"DCCC Chairman Steve Israel is spending gargantuan amounts of money ... on hopeless Blue Dogs"

[phantom power]

&quot DCCC Chairman Steve Israel) is spending gargantuan amounts of money and energy on hopeless Blue Dogs ... (rather) than working on winnable campaigns for independent-minded, progressive Democrats," said Howie Klein, the co-founder of Blue America PAC, an organization devoted to promoting progressive candidates.

"Those 17 Democrats didn't just suddenly join (Rep. Darrell) Issa's witch hunt and stray from the Democratic fold. All 17 -- no exceptions -- are among the Democrats who vote with (Speaker John) Boehner and (House Majority Leader Eric) Cantor most frequently for the far right's anti-family agenda."

This is the truth. There are winnable campaigns out there that could really use some help. But these people are throwing good money after bad to elect people who won't even commit to voting for the Speaker. This is a huge problem that relates to my earlier post suggesting that professional Republicans and Democrats alike believe that the most conservative candidate is always the best.

If you'd rather not have your money going to candidates like this, you can give to Blue America instead. We think progressives have a right to some representation in the government too.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/paying-and-playing-for-other-side.html

[bowens43]

1. we need the blue dogs too

it's all about numbers. to control the agenda we need to control the house. a moderate or liberal would never win these seats.

[phantom power]

2. I reject the premise: they don't help us control the agenda. They undermine our agenda.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. And you're wrong-- the minority can only hinder the majority and never...

get a real agenda passed.

[TheWraith]

26. You're wrong.

You have two options: A Republican controlled Congress like we've had the last two years, or a Democratic Congress with blue dogs like we had before. You are not going to get 218 copies of Dennis Kucinich elected. Period. Anyone who really believes that we can run ultra-liberals in conservative districts and still win should take a gander over at Massachusetts, where in dark blue territory Elizabeth Warren is struggling like hell to beat Scott Brown.

You can either accept a Democratic Congress which only gets 90 out of your favorite 100 things done, or you can demand ideological purity and get a pure Republican Congress. Those are the options.

[sendero]

73. 90 out of 100?

Only in your delusional fantasy. the blue dogs are USELESS, all they serve to do it to shift the blame for failed policies to Democrats. They are collectively not worth a bucket of warm spit.

[stockholmer]

105. I had to laugh too, try 10 to 20% max, in terms of a progressive agenda that rips away corporate

control. FFS, a centrist Democrat POTUS is expanding the empiric war battle theatres on a global stage, and letting the police-state hounds run riot on the US homeland.

Sometimes the Red-Team/Blue Team system defenders just make me want to scream in frustration.

[SidDithers]

33. That's just wrong...

Sorry, but it's all about the numbers.

Sid

[Chan790]

55. Like TB and The Wraith, you're wrong.

I was lecturing on this earlier today to a group of MPA students summer-interning for DC-area NPOs. (It's part of a summer lecture series to expose these young minds to experienced activists, community organizers, NPO sector leaders, public intellectuals and and other non-academic educational-sources of merit.) It's one of those intuitive "truths" that's not only 100% wrong but actually killed the US left and is increasingly killing the center-left now.

The numbers don't shift in our favor if we campaign-by-marketing or moderate to (in theory only) pick up independents. (They really don't. It's objective rather than subjective truth. Democrats don't pick up seats or votes by moderating agenda or frames.) The numbers (the ones you pointed to) stay nearly the same but the Overton window and the public-perception shift rightward and rightward and rightward each subsequent election. This is doubled in effectiveness by the immobility of the US right. They stay as extremist as ever and as we move towards them they appear more moderate. The GOP is not moderating and normalizing fascism...we are, by tactics.

If you care for some heavy reading, George Lakoff has written extensively on why this occurs. Though he has written more-recent works, I suggest starting with Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame The Debate as it's a short easy primer written for application by progressives working in the field rather than as an academic work.

[TreasonousBastard]

66. That's nice, but...

I've been to some of these seminars and lectures and wonder if anyone involved had ever won a real election. Or been in one. Most involved a lot of inner-city activity, which is now a small part of the country.

Say you've got a suburban or rural district with 35% Republican registrants, 20% Democrats and the rest other or no party and you have a Democrat who managed to get into office somehow. Just how would all this community activist experience make the Dem move further to the left and keep the job? How would it help a leftish Dem take the job from a Republican?

This is the dilemma facing a lot of Dems, and I don't see much help from the left, with all their idiotic purity demands. What I might like to see is a proper propaganda campaign getting a more lefty message out there, but I don't see any that have managed to work.

Much more effort has been spent complaining and trying to "rehabilitate" erring Democrats than winning over voters.

And that's just wrong.

[MADem]

79. You've made some valid points. nt

[Chan790]

82. Your thinking is bass-ackwards.

Maintaining ideology, not winning, is the highest priority. I know that sounds weird but that's why we're in this mess. You never move ideology to become viable, you move ideology only because it's the position of the people that make up the party.

Take the following sports metaphor...You've got a 5-game series, you can win this game and start the next 3 down 2-0 (of course, you'll make the same bad decision in game-2 having made it in game-1 and have to start the deciding 3 games down 4-0.) or you can play from 0-0 and sometimes face that you're just on their turf and the situation favors them. It's better to lose one election than to win one by putting yourself at a disadvantage down the road. When you campaign by marketing or moderate the platform to be viable, you put your ideals at a disadvantage down the road and give them an increasing permanent advantage. In the hypothetical you've posed: I stay on the platform I won on before...I certainly don't move right regardless win-or-lose or interim polling. If I lose, I start work on Election Day+730days to the next election.

