to my taste.

Same here, yowza.

[Velleity]

It's interesting that we're having this conflict. When I think of "conservatives" these days I can only muster the extreme, radical variety. I cannot imagine a conservative that isn't in favor of tax cuts for the rich, extreme "limited government" to the point where Social Security and all other social programs are eliminated, and the rest of the general "conservative" bullshit that they regularly bombard us with.

And they all resist being labeled as extreme. And they all label me as extreme even though I am, as best as can tell, quite moderate.

I don't see any room for moderate "conservatives" except to say that they don't approve of the harsher rhetoric. Do they go along with the "conservative" program? If so how do they come to claim to be moderate?

There are conservative ideas that I have some agreement with. Why? Because the facts seem to lead the conclusion that these ideas have merit. I.e. Milton Friedman's idea that time lags render fiscal policy less efficacious than monetary policy. The facts simply lead to that conclusion so why would I cling to something that isn't true?

When you confront "conservatives" with facts they will never acquiesce. They will lie because they believe their conclusions are a priori, their conclusion that liberals are weak and evil. If you're lying to defend an ultimate truth, are you lying?

And therein lies the problem with "moderate conservatives": do they tolerate their radicals because ultimately the radicals are pushing their "truths"? And if the "moderates" aren't toeing the radical line are they even "conservatives"?

And what we're really getting down to here is the role of the government. If you believe we're just better off with the Wild West/social Darwinism/lassaize faire/..., then how can one be a moderate? We can create a list of things a mile long where government did a great job. We can point to the fact that the Founders, whom "conservatives" claim to represent, created the Post Office. Are moderates moved by these facts?

Why would congressional Blue Dog Democrats vote with other Democrats? I'm just not getting this whole concept.

[KonaKane]

(04-30-2012 09:56 AM)Velleity Wrote:  And what we're really getting down to here is the role of the government. If you believe we're just better off with the Wild West/social Darwinism/lassaize faire/..., then how can one be a moderate? We can create a list of things a mile long where government did a great job. We can point to the fact that the Founders, whom "conservatives" claim to represent, created the Post Office. Are moderates moved by these facts?

Why would congressional Blue Dog Democrats vote with other Democrats? I'm just not getting this whole concept.

Precisely it. We are locked in a good old fashioned, hard core ideological fight now. It isn't barely perceptible shades of nuance in one party vs another. These freaks on the right want to turn your nation into a theocratic warlord fiefdom/free-for-all, big companies take all and screw the rest of you. That much is undeniable. It's demonstrable.

So how in the world do deal with that as an opposition, if you are only prepared to timidly run candidates in your region that very much resemble that which you oppose? I completely understand the "hold your nose vote" and running people you think can win, but at some point this stops working. It stops working in the face of a virulent extreme, which is happening in the GOP.

What is obviously starting to occur in the points south of the nation is a rebellion against the blue dog DINOism. Nothing speaks louder than votes, and in primaries you have these guys getting tossed out. That's plain and simply, it.

You have the chance now to encourage and embrace this turn of view we have (at least I hope we have) all long had for the red territories. Or, you could continue to get fed prunes and told it's an apple.

Your choice.

[Velleity]

And too, isn't this weaselishness something that's fueling the Republican/"conservative" cynical strategies? How many times have we seen "conservative" infiltrators trying to posture as "moderates"? We get the "both sides suck" argument.

And that's where my friend was: "Both sides suck and both are the same so why not vote for Romney?

[jaxx]

(04-30-2012 10:30 AM)Velleity Wrote:  And too, isn't this weaselishness something that's fueling the Republican/"conservative" cynical strategies? How many times have we seen "conservative" infiltrators trying to posture as "moderates"? We get the "both sides suck" argument.

And that's where my friend was: "Both sides suck and both are the same so why not vote for Romney?

Both sides is a cop out. It's an excuse for not taking a stand. IMO

[Velleity]

(04-30-2012 10:37 AM)jaxx Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 10:30 AM)Velleity Wrote:  And too, isn't this weaselishness something that's fueling the Republican/"conservative" cynical strategies? How many times have we seen "conservative" infiltrators trying to posture as "moderates"? We get the "both sides suck" argument.

And that's where my friend was: "Both sides suck and both are the same so why not vote for Romney?

