Blue Dog Democracts- and their vote on torture today...not good..

[IChing]

I did a quick search on Blue dog members and how they voted
with Republican in the house on the torture bill. From Tanners website: http://www.house.gov/tanner/blue.htm


FROM HIS SITE
Congressman Tanner is a founding member of The Blue Dog Coalition, comprised of 37 conservative to moderate House Democrats. The group has built a reputation as a serious player in the policy arena, promoting positions which bridge the gap between ideological extremes. Many of the group's policy proposals have been praised as fair, responsible, and positive additions to a Congressional environment too often marked as partisan and antagonistic.


Blue Dog Members in the 109th Congress:--------------------------vote on torture-----
Rep. Joe Baca (CA)------------------no
Rep. John Barrow (GA)--------------yes
Rep. Melissa Bean (IL)--------------yes
Rep. Marion Berry (AR)--------------no
Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA)-----------yes
Rep. Dan Boren (OK)---------------yes
Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA)-----------yes
Rep. Allen Boyd (FL----------------yes
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA)----------no
Rep. Ed Case (HI)-----------------no
Rep. Ben Chandler (KY)------------yes
Rep. Jim Cooper (TN)--------------no
Rep. Jim Costa (CA)---------------no
Rep. Robert E. “Bud” Cramer (Al)---yes
Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN)-----------yes
Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (TN)---------yes
Rep. Jane Harman (CA)-----------no
Rep. Stephanie Herseth (SD)------yes
Rep. Tim Holden (PA)------------yes
Rep. Steve Israel (NY)------------no
Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)----------yes
Rep. Jim Marshall (GA)-----------yes
Rep. Jim Matheson (UT)----------yes
Rep. Charles Melancon (LA)-------yes
Rep. Mike Michaud (ME)----------yes
Rep. Dennis Moore (KS)-----------yes
Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)---------yes
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (ND)-----------yes
Rep. Mike Ross (AR)--------------yes
Rep. John Salazar (CO)------------yes
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA)---------no
Rep. Adam Schiff (CA)------------no
Rep. David Scott (GA)------------yes
Rep. John Tanner (TN)-----------yes
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA)---------no
Rep. Gene Taylor (MS)-----------yes
Rep. Mike Thompson (CA)--------no

25 of the blue dogs voted for it.

Democrats that Voted for the republican amendment"

Andrews
Barrow
Bean
Bishop (GA)
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Chandler
Cramer
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Edwards
Etheridge
Ford
Gordon
Herseth
Higgins
Holden
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Michaud
Moore (KS)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Ross
Salazar
Scott (GA)
Spratt
Tanner
Taylor (MS)

Democrats or Republicans that did not vote

Castle
Cleaver
Davis (FL)
Davis, Tom
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Keller
Lewis (GA)
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Ney
Radanovich
Strickland

Can we keep this kicked

Tanners site if you want to mail him "
http://www.house.gov/tanner/blue.htm

Clerks roll call on the vote
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml

Congressional Loyalty Scorecards, Part Four: Blue Dog Democrats
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/28/122920/723


Via Eschaton. Centrist Demcorats feel hurt that Pelosi took them out behind the shed for supporting the bankruptcy bill:

In an acknowledgement that fences within her Caucus need mending, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) scheduled private meetings Wednesday evening with leading House Democratic moderates, including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.).
Pelosi was set to sit down individually with Hoyer, while a similar meeting with Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.), long a leading figure among conservative Blue Dog Democrats, was being rescheduled because of Wednesday evening's ethics vote. She also had asked for a meeting with Rep. Ron Kind (Wis.), a leader of the centrist New Democrat Coalition.(...)

Sources at last week's meeting said Pelosi didn't help repair the rift, and perhaps even inflamed it, when they said she accused moderates of selling out to special interests on the bill and betraying the party by urging the GOP leadership to bring the measure to a vote. Several of those sources said Pelosi has an obligation not only to bring Members together, but also to apologize to the moderates.

"Actions speak louder than words," said one source from the conservative wing of the party. "No meeting will undo what she did, and it will take a while for her to repair the damage with Democratic centrists.">>>>snipped from site.

[dflprincess]

1. These people are not Democrats

they are collaborators.

[IndianaGreen]

3. They are criminals, enablers of war crimes and crimes against humanity

They are as guilty as those that voted for Hitler's Enabling Act.

They have taken a position that runs counter to Big Dog's position on torture. Not even Hillary would support such a sellout to tyranny.

[Hardrada]

4. This is why I've been an anarchist since 1968.

You get a state. You too often get state terror as well.

[iconocrastic]

19. And the anarchists give us what? Anarchy.

[Hardrada]

25. Do you have a problem with that, subject of the Crown?

[w4rma]

22. Iraq has no state, currently. It is a great example of anarchy. (nt)

[Hardrada]

24. Not really.

It is a theocracy in formation due to our idiotic occupation. Anarchy admits of no theistic zealotry. You will find good examples in Spain in the 1930's.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. What is the anarchist position of Social Security?