The platform is more important than winning any one election barring President. When you move the agenda in districts you're not viable in, you pull the issues right in places you can win with a liberal and you set the stage to have to move further right next time. Let's be clearer, the nation is not getting more conservative for any reason but Democrats adoption of this tactic. Campaign from the platform, govern in bipartisanship when necessary. Never moderate in campaign mode, win or lose.

By the bye, I've not only been in elections. I've won my share. Also, I've mentioned this before. I was a College Republican before and during the Bush v. Gore race in a national position and trained to be one of Rove's pet-assholes. Sent on scholarship to learn the game under their best and learn the strategy...you're advocating the tactic they're counting on you to uptake and playing into their plans to create a permanent conservative majority.

[TreasonousBastard]

87. That's too bad because we agree on several key points...

The point isn't platforms, but messaging-- Republicans have always managed to frame the debate in terms of what's going to happen to you. We've tended to talk about what will happen to the trees, poor people, Mexicans and all sorts of other things things that a lot of people just don't think that much of. Even if they do, all bets are off when they are personally affected one way or the other.

So, reframe the debate from, say, "spending is bad" to "what are you getting out of that spending. Just don't bother to mention those other people who might benefit. That may the moral thing, but we're talking pocketbooks here.

It's not easy because eventually you're gonna have to come up with "You need more money-- your boss is doing OK because he's the boss" and the boss won't like that. Republicans do well because they agree with the boss that such things shouldn't be brought up. And they are well paid for agreeing.

The Republican memes are centered around "the liberals are going to screw you" and that's not an easy argument to counter in a sound bite-- at least none that I've heard yet.

So, back to my mythical district, which is just one of many. You claim that by hammering the leftwing platforms, and constantly losing, we will win in the long run. That may work with Republicans and their easy to swallow message, but I just can't see it working for us without a major propaganda campaign coming from somewhere else. I really don't see a red district changing its colors thanks to liberal campaigns-- what I see is laughter. We actually had a similar problem here trying to get more than one Democrat on the town council and did worse than lose. We were humiliated.

Politicians are largely reactive and don't break much new ground. Frankly, I don't think many of them on any side are suited to break new ground and most do best just repeating the current nonsense. So, again, I don't see trying to use politicians to change the landscape. The last great liberal fling we had was back in the 60s, and politicians were flummoxed by the whole thing and eventually blew it.

We need media, if anything.

[sabrina 1]

53. Yes they do, thank you. It's not the 'numbers' that get things done, it's the

number of committed people, which is often not the majority, that really get things done.

This premise has worn itself out over the past several years, and its failure was evident in 2010 when the people refused to elect Republicans calling themselves Democrats one more time.

The defeatism involved, is stunning: 'no we can't get a good candidate elected so we have to elect bad candidates'. What a ridiculous and failed strategy. We'd be better off then, if this is true, infiltrating the Republican Party and then when we win, vote against them until we get this country back on track. I mean if it's all about 'numbers' then let's do it right.

I think this nonsense is meant to discourage the election of good Democrats, frankly.

[Chan790]

83. I'm glad someone gets it. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

94. "failure was evident in 2010 when people refused to elect Republicans calling themselves Democrats"

Look at what did get done 2008-2010 (with Democrats barely in control of both houses and the White House) and what hasn't been getting done 2010-2012 (with Republicans in control of the House).

I think it's pretty clear where the failure and the defeatism actually is found here. If you want to hold up 2010-2012 as a victory Congress for your vaunted principles, that's your business. The rest of us are trying to get a little progess for progressive values here.

[stockholmer]

104. as usual, you are spot on!

[Gregorian]

109. Your words are like music to my ears.

I've waited decades to hear it. I just want to hear everyone saying it.

Although, I do have to wonder what things would be happening had Kucinich been elected. I often wonder.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

84. We need net 25 seats for Pelosi to replace Boehner. Why is it EITHER/OR?

Why just hand the Republicans the 17 seats (see Reply #10 below) of those who voted with Rs on Holder contempt, by defunding them?

Why not support BOTH those 17 incumbents and any progressive challengers to Republicans who stand any chance of winning?

This is arithmetic, folks.

[rhett o rick]

5. You are soo wrong. It's not "all about numbers", it's about principles. Are you willing to give up

your principles for numbers?

Those blue dogs that voted with Issa are worse than republicans. I dont want their numbers. They are draining valuable money from decent, honest Democrats. Dont give a cent to the DCCC.

Are you so afraid that our Democratic principles wont win that you are willing to bow to the damn blue dogs?

[TreasonousBastard]

8. How you gonna get your high&mighty principles in place when you're in the minority?

[rhett o rick]

11. You either have principles or not. I am not willing to sell out my principles to some low life blue

dogs.

I am not willing to settle for less than my "high&mighty" principles, thank you very much.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. But you'll let the country go to hell for your principles, eh? Thanks a lot.

