Nothing says "I Love You" like a Convention Snub

[KonaKane]

When cheering, fired up Democrats meet up in Charlotte, N. Carolina to formally nominate their President for another four years in the White House, we likely won't want to spend time wondering about a few empty seats. But, they will stand out. Not because some delegates couldn't make it, but because a few notable representatives, plus a Governor, can't make it. Scratch that - they don't want to be there.

They include Sen. Claire McCaskill, staying away ostensibly to work on a very hotly contested campaign tainted by ethics issues. Well, that's the official line anyway. Off the record, the more politically savvy know she will be doing a sick-out, suffering from Obama Disassociation Fever. Translated: she doesn't want to be seen near the guy, let alone delivering an endorsement.

Speaking of endorsements, let's look at another will-be no show, Governor Earl Ray Tomblin. He's not only skipping the convention, he has announced that he has no intent of endorsing Obama for a second term. Can't you just feel the love here? Oh, and it's spreading. Two more of his state Democratic cohorts, Sen. Joe Manchin (another "non-commtted" to this president) and Rep. Nick Rahall will be absent from the most important pre election Democratic event of 2012.

So what do all these party pooppers have in common? Oh yeah - they are Blue Dogs. Yes, I went there.

A few other conservative Democrats, like quasi-GOP Rep. Jim Matheson (UT) are finding nice excuses not to attend, as well.

Apparently the Blue Dogs are not content with being a wheel-boot on the Obama Express, they want to make it very clear by the lack of their presence that they would prefer to see Outsourcer In Chief Mitt Romney in the Oval Office in January 2013. When you look at the record of some of these "allies"; from their hostility to environmental legislation to opposition to LGBT issues and abortion rights, it suddenly doesn't look so surprising.

But don't you worry. There continues to be a stubborn, albeit shrinking, well financed core of conservative Democrats who will continue to fund, support and vote for the Blue wing of the Republican Party. Even though they took a beating in 2010, the Blue Doggies will survive and run even more conservatively next time. Go Donkeys!

You know, thank God it wasn't Michael Moore or Matt Damon who acted like this. The scythes would be out and the nooses would have been tied before I hit "Post Thread".

[sistermoon50]

These people should get a dime in campaign funds from the DNC. If they want to pretend they're Republicans, let them go over to the GOP.

[KonaKane]

(06-26-2012 08:51 PM)sistermoon50 Wrote:  These people should get a dime in campaign funds from the DNC. If they want to pretend they're Republicans, let them go over to the GOP.

One can wish. But there are plenty of willing victims and status quo-ites who will resist change to the Blue Dogs with their dying breath and last grip.

[jaxx]

McCaskill....that one is really a dirty thing to do. I expect it from the likes of Manchin and the gov of WV....they probably voted for the incarcerated convict.

Moore is keeping his mouth shut, he did enough damage in 2010.

[There Is No Spoon]

NRA will be scoring the Eric Holder contempt vote. Result? A Republican strategist said on the Ed Show that up to 30 so-called "Democrats" might vote with the Republicans.

Let's make one thing clear, if you vote for a witch hunt like the one Issa is conducting based on pressure from the NRA, you are NOT a Democrat.

[jaxx]

(06-26-2012 09:54 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  NRA will be scoring the Eric Holder contempt vote. Result? A Republican strategist said on the Ed Show that up to 30 so-called "Democrats" might vote with the Republicans.

Let's make one thing clear, if you vote for a witch hunt like the one Issa is conducting based on pressure from the NRA, you are NOT a Democrat.

Damned straight. Any Dem who votes for this needs to be branded forever as a traitor.

[KonaKane]

(06-26-2012 09:54 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  NRA will be scoring the Eric Holder contempt vote. Result? A Republican strategist said on the Ed Show that up to 30 so-called "Democrats" might vote with the Republicans. .....d:

And let me guess who those "30-so-calleds" are.

I will definitely be watching this one.

[Willinois]

I think Obama has a better chance of winning MO than Claire McCaskill does.

She's one of those who blocks energy legislation too. It doesn't look like that's making her any more electable. Her position is inexcusably shameful after all the MO towns destroyed by Mississippi River flooding. That's a result of climate change and she made herself part of the problem. Sacrificing human life and entire towns because she lacks political courage makes her unfit for elected office.

One of these days a Democrat running for something will have the sense to talk about the issue in those terms. It's only a matter of time as things get worse.