Both sides is a cop out. It's an excuse for not taking a stand. IMO

I agree, but then where is there a "middle" here? And then how do you approach someone whom you know to be reasonable, but who insists on taking this both sides position? And too she was going off on the "mainstream media". I came back with the fact that they are controlled by huge interconnected corporations, to which she had no response. But she was doing the MSNBC is the counterpart to FoxPAC b.s.

<sigh>

[jaxx]

(04-30-2012 10:43 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 10:37 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Both sides is a cop out. It's an excuse for not taking a stand. IMO

I agree, but then where is there a "middle" here? And then how do you approach someone whom you know to be reasonable, but who insists on taking this both sides position? And too she was going off on the "mainstream media". I came back with the fact that they are controlled by huge interconnected corporations, to which she had no response. But she was doing the MSNBC is the counterpart to FoxPAC b.s.

<sigh>

I wonder if there is a middle anymore. The media coverage has erased that line in the sand, pushing the extremes. I honestly think the old days are over and we are in a whole new ballgame. The seeds have been planted.

[Velleity]

(04-30-2012 10:48 AM)jaxx Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 10:43 AM)Velleity Wrote:  I agree, but then where is there a "middle" here? And then how do you approach someone whom you know to be reasonable, but who insists on taking this both sides position? And too she was going off on the "mainstream media". I came back with the fact that they are controlled by huge interconnected corporations, to which she had no response. But she was doing the MSNBC is the counterpart to FoxPAC b.s.

<sigh>

I wonder if there is a middle anymore. The media coverage has erased that line in the sand, pushing the extremes. I honestly think the old days are over and we are in a whole new ballgame. The seeds have been planted.

There is no middle right now, perhaps. The next question though is where do we go next?

I don't blame the media, per se. This is an insidious thought virus inflicted upon us by "conservatives".

The media is caught in the same trap as allegedly moderate conservatives. Don't you think? If they follow the logic, what are they? Of course they're liberals like us. How is that supposed to work?

[jaxx]

(04-30-2012 10:59 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 10:48 AM)jaxx Wrote:  I wonder if there is a middle anymore. The media coverage has erased that line in the sand, pushing the extremes. I honestly think the old days are over and we are in a whole new ballgame. The seeds have been planted.

There is no middle right now, perhaps. The next question though is where do we go next?

I don't blame the media, per se. This is an insidious thought virus inflicted upon us by "conservatives".

The media is caught in the same trap as allegedly moderate conservatives. Don't you think? If they follow the logic, what are they? Of course they're liberals like us. How is that supposed to work?

I do put blame on the media. If they're worth their salt they will call a lie a lie instead of the mealy mouthed 'maybe' bit, or the 'both sides' crap. There are very few of those out there, but there are some who will stand up for the truth. What logic is there to propagating the myths?

Where do we go from here? I wish I knew.

[Velleity]

(04-30-2012 11:14 AM)jaxx Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 10:59 AM)Velleity Wrote:  There is no middle right now, perhaps. The next question though is where do we go next?

I don't blame the media, per se. This is an insidious thought virus inflicted upon us by "conservatives".

The media is caught in the same trap as allegedly moderate conservatives. Don't you think? If they follow the logic, what are they? Of course they're liberals like us. How is that supposed to work?

I do put blame on the media. If they're worth their salt they will call a lie a lie instead of the mealy mouthed 'maybe' bit, or the 'both sides' crap. There are very few of those out there, but there are some who will stand up for the truth. What logic is there to propagating the myths?

Where do we go from here? I wish I knew.

Okay, please allow me to clarify. Blame the media for not doing its job? Okay, I agree but the media is a reflection of us because they can't exist without us. Too many of us buy into the Solomonesque split the baby routine. It's the path of least resistance, after all.

Like I said, the fiscal conservative/social liberal doesn't have to commit to anything because "we can't afford to do it."

We have to deal with this reality.

[jaxx]

(04-30-2012 11:19 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 11:14 AM)jaxx Wrote:  I do put blame on the media. If they're worth their salt they will call a lie a lie instead of the mealy mouthed 'maybe' bit, or the 'both sides' crap. There are very few of those out there, but there are some who will stand up for the truth. What logic is there to propagating the myths?