[rhett o rick]

17. Those without principles are no better than republicans. nm

[a2liberal]

21. let's just merge with Republicans

That way we won't be in the minority. Who cares that the principles are different, right? How is electing Republicans who call themselves Democrats better than just electing Republicans?

[rhett o rick]

32. I agree. nm

[Autumn]

60. That right there

I can deal with a fucking republican that acts like a republican, my tolerance is gone for democrats that act like, and agree with fucking republicans. Those bastards can join the republican party and drag them to the left and quit dragging my Democratic party to the right.

[WillyT]

68. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

EXACTLY !!!

[heaven05]

24. good for you

all a person has, really, is their word and their high and mighty principles. Blue dogs were/are helping repukes block everything the President tried. So that make them repukes in democrat clothing. They deserve nothing but contempt.

[TreasonousBastard]

37. But you'll still let a seat go to a teabagger if the Dem isn't good enough? That's not...

principled, that's cowardly and lazy.

[rhett o rick]

45. You are putting words in my mouth. An unprincipled Democrat is no better than a

Repuke. They will vote side by side with the repukes. Just calling someone a Democrat does not make them one in my book.

[bvar22]

48. An unprincipled Democrat is WORSE than a repuke.

They are behind the lines, advancing the Conservative Chamber of Commerce agenda, fomenting division WITHIN the Party, attacking the traditional Democratic Party cornerstones of Medicare and Social Security, sabotaging Democratic Party efforts to block Republicans, and blocking the appointment of Liberals to the Supreme Court.

SEE: Gang of 14

The DCCC also gets involved in local Democratic Party Primaries by supporting Conservative Blue Dogs,
and use Party Money to SteamRoll any grassroots progressives.

The DSCC is just as bad.
SEE: Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010,
Florida,
Colorado,
Pennsylvania (actually supported a Republican (Specter) in this one)
and many others.

If you Work for a Living never, EVER send your money to the DCCC/DSCC.
They WILL use your money against your Working Class Interests.
Send your money directly to Progressive Democrats and Progressive challengers in local Democratic Primaries.

If you want to know WHY the Democratic Party is unable to advance traditional Democratic Party Working Class Values,
the DCCC and the DSCC are a BIG part of that problem.

The Democratic Party IS a Big Tent,
but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH
at the expense of the Working Class and The Poor!!!

The day the Democratic Party started abandoning organized LABOR, the Working Class, and The Poor
was the day the DLC opened the Party doors to Republicans.
It has been a steady march to the conservative Right since then.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[frylock]

59. word up!

[rhett o rick]

76. What you said. nm

[TreasonousBastard]

65. Considering that there are only 4 Democrats (all from very red districts)...

who voted less that 60% of the time with the party, just how do you define "voting side by side with the Repukes"?

[rhett o rick]

75. You wallow in the mire with your faux-democrats. Our tent is way tooo big.

Kick the bastards out.

[TreasonousBastard]

77. Since you haven't answered the question...

I'll make it clearer--

Just who the fuck are you and you fellow travelers out there to define what is or isn't a "real" Democrat?

This bullshit from anonymous amateur pundits is getting tiresome. Some of us are out there actively campaigning, facing down the teabaggers, dealing with the Koch festivals, going door to door with petitions, and every other boring, nasty, fruitless thing we have to do to get somebody halfway decent and mostly on our side elected and then we get this "not good enough" horseshit from some anonymous bullshitter with no credentials and who's nowhere near the neighborhood.

I've wasted enough time on you already.

[rhett o rick]

90. Nice try. You try to make me the enemy. I also work very hard to elect Democrats.

The only difference is that I support Democrats with principles not those lame-ass blue dogs.

[MADem]

80. An unprincipled Dem will vote with the Dems when party discipline is enforced.

Because he, or she, will have his or her ass primaried at the next election with a Big Money, well-prepped, well-placed and competitive candidate, and all of his, or her, sources of fundraising, will disappear if he, or she, does not play ball.

We enforce party discipline less than the GOP, and never when we don't have "the count" to prevail on an issue, but when it is vital, we do hold feet to the fire.

[rhett o rick]

91. I understand that it is necessary to vote "lesser of evils" although it makes me sick.

However, I do not want one cent of my money to go to blue damn dogs when it can go to help a progressive.

[MADem]

93. No argument from me. There are lots of paths to funding.

Steny Hoyer runs a "Congo" pac, and there's a Senate one too (I am not sure who manages it now--I can't recall)--they pick out newbies and quality 'vulnerables' and give them a hand w/funding. The National Committee gets money from a variety of sources. And of course, candidates do their own fundraising. And then, there are pacs and bundlers with all sorts of agendas and sponsorships, and always, like rats up the mooring line, the lobbyists.

I see nothing wrong with people dedicating their donations to the people they really want to see on the Hill. Same with their time, dialing and smiling, collecting signatures, driving people to vote, etc. Just so long as people do...SOMETHING!

[frylock]

58. the country is already going to hell, with YOUR principles..

thanks alot, indeed.

[DJ13]

42. The GOP is technically the minority party

They seem to yield power without any trouble.

[creeksneakers2]

88. The Issa vote didn't matter

If they won't vote for a Democratic speaker though, they aren't worth spending money on.

[99Forever]

6. Horsepucky.

Talk about a losing strategy. This is the same mentality that has dug us into the current pit we find ourselves in.

"Those that fail to remember history are condemned to repeat it."