[Treestar]

What's really interesting is how on the State level, some states, whose electoral college votes go to Democrats, are yet so very conservative on the state level. How does that work out? Look at WI, MO, and it is strange Obama can even get them in the EC.

[KonaKane]

(06-27-2012 05:17 AM)Treestar Wrote:  What's really interesting is how on the State level, some states, whose electoral college votes go to Democrats, are yet so very conservative on the state level. How does that work out? Look at WI, MO, and it is strange Obama can even get them in the EC.

That's a really good question, and I don't have a ready answer. Perhaps those states are stubborn enough to go D in a presidential election, but when it comes to legislation and what goes on with a D president's agenda, it's totally another game.

That seems to be at cross purposes with itself, but stranger things go on in the world.

[pappy]

Democrats aren't the only ones snubbing their convention.

On the Publican side Heather Wilson, Linda Lingle, and Denny Rehberg will all skip the Publican Convention.

This according to National Journal.

[KonaKane]

(06-27-2012 03:08 PM)pappy Wrote:  Democrats aren't the only ones snubbing their convention.

On the Publican side Heather Wilson, Linda Lingle, and Denny Rehberg will all skip the Publican Convention.

This according to National Journal.

True, and let me know when the GOP develops a self defeating entourage in Congress equivalent to the Blue Dogs. To date, I'm not aware of any such group among them.

[pappy]

(06-27-2012 03:39 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 03:08 PM)pappy Wrote:  Democrats aren't the only ones snubbing their convention.

On the Publican side Heather Wilson, Linda Lingle, and Denny Rehberg will all skip the Publican Convention.

This according to National Journal.

True, and let me know when the GOP develops a self defeating entourage in Congress equivalent to the Blue Dogs. To date, I'm not aware of any such group among them.

I wasn't really trying to make a point about our "Blue Dogs" with my post. I deplore the weak kneed actions and outright anti-Democratic actions of the so called "blue dogs".

I was simply making a statement of fact about Publicans. In this case I believe they are avoiding association with Romney knowing it will hurt their own chances for election. In other words, their actions a cynical and self serving having nothing to do with ideology or a sincere disagreement with the Party or its "chosen one".

Please don't confuse me with a "blue dog" apologist.

[KonaKane]

(06-27-2012 03:48 PM)pappy Wrote:  I wasn't really trying to make a point about our "Blue Dogs" with my post. I deplore the weak kneed actions and outright anti-Democratic actions of the so called "blue dogs".

I was simply making a statement of fact about Publicans. In this case I believe they are avoiding association with Romney knowing it will hurt their own chances for election. In other words, their actions a cynical and self serving having nothing to do with ideology or a sincere disagreement with the Party or its "chosen one".

Please don't confuse me with a "blue dog" apologist.

Thank you for the clarification.

[There Is No Spoon]

(06-27-2012 03:39 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 03:08 PM)pappy Wrote:  Democrats aren't the only ones snubbing their convention.

On the Publican side Heather Wilson, Linda Lingle, and Denny Rehberg will all skip the Publican Convention.

This according to National Journal.

True, and let me know when the GOP develops a self defeating entourage in Congress equivalent to the Blue Dogs. To date, I'm not aware of any such group among them.

I think there is a partial equivalent in the Tea Party - R's have lost some critical seats due to their idiocy. Granted, this may work for or against your arguments depending on how you look at it. but the R's were on quite the winning streak when the TeaParty came along - they haven't been exactly helpful to the long term goals of the Republican party.

[KonaKane]

(06-27-2012 04:08 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I think there is a partial equivalent in the Tea Party - R's have lost some critical seats due to their idiocy. Granted, this may work for or against your arguments depending on how you look at it. but the R's were on quite the winning streak when the TeaParty came along - they haven't been exactly helpful to the long term goals of the Republican party.

I would not agree with that, and here is why. The Blue Dogs are a drag on the Democratic dynamic, being a force that more allies with the opposition to it (the conservatives). The TP is a small gaggle of fanatics who APPEAL to the extreme of the Republican dynamic.

Another way to look at it is - the Blue Dogs try to bring Democrats closer to Republicans. The Tea Party tries to bring Republicans closer to their own extreme.

[pappy]

(06-27-2012 04:15 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 04:08 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I think there is a partial equivalent in the Tea Party - R's have lost some critical seats due to their idiocy. Granted, this may work for or against your arguments depending on how you look at it. but the R's were on quite the winning streak when the TeaParty came along - they haven't been exactly helpful to the long term goals of the Republican party.