Where do we go from here? I wish I knew.

Okay, please allow me to clarify. Blame the media for not doing its job? Okay, I agree but the media is a reflection of us because they can't exist without us. Too many of us buy into the Solomonesque split the baby routine. It's the path of least resistance, after all.

Like I said, the fiscal conservative/social liberal doesn't have to commit to anything because "we can't afford to do it."

We have to deal with this reality.

Sometimes reality bites.

[Velleity]

(04-30-2012 11:25 AM)jaxx Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 11:19 AM)Velleity Wrote:  Okay, please allow me to clarify. Blame the media for not doing its job? Okay, I agree but the media is a reflection of us because they can't exist without us. Too many of us buy into the Solomonesque split the baby routine. It's the path of least resistance, after all.

Like I said, the fiscal conservative/social liberal doesn't have to commit to anything because "we can't afford to do it."

We have to deal with this reality.

Sometimes reality bites.

The reality really needs to be a big Democratic victory in November, and then some real success in our policies. President Clinton could do no wrong largely because the economy was booming. To what extent was Clinton to blame for the booming economy? A fair amount to be sure but perhaps even more the economy was good because of timing. The business cycle favored him.

So if we can win and then catch a little luck, "conservatives" just might be forced to hit bottom. If we lose, they're enabled and WE, THE PEOPLE are screwed.

It would be nice if WE, THE PEOPLE had a little more insight and aforethought.

[jaxx]

(04-30-2012 10:30 AM)Velleity Wrote:  And too, isn't this weaselishness something that's fueling the Republican/"conservative" cynical strategies? How many times have we seen "conservative" infiltrators trying to posture as "moderates"? We get the "both sides suck" argument.

And that's where my friend was: "Both sides suck and both are the same so why not vote for Romney?

Just now saw this:

Quote:A pox on one of your houses
By Steve Benen
-
Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:57 AM EDT

Rules are rules. When it comes to the political establishment discussing what ails the American system, the rules dictate that "both sides" are always to blame for everything in all instances. Even if reality clearly shows one party more responsible than the other, no one's allowed to say so -- to assign responsibility to those who deserve it is to be biased and irresponsible.

With these rules in mind, it was a delightful surprise to see Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein publish a Washington Post op-ed over the weekend, headlined, "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...ouses?lite

[Velleity]

(04-30-2012 10:43 AM)jaxx Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 10:30 AM)Velleity Wrote:  And too, isn't this weaselishness something that's fueling the Republican/"conservative" cynical strategies? How many times have we seen "conservative" infiltrators trying to posture as "moderates"? We get the "both sides suck" argument.

And that's where my friend was: "Both sides suck and both are the same so why not vote for Romney?

Just now saw this:

Quote:A pox on one of your houses
By Steve Benen
-
Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:57 AM EDT

Rules are rules. When it comes to the political establishment discussing what ails the American system, the rules dictate that "both sides" are always to blame for everything in all instances. Even if reality clearly shows one party more responsible than the other, no one's allowed to say so -- to assign responsibility to those who deserve it is to be biased and irresponsible.

With these rules in mind, it was a delightful surprise to see Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein publish a Washington Post op-ed over the weekend, headlined, "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...ouses?lite

Yes, and I directed my friend to this. Thanks.

[Peacetrain]

For those of us who are living in very red districts, I am not willing to roll over and play dead

I have personally busted my backside off trying to get as much of the party platform out there in one canidate that can win as is possible.

Maybe we garner only 80% of the ideal..sometimes 70%..

And sometimes the dismissive responses I get from my own party members can make me feel like I am a second class citizen.

And it makes my eyes cross when I read that it would be better to let the republicans keep an area so people will come and vote for the purer progressive canidate, as in the Kos posting.

When I know for a fact that is not going to happen.. and if we can get a Christy Vilsack elected.. maybe we can save some of the freedoms we have. But Christy is nothing but blue dog light in some eyes.. and they would prefer we keep Steve King to teach the 30% of democrats in our area how to primary and who is acceptable to primary in this area?

This is a real dilemma for those of us in red red areas. Its not so simple as the Kos writer supposes.. And I would take a blue dog any day of the week over Steve King..

[Velleity]

(04-30-2012 11:55 AM)Peacetrain Wrote:  For those of us who are living in very red districts, I am not willing to roll over and play dead

I applaud your noble efforts Peacetrain.