[white_wolf]

12. Screw that!

Numbers are meaningless if you can't count on them. A traitor inside your ranks is far more dangerous than an enemy outside them. That's what the Blue Dogs are, traitors.

[Maineman]

25. I agree

[coalition_unwilling]

97. Numbers mean everything though when it comes to committee and sub-committee

chairpersons. Based on what I know of politics (and that is as a very interested layperson), I would say that the vast majority of legislative work is done in committee. So a nominal Dem majority (even if x number of its cohort are Blue Dog 'traitors') is vitally important for determining committee staffing.

Dems can also rightly view me as a 'traitor,' I suppose, since I tend to be a 'swing voter,' (albeit in a slightly different sense of the term from the conventional in that I swing from Dem to Dem Socialist depending on tactical and strategic considerations (and, of course, DU's TOS

[quakerboy]

18. For the purposes of taking the majority, a bluedog and a progressive are the same

So why do they ignore easy Democratic pickups that happen to have more progressive minded dems running, Choosing instead to throw money at long shot blue dogs?

Its like driving out of your way to shop at walmart when you have a store that price matches and does its best to provide local just down the street.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. Where are these throngs of "progressive minded dems" running in conservative districts?

Do you have any real world examples, or is this just more wishful thinking? You saw what happened to Dennis Kucinich when his district went from solid liberal to a mix, right? In the progressive quest for ideological purity, errr I mean "principles", are Democrats supposed to sit by and just relinquish any chance of recapturing the house, unless they all pass some ideological purity test?

Bowens is absolutely right. He who controls the gavel, controls what comes to the floor for a vote. If Dems control the Congress, we won't see a thousand votes trying to repeal healthcare; there won't be a gazillion challenges to women's reproductive rights; and I seriously doubt we'll see a whole lot of trying to rip the social safety net out by its roots.

I can't believe that we're gonna do what we did in 2000, all in search of a few people's interpretation of "principles".

[quakerboy]

69. Why fight for a conservative district when there are so many moderate districts that would be easier

I am not saying run progressives in conservative districts. I am saying lets go all out to elect as many democrats as we can all over. Lets look for the most efficient way to win as many as we can, whether they be red, blue or purple.

With that in mind, I ask: Is it more cost effective to support a progressive in a district that switches every election or two, or to try and reelect a conservative democrat in a district that elected a republican 19 out of the last 20 times? Which is the more likely win for a democrat?

I just want to best bang for the buck here. Emptying our pockets fighting for deep red districts and ignoring purple or even light blue districts seems like a poor way to invest the resources that the DCCC has available.

[eridani]

72. "from solid liberal to a mix" = total and utter bullshit

Kaptur is in many ways as progressive as Kucinich, but Kucinich lost to gerrymandering. Boehner tacked on a small piece of Kucinich's old district to a new district mostly composed of Kaptur's old turf, joined by a thin strip of Lake Erie beach that is underwater at high tide. Kucinich's old supporters voted for him by the usual margin, and Kaptur's old suppoters voter for her by the usual margin, but there were far, far more of the latter in the new district.

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. Excuse me. The point is he lost. I, personally, was pulling for Kaptur.

There seems to be some fairytale floating around that if you're principled & liberal enough, you can win anywhere, and if you can't then the seat should go to a Republican rather than a Democrat. It's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

I would much rather have a few blue dogs, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, than have a bunch of teanutters anyday. This is the purist bullshit that passes for "principled" these days. We saw that movie in 2000. It was fucked up then, and it's even more fucked up now.

[eridani]

96. The point is that his district was in no sense less liberal

So quit lying about that.

The question the OP raised is "How do we get the most bang for the buck?" not "Are Blue Dogs better than Republicans?" We get the most value for money by putting it into purple districts, and not going all out for conservative Dems in very red districts.

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. You're the one who posited that Kaptur is every bit as liberal as Kooch.

And, formerly, we weren't allowed to call each other "liars". I take it that's changed. Good to know. However, I won't reciprocate.

And people who brag about telling the DNC, DCCC, DSCC to screw off when they call for help, shouldn't get to gripe about where the money's spent.

[eridani]

117. As far as progressive positions, Kucinich has the edge

Kaptur is still one of the most progressive Dems in the house, though. I take it you are walking back your original claim that the new distirict is less liberal? Good for you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

118. I'm "walking back" nothing. Kooch lost. Many of his supporters called Kaptur a DINO.

She, obviously, was much more appealing to the "Democrats" who voted in the primary, than Kooch.

[eridani]

119. It was her district in which the contest took place. If she had been

--tacked onto a district consisting mainly of his old district, she would have lost.

[Tarheel_Dem]

120. Mmmmmkay?

[ieoeja]

19. Having grown up in a swing district, I know for a fact that this was simply untrue.

When I was a kid the district swung between Liberals and moderates. Today, it swings between Extreme Reactionaries and Conservative Democrats. Because of people like you who decided that we could move Right and force the Republicans to the extremes.

When Democrats tell people in these districts that "Liberals are evil" and Republicans tell them that "Liberals are evil", it is no suprise that the people come to believe that Liberals are evil.

If we keep telling them that Liberals are evil they will continue believing that Liberals are evil til the end of time. There will never be any progress made.