:shrug:

[Hardrada]

51. I'll bring it up at our next meeting.

[IChing]

5. Can we keep this k/n ? because it contains a lot of information

on tracking the power structures of these traitors to the Constitution,
the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions
and what this country should stand for.

[iconocrastic]

18. They are Democrats

Let's face facts. Let's not play with words. They are in our party. They are Democrats.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. They are Democrats, not Communists

Just kidding. Now that I have your attention...

These Democrats represent districts which are not liberal. If they vote like liberals, they will be replaced by Republicans. Would you prefer they replaced with people who will voted against you all of the time rather than people who only vote against you some of the time?

[xxqqqzme]

38. opposing torture is NOT

liberal for chrissake - if they cannot make their constituents understand that, they have no business sitting in the house!

[ProudDad]

52. That's a cop-out

There are very few districts in this country that couldn't elect a "liberal" who was forthright and honest about their positions and had the spine to stand up to the "powers that be".

This is the platform they could run on and WIN with:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2850826

It's self defeating to say that repuke light is all that can win in these districts.

[ShortnFiery]

29. Vote them out in their very next Democratic Primary.

Support their Democratic Challengers. No longer should being an incumbent give you a free ticket to a cushy career. :(

Vote Out Incumbents Democracy http://voidnow.org

[snowbear]

2. Look at the votes verses their LOCATIONS..

Must have everything to do with the types of constituents that vote in their areas..

[iconocrastic]

20. There's truth to that, but what to do about it?

Bus them to San Fransisco monthly for re-education? (grin)

[MikeNearMcChord]

6. Happy that my congressman Adam Smith (D-WA)

voted no. Not surprised that Ron Paul(R-TX) voted no, though he is more libertarian, I guess if Rove was not so concerned about November he would've tried to get rid of Ron Paul.

[Donna Zen]

7. Thanks for posting this:

My representative is on this list. I will of course write to him, but I will also be calling our Democratic committee to make sure he gets the message. Michaud will win his election. Although this area is fairly red, there is no reason for his vote except his personal beliefs. I guess he just hates the Magna Carta and loves torture.

[IChing]

9. you are welcomed, If you could, nominated it, so it is seen

I felt after today we need to explore
these power structures more intensely

[madfloridian]

8. The centrists have made their move this week.

That is my opinion, and I am sticking to it.

This is about having loyalties to corporations that benefit from the invasion of Iraq.

Follow me on this...don't jump all over me.

Clinton speaks out on Fox, but then he, the leader of the centrists, calls Iraq an experiment that might yet work. That is from the Meet the Press transcript Sunday.

Strategists on TV say Democrats are not good enough on national security. Centrist bloggers of the DLC are saying that. Begala and Carville do their little routine on NBC, saying "Dr. Clinton has given us a spinal transplant", when actually he was defending his legacy.

Their money chest on the centrist side is beyond being believable. They essentially have their own party. They don't really want us in it.

I am a moderate, I was raised in a pretty conservative, religious home. It was the war in Iraq that shook me to my toes.

Now torture. I don't care what they call the bill, our Democrats sold their souls today to advance the cause of torture. It is about Iraq and those who profit.

[IChing]

10. Blue dogs are not all DLC..however the remaining democrats that voted

for the bill
I have not checked their background yet
if they are affiliated to the DLC or visa-versa
I was following the Blue Dog Spin on this.

[madfloridian]

13. Most are, though

I remember doing analysis on it. My senator Bob Graham was a founder of the Blue Dogs as well as one of the orginal New Democrats.

When all this atarted there was a much better website for both, and they linked to each other.

They don't seem to do that now.

[wyldwolf]

35. How so?

21 out of 64 House New Democrat Coalition members are also Blue Dog members. Hardly qualifies as "most."

Also, I'd like to see some verification on former Senator Bob Graham being a founder of the Blue Dogs, considering the Blue Dogs were formed in the in 1994 104th Congress where Graham never served, and the Reps credited with the group's founding are Louisiana representatives Billy Tauzin and Jimmy Hayes.

[welshTerrier2]

36. this is not responsive

the statement made above was that most Blue Dog Democrats also belong to the DLC ... the only valid statistical response to refute that statement would be to show that a majority of Blue Dog Democrats are not also DLC members ...

the statement you provided, that 21 of 64 New Democrat Coalition members are also Blue Dogs is non-responsive ... based on a count of Blue Dogs listed in the OP, there are 37 Blue Dog Democrats ... if, as you indicated, 21 of the 37 are DLC members, than MF's statement is correct ... the statement made was that most Blue Dogs are also DLC; not that most DLC are also Blue Dogs ...

the facts you provided are correct but they do not refute the original statement ...

what i'd like to know is what percentage of DLC members voted for this torture abomination??

[madfloridian]

41. He served as senator from 1987 to 2005.

I can not verify that he was a founder, because I can't find the website that had his picture front and center. He was a leader of the group for sure, and that was mentioned in many articles which you can easily find yourself. Fiscally conservative, socially "moderate" is how they are most often described.