Of course I don't speak for anyone but myself, but FWIW I don't think the attacks are against you or your efforts. We want our policies and we don't want "conservative" policies.

[suzie]

(04-30-2012 11:55 AM)Peacetrain Wrote:  For those of us who are living in very red districts, I am not willing to roll over and play dead

I have personally busted my backside off trying to get as much of the party platform out there in one canidate that can win as is possible.

Maybe we garner only 80% of the ideal..sometimes 70%..

And sometimes the dismissive responses I get from my own party members can make me feel like I am a second class citizen.

And it makes my eyes cross when I read that it would be better to let the republicans keep an area so people will come and vote for the purer progressive canidate, as in the Kos posting.

When I know for a fact that is not going to happen.. and if we can get a Christy Vilsack elected.. maybe we can save some of the freedoms we have. But Christy is nothing but blue dog light in some eyes.. and they would prefer we keep Steve King to teach the 30% of democrats in our area how to primary and who is acceptable to primary in this area?

This is a real dilemma for those of us in red red areas. Its not so simple as the Kos writer supposes.. And I would take a blue dog any day of the week over Steve King..

As one who lives in the reddest of districts, and who has done considerable work to try and get Democrats elected, I empathize with you, Peacetrain, and commend your efforts.

I know that many considered Alex Sink also a blue dog, but I'd certainly feel a lot better going into the 2012 national election with her in the Governor's Office not trying to suppress the Democratic vote.

[KonaKane]

Well I for one am eternally grateful for your efforts in regards to Democrats, don't misunderstand me on that note. The point here is that this is the beginning of a ground shift. It won't change in one or maybe several elections. But, it's very good news in the long run because it means things are softening to a more progressive liberalism in your region. We have to come up with ways to nurture this movement without getting reckless and pitching what Democratic sway we do have, over the ledge. I's going to be tricky, but worth it.

[KonaKane]

Just a question at this point in the brawl....

Voting for the Blue Dog is a "let's take what we can get" act. At what point do we decide to push further, for something more like what we want? When does the period of table-scrapping stop? Is it ever an optimal time, or is it best preserved for all eternity as an on-the-ropes move?

[SeattleGirl]

(04-30-2012 10:12 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Just a question at this point in the brawl....

Voting for the Blue Dog is a "let's take what we can get" act. At what point do we decide to push further, for something more like what we want? When does the period of table-scrapping stop? Is it ever an optimal time, or is it best preserved for all eternity as an on-the-ropes move?

Kona, maybe it's a bit of both. If the current choices a voter has in any given election are between a Blue Dog and a Republican, I can definitely see (as a Democrat) voting for the Blue Dog. I agree it's table scraps, but I would still vote for the Blue Dog. However, I think that the work cannot stop at the voting booth. There will be elections in the future, and I think the job of the voters, the activist ones anyway, is to then start recruiting more true Democrats, and/or progressive Democrats, liberal Democrats, etc., to run in those future elections.

Eating table scraps isn't going to turn around over night (and I'm not trying to imply you don't know that, just stating my case), but it can turn around over time if people are willing to do the work to get that turn-around done.

As I am very fond of saying, you cannot start from where you want to be; you have to start from where you are and then go forward.

Just my 2 cents.

[KonaKane]

(04-30-2012 10:40 PM)SeattleGirl Wrote:  As I am very fond of saying, you cannot start from where you want to be; you have to start from where you are and then go forward......

Totally agree. But when you are presented with an opportunity to move forward, and reject it because the comfortable chair of "what we can get" still beckons, what do you call that?

[SeattleGirl]

(04-30-2012 10:46 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(04-30-2012 10:40 PM)SeattleGirl Wrote:  As I am very fond of saying, you cannot start from where you want to be; you have to start from where you are and then go forward......

Totally agree. But when you are presented with an opportunity to move forward, and reject it because the comfortable chair of "what we can get" still beckons, what do you call that?

Good point, and I would call it sitting back and hoping someone else does it. And then complaining when nothing gets done.

I absolutely get what you're saying, but I also know that there are people out there who work at getting better candidates to run.