"Our side" may win 49% of the time, but their ideology will win 100% of the time. And as long as we guarantee a permanent majority to their ideology, we guarantee a permanent agenda based on that ideology.

[rhett o rick]

34. What good does it do to have numbers if your damn blue dogs wont vote with you? nm

[sabrina 1]

51. Name a progressive bill the Blue Dogs helped pass?

[DeltaLitProf]

95. Name one we would have passed without having blue dogs vote for Dem leaders

n/t

[GarroHorus]

56. Agreed. Without the numbers, the Republicans control the agenda.

Purists will be the death of progressive causes.

[Chan790]

85. No, conservative Democrats will be the death of progressivism.

It's really disheartening how few rank and file Democrats have a solid enough understanding of tactics to realize that your way of thinking is a trap. I know it's a trap because it's a trap I helped build and learned the strategic initiatives behind when I was a College Republican.

Electing Blue Dogs is worse than losing. We're better off not running Blue Dogs because at the heart of it, they're all Artur Davis, Joe Lieberman and Billy Tauzin anyways. Fuck them all, let them lose and they can go do the RNC's work at the RW think-tanks they all end up working for when they leave office.

[GarroHorus]

99. That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read

What you say is nothing more than what the teabaggers say about the Republican Party.

Demanding ideological purity is a recipe for disaster.

[Chan790]

101. Who said ideological purity...

I said don't move right to win elections because you'll never stop moving right and the people we move right to accommodate as candidates aren't worth it. We're worse off for having accommodated the likes of Tauzin, et al. Also Zell Miller.

[bvar22]

107. "the teabaggers say about the Republican Party"

EXACTLY!!!!!
The TeaBaggers have been EXTREMELY successful at moving the Republican Party to The Right.
The Republican Party NOW answers to The TeaBaggers.

I would LOVE it if the Democratic Party started paying some attention to the old FDR/LBJ wing of the party!

[GarroHorus]

108. so, you want an extreme left Democratic Party?

I want no part of an extreme party whether left or right.

[bvar22]

110. So, you are quite happy with the 20 year slide to the Right?

Last edited Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not.
I believe in the traditional Working Class Democratic Party values of FDR & LBJ.
You can hang whatever label you want on that,
but it doesn't change the values I believe in and for which I will fight.

I understand that some "Reagan Democrats" and former Republicans, like Arlen Specter, are quite happy with the direction the Democratic Party is moving.
If that is you, so be it.


---bvar22,
a Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat
now relegated to the "Extreme Left" of the New Democrat Centrist Party.
I haven't changed.

[GarroHorus]

112. It is the extreme left that is most responsible for the 20 year slide to the right.

Demanding extremist left positions scares those in the middle, so they vote for right wingers.

I'm sorry you don't understand, but this nation self identifies as right of center. The only way to move things to the left is to take it slow over a long period of time. Otherwise, you scare the moderates and they vote for the wingnuts.

[phantom power]

113. Karl? Is that you?

[bvar22]

114. Who is this "Extreme Left" of which you speak?

I am unaware of the existence of an "Extreme Left" in America.
Does the Communist Party have any representation in our government
or a voice in any of our Media?

Are you attempting to hang that label on loyal Democrats who still believe in this?

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established [font size=3]for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens."--- FDR

Please note that FDR stipulated that the above are Human RIGHTS to be protected BY our government of the People,
and NOT Commodities to be sold by For Profit Corporations.

Are THESE the evil "extremists" you blame for the problems in today's Democratic Party?
I trust Harry Truman's opinion over yours.

[font size=4]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]


[font size=4]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]




[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[ljm2002]

103. To control the agenda...

...we need party discipline. Party discipline includes consequences for not voting with the party on important issues. Consequences include not getting funds from the party when election rolls around.

The Democratic Party lacks party discipline, largely because it has accepted the premise that we must toe the conservative line or lose even more. That is because the Democratic party is now nearly as beholden to corporate $$$ as the Republican party is. And that is because of the Third Way triangulation that gained traction during the Clinton years.

Or maybe it started before that. Maybe it's the case that our system has been a dog and pony show from the start. Certainly, there is nothing new historically about a bought-and-paid-for Congress, nor about a government that protects the interests of the wealthy against the interests of the many.

No I'm not saying the two parties are "the same". Just that when you get down to it, Washington is in the pocket of the wealthy interests and the MIC. As long as that remains true, the rest of us are SOL.

In any case: what you say reflects a certain reality, one that accepts the current political status quo as the best we can hope for. From that point of view, what you say makes sense. From the point of view of wanting to change that status quo, we have to quit supporting people who would never take any political risk to support the more progressive positions of the party, who will in fact undermine their own party, but still expect to be supported when they seek re-election.

[AngryOldDem]

3. I got a call from the DCCC this morning.

Wanting me to pony up "only" $212. I said I couldn't afford it. What I **didn't** say (but probably should have, but was in no mood for a discussion at the time) was that even if I could, I sure as hell wouldn't give it to the DCCC.

Now I feel even better about hanging up the phone.

[silverweb]

39. You can help and bypass the DCCC.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Please see my post #35.

[leveymg]

4. This was Rahm Emmanuel's Blue Dog strategy, as well.

Thank g-d Howard was DNC Chair and balanced him out.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. You got the names of these 17, or are we supposed to take this on faith...