I would not agree with that, and here is why. The Blue Dogs are a drag on the Democratic dynamic, being a force that more allies with the opposition to it (the conservatives). The TP is a small gaggle of fanatics who APPEAL to the extreme of the Republican dynamic.

Another way to look at it is - the Blue Dogs try to bring Democrats closer to Republicans. The Tea Party tries to bring Republicans closer to their own extreme.

I agree that both groups try to drag the political discussion farther to the right. The Blue Dogs dragging the Dems. closer to the Publicans and the TPers. dragging the Publicans closer to a right wing cliff.

In both cases, I believe, they are ultimately detrimental to their own parties. Blue Dogs because they further the perception that there is no difference between the parties (for example, I could mention more).

In the case of the "Tea Party" extremists they may ultimately prove to be the destruction of the GOP. For one thing, they destroy the image of the GOP as "centrist" (a false image, to be sure but a popular perception none-the-less). Secondly, they are forcing many so called "moderates" in their party so far to the fringe that the entire organization is in danger of either fracture or lemming like suicide as it careens over the edge.

[jaxx]

Here is the letter from the 31 to PBO about F&F.....signatures included.

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/Project...ne2011.pdf

edit to add....posted on the NRA site!!!

[There Is No Spoon]

(06-27-2012 04:08 PM)jaxx Wrote:  Here is the letter from the 31 to PBO about F&F.....signatures included.

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/Project...ne2011.pdf

Now that F&F has been exposed as a pack of lies, I wonder what these traitors will do now?

[jaxx]

(06-27-2012 04:09 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 04:08 PM)jaxx Wrote:  Here is the letter from the 31 to PBO about F&F.....signatures included.

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/Project...ne2011.pdf

Now that F&F has been exposed as a pack of lies, I wonder what these traitors will do now?

The NRA either has them scared, or they'll stand up for Holder. We shall see, Boehner said he was going ahead with the contempt vote tomorrow. If they vote against Holder they will rue the day. People will remember.

[azmouse]

(06-27-2012 04:14 PM)jaxx Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 04:09 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Now that F&F has been exposed as a pack of lies, I wonder what these traitors will do now?

The NRA either has them scared, or they'll stand up for Holder. We shall see, Boehner said he was going ahead with the contempt vote tomorrow. If they vote against Holder they will rue the day. People will remember.

Contempt vote tomorrow, eh? The SC ruling on the ACA is also tomorrow. Seems like Boner is hoping no one will pay much attention to their witch hunt because they will be too busy discussing the health care ruling.

[There Is No Spoon]

(06-27-2012 04:20 PM)azmouse Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 04:14 PM)jaxx Wrote:  The NRA either has them scared, or they'll stand up for Holder. We shall see, Boehner said he was going ahead with the contempt vote tomorrow. If they vote against Holder they will rue the day. People will remember.

Contempt vote tomorrow, eh? The SC ruling on the ACA is also tomorrow. Seems like Boner is hoping no one will pay much attention to their witch hunt because they will be too busy discussing the health care ruling.

You don't have a contempt vote for the Attorney General for the first time in our nation's history, based entirely on a story fabricated by a rogue ATF agent and the NRA and expect people will not notice. Heads will roll if this vote takes place (I'm assuming they will vote against him.)

[suzie]

(06-26-2012 08:46 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  When cheering, fired up Democrats meet up in Charlotte, N. Carolina to formally nominate their President for another four years in the White House, we likely won't want to spend time wondering about a few empty seats. But, they will stand out. Not because some delegates couldn't make it, but because a few notable representatives, plus a Governor, can't make it. Scratch that - they don't want to be there.

They include Sen. Claire McCaskill, staying away ostensibly to work on a very hotly contested campaign tainted by ethics issues. Well, that's the official line anyway. Off the record, the more politically savvy know she will be doing a sick-out, suffering from Obama Disassociation Fever. Translated: she doesn't want to be seen near the guy, let alone delivering an endorsement.

Speaking of endorsements, let's look at another will-be no show, Governor Earl Ray Tomblin. He's not only skipping the convention, he has announced that he has no intent of endorsing Obama for a second term. Can't you just feel the love here? Oh, and it's spreading. Two more of his state Democratic cohorts, Sen. Joe Manchin (another "non-commtted" to this president) and Rep. Nick Rahall will be absent from the most important pre election Democratic event of 2012.

So what do all these party pooppers have in common? Oh yeah - they are Blue Dogs. Yes, I went there.