[Velleity]

(04-30-2012 10:40 PM)SeattleGirl Wrote:  As I am very fond of saying, you cannot start from where you want to be; you have to start from where you are and then go forward.

As opposed to Dick Cheney, who famously claimed that he made his reality.

[Velleity]

(04-30-2012 10:12 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Just a question at this point in the brawl....

Voting for the Blue Dog is a "let's take what we can get" act. At what point do we decide to push further, for something more like what we want? When does the period of table-scrapping stop? Is it ever an optimal time, or is it best preserved for all eternity as an on-the-ropes move?

I think it's an art, not a science. You need to take it on a case by case basis.

[suzie]

I know some Democrats of whom Kona would approve, instead of the "comfortable chair" types like myself.

They all rail about Blue Dogs and the lack of progressives in our red district--and they all voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

It would have taken 9 more votes in my county to elect Al Gore.


Maybe we "comfortable chair" types who are willing to settle for Blue Dogs should just follow their example and sit this one out.

[Willinois]

(04-30-2012 11:47 PM)suzie Wrote:  Maybe we "comfortable chair" types who are willing to settle for Blue Dogs should just follow their example and sit this one out.

Actually, I've noticed this from conservative party leaders in my area. They expect liberals to support the party when they pick a conservative Democrat. But when a liberal is the nominee they sit on their hands or do the bare minimum to help. I've decided to return the favor and become much more selective about which Democrats I actively support beyond voting.

[KonaKane]

(04-30-2012 11:47 PM)suzie Wrote:  Maybe we "comfortable chair" types who are willing to settle for Blue Dogs should just follow their example and sit this one out.

Just so I understand this correctly....are you saying you would actually go so far as to sit out an election rather than support a progressive Democrat who won a primary, over a Blue Dog?

Really?

[jaxx]

Again, I think the primary and the general are being equated. That won't work. I doubt there is a person here who would vote for a republican in the general over a blue dog. We get our candidate from the primary...and then we vote for whoever won.

[suzie]

No, I would not do what so-called progressives in my county and so-called progressives at the Statewide level have done in the 2000 and 2010 elections.

I do not prefer to see Republicans in office and certainly am aware of the consequences of having one of the farthest right Tea Partiers in the Congress represent me, in having Rick Scott as my governor, and George Bush as president for eight years.

My biggest problem with many so-called progressives that are gleeful over the demise of the Blue Dogs, both the ones I know in person and those that I've known online for years in other venues, is that they all complain equally about Obama as they do about the Blue Dogs. They've talked about not voting for him this year.

Somehow, I find it distasteful that I--one of 10 Democrats who showed up in my county in January 2000 to try and rebuild our local party and who has worked in campaigns and all during the rest of the year to turn out Democrats for elections--should be the object of your derision and not those so-called progressives who withheld their votes from Democrats.

[KonaKane]

I'm intrigued by your sneering referral to progressives as "so-called". Is that leveled at all of us, or just a few based on their own actions?

Follow up question: Is it simply verboten in your view to ever challenge the status of the Blue Dogs, and possibly *GASP* move the Democratic Party in your region to the left - even when it has the grass roots motivation to do so?

[suzie]

Was your "comfortable chair" Democrats, leveled at all of us who live in red districts, or just some of us?

I do quite understand that "you're a liar" was aimed directly at me.

So, what can I say about the grassroots in my area that you wouldn't consider simply my own prevarication?

[KonaKane]

(05-03-2012 02:40 PM)suzie Wrote:  Was your "comfortable chair" Democrats, leveled at all of us who live in red districts, or just some of us?

I do quite understand that "you're a liar" was aimed directly at me.

Please quote, with a direct citation, where I called you a liar.

You are not making a strong case by tossing around false accusations, and being so overly defensive of blue dogs.

[There Is No Spoon]

CTRL-F "liar"

It shows up in posts 48 & 49

[KonaKane]

Man, do I know how to push the buttons or WHAT.

[suzie]

Have you ever run for office, Kona?

[KonaKane]

(05-04-2012 03:55 AM)suzie Wrote:  Have you ever run for office, Kona?

No, but I've worked on other peoples' campaigns before. Does that count?

[suzie]

No, it doesn't.

[jaxx]

(05-04-2012 11:18 AM)suzie Wrote:  No, it doesn't.