Like it or not, a Dem is a Dem and we need every one we can get. The majority controls committee assignments and elects the Speaker, and even blue dogs don't defy the leadership over that.

Some of them may be a bit too conservative for my tastes, but most blue dogs are in conservative districts and have to fend off the teabaggers running against them. Being accused of being a dreaded liberal is the kiss of death in those districts.

Is it better to have a teabagger win the seat rather than a Dem who doesn't pass the purity tests?

[phantom power]

10. The 17 Democrats who sided with the GOP to hold Holder in contempt are:

Jason Altmire (Pa.)
John Barrow (Ga.)
Dan Boren (Okla.)
Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
Ben Chandler (Ky.)
Mark Critz (Pa.)
Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Kathy Hochul (N.Y.)
Ron Kind (Wis.)
Larry Kissell (N.C.)
Jim Matheson (Utah)
Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Bill Owens (N.Y.)
Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Nick Rahall (W. Va.)
Mike Ross (Ark.)
Tim Walz (Minn.)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/eric-holder-roll-call-contempt-vote-democrats-join-127658.html

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Figgered Hochul would be on that list...

Don't know much about the rest of them, but I do know about Hochul.

She's the first Democrat to hold that seat in 40 years and the district just became redder after the last redistricting.

She squeaked into a victory in a special electkion, and both the RNC and the teabaggers have targeted her in the top 10 for defeat as vulnerable, throwing vast amounts of money up there.

Her overall voting record is OK from our point of view, but one must remember that a representative represents a district and does not dictate her own views. Cannot dictate views if he or she wants to keep the job.

There's a wicked Republican primary going on between two baggers and she's on thin ice unless one holds true to his threat to run as a Conservative making it a three way. Even then it's not so easy.

Now, do you really, really want to hold out on support for her over one bullshit vote?

Will the country be better off with a teabagger in that seat?

Inquiring minds want to know...

[quakerboy]

20. Is there a seat

That we could pick up with a more reliable candidate, somewhere else, with the same amount of money?

Say its gonna cost a million dollars to reelect her. And say there is a progressive candidate somewhere else who is in a more moderate district, who has a good shot, but is under funded. And say there is only a finite amount of cash available because unlimited illicit Chinese money is not being funneled into the Democratic party the way that it is to the Republicans. Do you choose to back someone who will vote as a liberal or someone who will at least occasionally vote as a conservative?

Thats at an equal cost. It does not seem unreasonable to think it might only take half the cash to help propel a moderate or even liberal Democrat to victory in a more moderate district to win that it would to get even a conservative Democrat elected in a hard fought rock ribbed conservative district

With that in mind, where does it make sense to spend the limited resources available to the DCCC?

[TreasonousBastard]

23. Go find such a place. Democrats of all stripes are being targeted by big money. and my own rep...

is facing a multi-million dollar Koch event for his bagger opponent this weekend.

Safe districts are safe by definition,and we have our people more or less safely in there, but there are three districts here in NY that are under serious attack and two of them are on that list. My rep, Tim Bishop is no blue dog, but the other two that are on the list are in very conservative districts upstate and in very real danger.

My question is simple-- when we have the best Democrat we can get in a seat, why chance defeat and get another bagger in Congress?

[quakerboy]

71. 2 off the top

Il-13
NC-10

Almost all democrats are being heavily targeted. And the resources to fight for districts are limited. Why are we spending those resources trying to win heavily conservative districts when there are much more balanced districts that would probably be easier and cheaper to win, with Teabaggers ripe to be knocked off?

[silverweb]

38. Yes, there is!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]See my post #35.

[GoCubsGo]

29. That is the case with John Barrow, as well.

His district is more republican after redistricting. The republicans running to replace him are ALL teabagger nutcases. Believe me, putting money into helping Barrow keep his job is NOT a waste of money. The alternative will be horrifying regardless who wins that primary. At least Barrow opposes Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare. He is as close to a "progressive" as that district is going to get.

[lostnote12]

15. @#@%$$$$ Baby Ben Chandler!!!!

.......Chandlers first run at Congressman, I was heavily involved in assisting his campaign....when my sweeties lil private business was eminent domain ed the only assistance from Ben was a repeated quote..."it's all about the money"....he repeated that line at least 5 times before I gave up on the one-sided conversation.....we were eminent domaind' by the University (UK Med. Ctr) that bears his Grand Daddies name.....His dream of being appointed to the Armed Services Committee would be the MIC's wet dream......

[Chan790]

86. Is it better to have a teabagger win the seat rather than a Dem who doesn't pass the purity tests?

Once again with feeling: Every fucking time. It's less damaging to lose races than to destroy ideology in order to win.

[TreasonousBastard]

89. And, once again, with feeling...

who decides the ideology? Just what are we talking about here-- liberals, Communists, socialists...? Do we have and "approved" list of positions applicable to all situations?

Who decides where the line is?

Who decides which Dem who votes with us most of the time is "destroying ideology" with a few unpopular votes?

And, you're saying that if we get the one extra blue dog that lets us get a Democratic Speaker and control committee assignments it will be a bad thing?

[bigdarryl]

16. I would rather loose Congress than elect or reelect a bunch of rethugs calling themselves blue dogs

these are not democrats I don't give a fuck what people say.They gave President Obama pure hell before the 2010 election.They voted the majority of the time with the republicans and most of them were voted out in 2010 running against real republicans.