A few other conservative Democrats, like quasi-GOP Rep. Jim Matheson (UT) are finding nice excuses not to attend, as well.

Apparently the Blue Dogs are not content with being a wheel-boot on the Obama Express, they want to make it very clear by the lack of their presence that they would prefer to see Outsourcer In Chief Mitt Romney in the Oval Office in January 2013. When you look at the record of some of these "allies"; from their hostility to environmental legislation to opposition to LGBT issues and abortion rights, it suddenly doesn't look so surprising.

But don't you worry. There continues to be a stubborn, albeit shrinking, well financed core of conservative Democrats who will continue to fund, support and vote for the Blue wing of the Republican Party. Even though they took a beating in 2010, the Blue Doggies will survive and run even more conservatively next time. Go Donkeys!

You know, thank God it wasn't Michael Moore or Matt Damon who acted like this. The scythes would be out and the nooses would have been tied before I hit "Post Thread".

McCaskill didn't go to the Convention in 2004, when she was running for governor.

She did go in 2008, when she endorsed Obama a few days after Hillary Clinton's big win in New Hampshire. Seems like I remember a need for Democratic Women to rally around Obama in 2008 after the divisive primary.

Her Labor and LGBT bases won't be terribly upset that she spends time campaigning in her state rather than going to a right-to-work state that just passed a horrendous anti-gay measure to party for a few days.

McCaskill voted to confirm both Kagan and Sotomayor.

Since recent events have sorta shown the importance of Supreme Court nominees, I'm hoping she gets re-elected. But I know that others have a laundry list of far more "vital" issues than the Supreme Court to be concerned about.

[Willinois]

(06-28-2012 07:15 AM)suzie Wrote:  Since recent events have sorta shown the importance of Supreme Court nominees, I'm hoping she gets re-elected. But I know that others have a laundry list of far more "vital" issues than the Supreme Court to be concerned about.

Supreme Court appointments may be the last holdout of bipartisanship with at least a few Republican Senators. Sotomayor and Kagan both got Republican votes. Republicans would need a large majority to block a nominee and they won't win that big.

This got me thinking about what could happen with that in Obama's next term. In the last few elections I heard about how many appointments the winner could end up making. But, it never changes the balance of the court because justices wait to retire until someone of their preferred party is in office.

If you go by age, Clinton appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg would retire next. So, that won't change the balance of the court. But, Scalia and Kennedy would both turn 80 before the end of a second Obama term. I imagine both will try to wait it out, but if one of them has to retire while Obama is in office it really would be a monumental shift in the balance of the court. Wouldn't it be something to have four justices appointed by the same President?
This turned out to be a good time to elect a Constitutional scholar.

[There Is No Spoon]

(06-28-2012 11:50 PM)Willinois Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 07:15 AM)suzie Wrote:  Since recent events have sorta shown the importance of Supreme Court nominees, I'm hoping she gets re-elected. But I know that others have a laundry list of far more "vital" issues than the Supreme Court to be concerned about.

Supreme Court appointments may be the last holdout of bipartisanship with at least a few Republican Senators. Sotomayor and Kagan both got Republican votes. Republicans would need a large majority to block a nominee and they won't win that big.

This got me thinking about what could happen with that in Obama's next term. In the last few elections I heard about how many appointments the winner could end up making. But, it never changes the balance of the court because justices wait to retire until someone of their preferred party is in office.

If you go by age, Clinton appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg would retire next. So, that won't change the balance of the court. But, Scalia and Kennedy would both turn 80 before the end of a second Obama term. I imagine both will try to wait it out, but if one of them has to retire while Obama is in office it really would be a monumental shift in the balance of the court. Wouldn't it be something to have four justices appointed by the same President?
This turned out to be a good time to elect a Constitutional scholar.

If god existed, Scalia would have a massive coronary which would allow Obama to replace him with a much more liberal alternative. Republican heads would explode left and right. Actually, it would be preferable that this happen after Obama is re-elected.

[azmouse]

(06-29-2012 01:30 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  If god existed, Scalia would have a massive coronary which would allow Obama to replace him with a much more liberal alternative. Republican heads would explode left and right. Actually, it would be preferable that this happen after Obama is re-elected.

I'd like to see Scalia visited by three ghosts, one of which would show him how wonderful the world would be if he had never been born.

[KonaKane]

She'll probably be meeting soon, with her WV cohorts, in an undisclosed location so the GOP can issue orders.