[There Is No Spoon]

(05-04-2012 11:35 AM)jaxx Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 11:18 AM)suzie Wrote:  No, it doesn't.

My reaction was much stronger. I deleted it even before hitting "post."

[KonaKane]

(05-04-2012 11:18 AM)suzie Wrote:  No, it doesn't.

Gee, I feel so devalued now. I think I may go listen to some Rachmaninoff.

[suzie]

The reason that I said it doesn't count, is that Kona wants other people to run for office and lose.

That's fine with him, in fact, it's what he sees as necessary, as long as it's not his time, money, reputation, family on the line.

No one I know who has run for office and won or run for office and had the devastating experience of losing would be so cavalier about advocating running candidates that have no chance of getting elected, but Kona would have them do it oh, for "maybe several elections."

Given that incumbency is tough to beat, Democrats in red districts will, according to Kona, need to find a series of candidates willing to run a shoestring campaign, with enough charisma to unseat a seated incumbent in a very safe seat, who's wiling to go into the campaign knowing that they're being offered up to lose, just to "push the agenda leftward."

Losing like that, doesn't move any district anywhere. But it is devastating to the people who run, because everyone who sucks up their courage and puts their name on the ballot really does end up wanting to win.

Which is why I said working on a campaign doesn't count, if what you're doing is advocating that someone else have the wondrous experience of spending a chunk of their life and their after-tax dollars working at an election campaign--that you expect going in that they'll lose.

But you've not put up your life or your money to do so.

[KonaKane]

Suzie when you work on a campaign, of course you want the other person to lose. That's called politics.

I notice your hand wringing for the terrible trauma a candidate suffers when losing only goes so far as "your guys". Anybody else, it's fair game. Precious.

You seem to be irate that there is a grass roots movement stirring in the red regions, pushing more progressives into power than the worn out incumbent GOP facilllitators we call blue dogs. What can I tell you? This isn't me doing it. It's the will of the people there if it is starting to happen at the primary level. We should be celebrating it.

Or have you not taken the time to read the banner at the top of this site yet? It's in italics.

[suzie]

Please point to where I ever expressed a concern about "my guys" losing.

I'm looking at your scenario of "losing a few elections" and assuming that it's the kind of candidate that you prefer who would be losing those elections.

Winning a primary and losing the General is still...losing.

And I'll say this one last time, REDISTRICTING is not "grassroots" anything. It's Republicans doing their thing.

[KonaKane]

Redistricting being responsible for the change in primary flavors is just your assumption. You have made a ton of them here. Some more fanciful than others.

Maybe you should find a way to make yourself comfortable with the very real possibility that the winds are changing in the red states....to our favor. Again, would that be so horrible?

[suzie]

Of course, Kona, when it's your fantasy of some magic that will turn red districts ultra blue, that's not an assumption.

But when I talk about redistricting, which every article about the election in Pennsylvania has mentioned, THOSE are assumptions.

Somehow I find that "less than honest" on your part.

Maybe I am willing to accept that the folks writing the articles are on the right track, because I actually had the chance to vote for a blue dog. Originally, I didn't live in the Blue Dog district, my congressperson was an ultra Republican--and I didn't move. But, my VERY red area was added to the district to give it more Republican voters. In fact, my country was split in half, because there are still some voters who would vote for a Democrat in one part of the county--they were kept out of the newly gerrymandered district.

Then, when that wasn't quite enough Republican voters, the statehouse folks jumped across a body of water into another county and added the reddest precincts in all of Florida to the next version of the gerrymandered district. Which still wasn't enough, so they added some more and took out his hometown.

And the Blue Dog lost.

You can call that "winds of change." I call it redistricting.

And I imagine that if they end up with a Tea Partier as their congresspeople in November, so will some people in Pennsylvania.

[KonaKane]

Hey, it's no skin off my nose. You seem every bit as doggedly devoted to the GOP enabling blue dog cause as the teabaggers are to theirs. I hope that works out for you.

Me? I'll be doing what I can to push red districts to TRUE blue. No magic required, just some hard work and some focus.

[suzie]

Yeah, Kona, you've managed to make me real ashamed at having voted for a Blue Dog who had a 95% with Party voting record.

[KonaKane]

Every rotten barrel has a few good apples.