[sendero]

74. Exactly

these assholes are useless. fuck them and every organization that supports them.

[Lionessa]

22. Hey DCCC! What we really DON'T need are BlueDogs, didn't you learn that

after 2010 when the idea that Obama even with majorities in both houses couldn't get anything done, and it was the Blue Dog senators getting in the way?

When you spend so much money to get Republicans in blue jackets into Congress who vote 90%+ with Republicans, it certainly causes Democratic voters to reconsider whether going to the polls to vote when both candidates are essentially Republicans, such as say Walt Minnick was from 2009-2010. No real Democrat could vote for him a second time, so most seemed to stay home which not only effects that race but all races and agendas on the ballot.

For now I shall un-officially rename y'all Dumb Congressional Campaign Committee

[heaven05]

28. second

I second that,no debate? resolved and passed. new name!

[rhett o rick]

36. Third. nm

[kctim]

49. Really?

"When you spend so much money to get Republicans in blue jackets into Congress who vote 90%+ with Republicans..."

How about an example or two?

[Lionessa]

50. Walt Minnick, look his record up.

I believe it was 98% with Repubs and endorsed by the teaparty.

[kctim]

54. That would be Minnick the Unitarian?

The one who has voted with the Democratic Party 70+% of the time over 1600+ votes? How could he vote 98% of the time with Republicans and 70+% of the time with Democrats?

Not voting how liberals/progressives want you to on so-called "key issues" does not make one a Republican.

[Lionessa]

57. That's what wiki says for sure. I'm looking for the source I read back in 2010 when he

got the tea party endorsement and why. It was posted on DU2 I think, but I'm looking for the original source. If I can't I'll definitely stand down somewhat, though in my mind, just being a Blue Dog, makes him a DINO, and there are too many of those.

[mythology]

61. And if you follow the source it's what the Washington Post and Open Congress.org say

There are only a handful of Democrats from the 2008-2009 Congress who voted with the party less than 60 percent of the time. But what this doesn't track is were these members given permission to vote how their district polls because their vote wasn't crucial to get a bill passed. With the pivot point in the House being the 50 plus 1 vote and in the Senate being the 60th vote, there's a lot more leeway for Nancy Pelosi to say to an individual Representative that they can vote how their district polls than in the Senate. There's a fair amount of historical evidence that having a significant majority, such as Democrats had in 2008-2009 leads to less partisan discipline for exactly this reason.

For reference, the 4 Democrats who had lower than 60% voting with the party are:

Jim Matheson from Utah, Dan Boren from Oklahoma, Collin Peterson from Minnesota, and Mike Ross from Arkansas.

Jim Matheson represents the most Republican district held by a Democrat. Dan Boren's district voted by double digits for Bush and then McCain in the presidential elections. Collin Peterson on the other hand hasn't won by less than 15% in a long time, but he does represent a very rural district. Mike Ross was functionally unopposed in two of his last three elections, but is the only Democrat in Arkansas's congressional delegation.

None of these seem to be districts that would be run by people who are much further to the left. I'm not saying that anybody who calls themselves a Democrat is great, but they do beat the alternative.

[TreasonousBastard]

63. You bring up an excellent point...

we forget how things are done in DC, and how it's common for permission to be given to vote against the party line. Somewhat less common is to vote against the party line without permission when an election could swing on that vote. I wouldn't want the job of whip.

All this talk of "principles" is interesting, but has absolutely nothing to do with real politics.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

81. Walt Minnick, who voted for the DREAM Act that the Republicans hate so much?

Putting him to the left of quite a few of his Blue Dog colleagues

[wryter2000]

27. I give to individual candidates

And that's what I told the DCCC when they called. I told them I don't wany my money going to blue dogs.

[silverweb]

40. Please consider Dr. Ami Bera.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]See my post #35.

[efhmc]

30. Emily's list.

Enough said.

[Omaha Steve]

31. I just called the DCCC

I gave to them twice through Act Blue in the last month. I asked they take me off the call/contact list. I did say if they come out with a response to email it to me. I also said I'd send them the article in emial. He said they have already seen it.

OS

[silverweb]

35. Ami Bera vs Dan "Nastyman" Lungren

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]The DCCC is also backing at least one progressive Democratic candidate who has a real shot at unseating one of the most entrenched, distasteful reTHUGs in Congress, Dan Lungren (CA-3).

I don't know who all those other Dems are on the DCCC list, but I do know Dr. Bera and some of his staff. I can't vote for him because I'm not in his district, but I damn well support him.

If you're upset about some of those Blue Dog candidates the DCCC is backing, I'd encourage you to donate to Dr. Bera's campaign directly and help him thump Nastyman Lungren in November. It will gain us one sure progressive seat in Congress.

Lungren beat Bera in the last challenge and he's leading now. Help us make sure Dr. Bera wins this November!

[demwing]

43. Electing Blue Dogs gives us the illusion of control

Last edited Fri Jul 6, 2012, 07:38 PM - Edit history (1)

we can technically control the House or Senate, but if we can't control our own pols, what good will that "Control" do us?

Control in name only is an illusion, a room of smoke and mirrors.

[Egalitarian Thug]

44. Party leadership consists of moderate republicans. They moved in with their financial backing

when the reaganuts took over the republican party and have been running this party into the ground ever since.