[suzie]

(06-28-2012 11:13 AM)KonaKane Wrote:  She'll probably be meeting soon, with her WV cohorts, in an undisclosed location so the GOP can issue orders.

What silliness.

Do you seriously think that Obama cares less that McCaskill gets re-elected than that she fulfill the demands of silly folks who have zero understanding of politics?

[KonaKane]

(06-28-2012 04:31 PM)suzie Wrote:  What silliness.

Do you seriously think that Obama cares less that McCaskill gets re-elected than that she fulfill the demands of silly folks who have zero understanding of politics?

I know enough about politics to know what a shiv in the back feels like.

I hope you're proud of your Blue Dogs today. They are snubbing this president at convention, and fellated the GOP today on the Holder vote. Heck of a job there, Blues!

[jaxx]

Pelosi says she will walk out after voting no to the contempt.

[Still a Democrat]

I think you're overreating. It's not unusual for office seekers to skip conventions.

[KonaKane]

(06-28-2012 12:28 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  I think you're overreating. It's not unusual for office seekers to skip conventions.

It is unsusual for them to be vociferous and public in their refusal to endorse their candidate for president.

Have you heard of any of the GOP convention skippers coming out in public and saying they have no intent to endorse Romney?

[suzie]

Oh, give it up, Kona, you know zilch about politics if you think that McCaskill and Obama haven't communicated about this.

The Obama campaign has ceded Missouri and is moving its resources elsewhere, according to sources. You would say that was a shiv in the back--if it were a wonderful "progressive" like Ron "Let's Give Republicans the Rationale for Killing Medicare" Wyden or Chuck "Let's Not Alarm Wall Street" Schumer, from a Blue State.

But, since it's Claire McCaskill and she's from a Red State, well, there's a different Kona Standard of Conduct.

There's a fraternity of elected officials and from what I've heard, one of the key rules in the fraternity is getting re-elected. But, from what I've seen, they don't have your differing Red State-Blue State silly standards.

And that's it for me, Kona.

You've tried your absolute best to diminish my personal enthusiasm for Democrats. I'm sure you'd be glad for me to resign my positions within the local Democrats, stop being an activist, kick the Obama staffer who's living in my house for the duration of the campaign out, tell my spouse we won't be driving the Democratic truck in the July 4th parade as we've done for the past 10 years, because to self-important "progressives" like Kona, we're just not good Democrats.

I don't have time to read your constant ludicrous insults or demands that I defend all kinds of Democrats from around the country, since the one that you cite from my state isn't evil enough. I have beads to round up, banners to paint, meetings to attend, funds to raise.

Enjoy your superiority over all of us lesser folks who live in Red States and try to re-elect the Democrats who represent us, flawed though they may be. What can I say--all our feeble little Red State efforts pale before your elevated rhetoric and internet expertise in the political world.

[KonaKane]

(06-28-2012 05:45 PM)suzie Wrote:  You've tried your absolute best to diminish my personal enthusiasm for Democrats. I'm sure you'd be glad for me to resign my positions within the local Democrats, stop being an activist, kick the Obama staffer who's living in my house for the duration of the campaign out, tell my spouse we won't be driving the Democratic truck in the July 4th parade as we've done for the past 10 years, because to self-important "progressives" like Kona, we're just not good Democrats.

Wait, didn't you forget my plans to drown little kittens, push over old ladies in the street and pee in the city water system? I was hoping you wouldn't forget anything.

For the life of me, suzie, I have never been able to figure out why you perceive any even mild attempt to push this dynamic further to the blue side as a personal affront. What is it, Stockholm Syndrome? We've always had it this way so, by God, that's the way it should stay? That's about the most stubbornly conservative tack I've ever heard. And in case you haven't been watching, the conservatives.....among the elephants and in our own party...haven't been doing us any favors lately.

No, I certainly don't have all the answers and never pretended to. But I've been alive long enough to see what does not work. The Blue Dog thing is not working for us. Go ask around here, see what people say. Why did the Blues get their asses kicked so bad in 2010? It wasn't all the Tea Party that did that. It was DEMOCRATS saying they wanted something else besides warmed over Republicans representing them. Don't intentionally miss that vital message just because it is distasteful to you.

Or, go ahead and dismiss it. That's fine. Personally, I'm glad for all of your work you claim to do for the Democratic Party. I just wish you'd recognize that you are not the sole legal guardian for welfare of the party. Try climbing off that mile high horse you're on, and breathe the air of us mortals for awhile.