[AJTheMan]

46. Blue Dog Democrats are better than Republicans

Those who say they don't favor blue dog Democrats are also inferring that they would rather the seat go into Republican hands.

To me, anybody who will stand and vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker is better than someone who would vote for John Boehner. Bring back Pelosi.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

47. I read yesterday that huge donations came to the dccc specifically for blue dogs.

[kctim]

52. So you want moderate Democrats

to vote Republican eh? All because they dare not fall in lock-step with your personal opinion of what makes one a Democrat? Dumb.

A liberal/progressive candidate HAS NO CHANCE IN HELL of winning in our districts. We will NOT vote for them. We vote for DEMOCRATS and are known to vote against liberals/progressives.

You want to screw President Obama even more, then keep telling us to vote Republican.

[TheKentuckian]

62. If you are voting against liberals and TeaPubliKlans are tolerable enough

then what is "moderate" about you. It would seem an actual moderate then it would seem that some liberal policies would be in line with your views and some conservative policies would fit or you'd find yourself generally in the middle and would feel no more comfortable with the TeaPubliKlans than with Communists.

Go ahead and vote TeaPubliKlan, it seems that would be a more honest fit for you and like minds, do what you gotta do, bro. Moderate by your description seems to be about halfway between Ben Nelson and Jim DeMint, if that is the case you are more harm than help and undermine Democrats in serving the needs of the disenfranchised, poor, the voiceless, and working folks.

[kctim]

121. Moderate is about policy, not Party

Moderates understand some policy requires more government and some requires less. That is why liberals/progressives only make up around 20% of the Dem Party and conservatives only around 30% of the Rep Party.
The problem isn't with moderates, it's with those who falsely believe ALL Dems are "socialists" or that ALL Reps are "facists."

Like it or not, a liberal/progressive or conservatice only Party would be as irrelevent as Greens and Libertarians. The constant election of moderate Presidents, the make-up of the House and Senate, and the fact that liberals/progressives/conservatives haven't created a successful Party of their own, are all proof of that.

[bvar22]

64. DuRec!

The DCCC/DSCC is one of the Problems in the Democratic Party today.
They use their Party Money to bankroll Conservative Chamber of Commerce APPROVED Blue Dogs, and Bury progressive Grass Roots challengers in local Democratic Primaries.

If you Work for a Living, never, EVER donate to the DCCC or the DSCC.
They WILL use your money against your Economic Interests.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[WillyT]

67. K & R !!!

[upi402]

70. corporatism happens

they want both parties, badly

[dflprincess]

78. And this is why I never donate to the DCCC, DSCC, DNC or even the state party any more

Any donation I make goes to a candidate that holds traditional Democratic values, not some damn Blue Dog who puts a "D" after his or her name only because the Republicans would consider him "too liberal".

[eridani]

98. A relevant note on WA-01

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/why-we-cant-have-nice-things-wa-unio

The strategy is obvious, and it's stupid and wrong-headed. Rather than helping ensure a strong advocate of working families gets elected, these Nine-Dimensional Chess Players are once again stranding their own best allies, thereby helping ensure we continue these cycles of weak support for labor and its issues in Congress. Nice going, guys!

It's systemic. This week we learned that the DCCC (which has a long and unfortunate history when it comes to electing Blue Dogs) has been sending millions in campaign to the same 17 Democratic bozos who voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt in the face of the GOP's latest fake scandal, the "Fast and Furious" scam. And they're going to keep doing so. Because there really is no such thing as party discipline among Democrats. Thanks to outfits like the DCCC.

However, the next time you hear labor leaders bemoaning the lack of leadership in Congress, just point out this race to them. When the unions act like the DCCC, they have no one to blame but themselves.

[TreasonousBastard]

111. So, while supporting unions you link to an article saying that union leaders don't...

know what they're doing?

Maybe, just maybe, they're going for the half a loaf to fend off a worse probability. Maybe they think they have a better chance of getting someone in who meets them halfway and rejected a sure loss.

Oh, wait! We have to go for the gold because just sorta good isn't good enough and we have to increase the risk of getting a hardline right winger in there to uphold our own personal principles.

Then, you bring up the Holder vote and the Evil 17. I explained who Hochul is and someone else explained Minnick, but because of one lousy vote that meant nothing and you're willing to let teabaggers take their seats and guarantee a Democratic minority and a Republican Speaker.

Some of us really have a hard time understanding that there are so many of you who talk about party unity and discipline but undermine it by idiotic purity tests.

And. of course, none of you will ever accept responsibility for any of the problems (except for that one person in this thread who said she would stand down in the face of facts refuting her)

[eridani]

116. The big money candidate in WA-01 is also a big fan of expanding h1b visas

This is not a position that any union I know of supports. Her more progressive opponent not only leads other Democratic candidates in the polls, but also does better against the only Repub candidate running.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. It is amusing to see the same posters who claim they are THE supporters of the administration

take up the defense of those who voted to hold Holder in contempt. Same posters will rip a DUer to shreds for criticizing Holder in any way, yet they very easily speak out for those in Congress who subjected Holder to that display of disrespect. So they are Eric's defenders, except when they are defending Eric's attackers. It is amazing.

[Chan790]

102. It's worth asking them...

what ends don't justify the means to victory?

[stockholmer]

106. ever get the feeling you've been cheated?!?