[suzie]

(06-28-2012 08:46 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  [quote='suzie' pid='98966' dateline='1340927116']

For the life of me, suzie, I have never been able to figure out why you perceive any even mild attempt to push this dynamic further to the blue side as a personal affront. What is it, Stockholm Syndrome? We've always had it this way so, by God, that's the way it should stay? That's about the most stubbornly conservative tack I've ever heard. And in case you haven't been watching, the conservatives.....among the elephants and in our own party...haven't been doing us any favors lately.

No, I certainly don't have all the answers and never pretended to. But I've been alive long enough to see what does not work. The Blue Dog thing is not working for us. Go ask around here, see what people say. Why did the Blues get their asses kicked so bad in 2010? It wasn't all the Tea Party that did that. It was DEMOCRATS saying they wanted something else besides warmed over Republicans representing them. Don't intentionally miss that vital message just because it is distasteful to you.

Or, go ahead and dismiss it. That's fine. Personally, I'm glad for all of your work you claim to do for the Democratic Party. I just wish you'd recognize that you are not the sole legal guardian for welfare of the party. Try climbing off that mile high horse you're on, and breathe the air of us mortals for awhile.

"High horse, Kona." Some might think that's the location of those who want to trash another Democrat for not wanting to dump their own state Congresspersons and Senators who vote 92% with Party in favor of an absolutely awful candidate in the Cecil Bothwell mold, because Internet Progressives believe every word that Glenn Greenwald says about Bothwell. That's in one of the few columns where Greenwald isn't telling us why Obama deserves NOT to be re-elected.

BTW, your IP fav, Bothwell, lost by 26% in the Democratic primary in NC. His constituents even had the nerve to ask him why they should vote for him, because "Did he have a chance to beat the Republican?" Gotta hate those Stockholm Syndrome local Democratic activists who lack the political acumen of Internet Progressives, right, Kona?

But talk about Stockholm Syndrome, Kona, you really need to get updated. In 2 other recent primaries--apart from the NC Bothwell one--your blessed Internet Progressive candidates have gotten crushed. Even the MoveOn supporters didn't vote for the MoveOn candidate in the Illinois 10th in March and the moderate candidate beat the Internet Democrats candidate in Maryland.

Even if you want to stay in the past to continue basing your arguments on the 2010 election, the message from Democrats seems a little garbled. Internet Democrat favorite Alan Grayson lost by the same double digit % as Blue Dogs in Florida in 2010.

Perhaps I don't see what works with the acumen of a brilliant Internet Democrat, Kona. But talking about the terrible job that Obama has done, worse than Bush, not deserving of votes, as I see many Internet Progressives doing--maybe to you those are indicative of people who really, really care about the welfare of the Democratic Party. You'll have to forgive me, but to this Florida Democrat, that sounds a whole lot like Election 2000 and all the 'progressives" that just couldn't bring themselves to cast as vote for "there's no difference with Bush" Al Gore.

One blogger that I've read talks about the Left Democrats Getting Crushed Since 2010 (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/i...ois.html), because it doesn't really know how to organize and get voters out. Perhaps your "all the work you CLAIM to do for the Democratic Party" sort of spells that out well in black and white. It's the second time in the discussion of Blue Dogs that you've insinuated that I'm a liar.

It's a little more difficult to do that when one is working in person than on the Internet.

[Treestar]

IMO only people who actually live in the Blue Dog districts can judge. It is easy for somebody in NYC or CA to get mad about Blue Dogs, but if you live in those states, you have to make your best judgment call.

[KonaKane]

Suzie it's easy to lose a primary when you are having to scrape for 15 dollar donations while the party luminaries are funneling money to the bigot Blue Dog. No matter what you hear, money still buys stuff. That's why some of us are so forcefully fighting Citizens United.

But, you can keep glossing over the fact that the Blues took a shellacking in 2010, if you like. That was some vote of confidence, let me tell you. Asking C. Bothwell if he could "beat a Republican" and then focus all your support on the more Republican leaning Democrat is a bit, shall we say, disingenuous. Or just plain fucking nuts. Pick your pejorative.

But when the rubber meets the road, anyone can see that the trend in the Red states is weariness with the Blue Dogs. You don't have to live there to see it, you can read it about from several different sources. If it were an issue for only Red state Democrats to deal with, well that would be silly wouldn't it - because the Congress they wind up in is for all the American people. "Provincial" doesn't look very good on you.