Here is his bio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham

Can I prove he was a founder? Now I can't. But I do know he was serving in 1994. I do know he was actively part of the Senate New Democrats. He was chairman of the group for a long time.

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=110&subid=111&contentid=250908

[wyldwolf]

42. It was founded in the House. Graham was a Senator

He was a leader of the group for sure, and that was mentioned in many articles which you can easily find yourself.

Umm. No. As you and I have discussed many times, if you want to prove what you're saying is true, YOU have to find the articles.

[madfloridian]

43. You were wrong about Graham..

and I am not going to do your work.

You are dying to catch me in a mistake. What's so funny is that I make mistakes all the time. But I correct them right away when I find out.

[wyldwolf]

44. It isn't my work to do. It is YOUR work...

Either prove it or you're wrong.

And if I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Kowtowing to the bastards on this issue is beyond my comprehension.

This is so far removed from the basic tenets of the Democratic Party. Has the DC atmosphere become so twisted that Dems would even mull this shit over for more than a nanosecond?

[mike_c]

12. please vote this onto the Greatest page, folks....

I cannot fully express my contempt for these traitors.

[high density]

14. So "bridging the ideological gap" means

endorsing right-wing crazy shit?!?! What are these idiots that voted for this thinking? Don't they have any sort of logic circuits up in their tiny brains? All the people on the other side of the "ideological gap" have to offer is authoritarian corporatist garbage that doesn't belong in America.

[truebrit71]

15. Fuck Melissa Bean...

How the FUCK can you call yourself a Democrat when you enable this sort of shit....

Dammit!!

:grr:

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. I suppose that David McSweeney will vote more to your liking?

:shrug:

[truebrit71]

32. Would the vote on this issue have been any different?

I don't think so.

That's my point.

She forgot she had a (D) after her name...

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. If Democrats controlled the House, this bill would probably not

be up for a vote in the first place. Keep that in mind on November 7.

[truebrit71]

34. Absolutely. Doesn't mean this vote isn't fucking terrible though....

..and worth remember ing once we take back the House and start handing out committee assignments....

[politicasista]

16. Cooper, Davis, no suprise

I don't agree with this, but I guess Ford has to get that conservative Dem vote.

[IChing]

17. The thing is he is a member of the Blue Dog Democrats

He is a win in our column and I will take that
but how much of a win without
discipline and loyalty to Democratic Party beliefs?

[burrowowl]

21. K & R!

[IChing]

23. A kick for the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions n/t

[dbt]

26. Mike Ross, you stupid son of a bitch.

You still believe bu$h was telling the truth about WMD in Iraq, don't you? In your own words, "it was hard not to believe the President when he laid it all out for us at that meeting." Jesus Breakdancing CHRIST, boy! I was hundreds of miles AWAY from Washington (with NO "access to Intelligence") and I KNEW the motherfucker was lying through his sharp, snaky fangs! HE knew he was lying, too.

But you still believe, down in your little bitty heart of hearts, that those WMDs will turn up JUST ANY MINUTE NOW, don't you! You are COMPELLED by a sense of DUTY (to whom? to WHAT?) to "stand with our President" as he makes us "safer." You go right along with anything that evil bastard wants and you REFUSE to look at where it's gotten this country!

Thanks for NOTHING, Mikeyboy! And to the REST of the Utterly Worthless Arkansas Congre$$ional Delegation, ESPECIALLY Blank Lincoln and Mark (Of The Beast) Pryor: y'all could ALL stand on one another's shoulders and you wouldn't reach up to J. William Fulbright's ankle!

I can't even tell you to go fuck yourselves, because you're all dickless.

:grr:
dbt
Remember New Orleans

[welshTerrier2]

31. Sherrod Brown voted for torture too ...

hear this message Democrats: voting to override the internationally supported Geneva Convention is a TOTAL FUCKING DISGRACE ...

and you cheerleader Democrats better start understanding that, while we all want to win and rid ourselves of the neocon nightmare, votes like these are going to end up destroying the Democratic Party ... stop blaming those who criticize these votes and start pointing out just how hideous it is to condone torture ...

Sherrod Brown, the so called solid liberal, voted for this damned bill ... has he lost his mind???

when i see Democratic votes that hand bush a "get out of jail free card" to torture anyone he wants to, the dark stain of choosing winning over morality highlights the fact that the Democratic Party refuses to spell out its values and principles to lead the nation in the right direction ... instead, the party is hiding behind a "win at any cost" approach ... you may feel all warm and fuzzy about that; i don't ... and i won't ...

we all want to "win"; some of us care about exactly what it is we are winning ... voting for torture is immoral ... it is a vote for Hitlerian inhumanity ... if good old Adolf had been a Democrat, you'd probably say we should hold our nose and vote for him too ...

the fault, dear friends, is not with those who criticize this inhumane outrage; it is with those who voted for it ...

here's an editorial on Brown's unfortunate vote: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_frank_j__060928_sherrod_brown_of_ohi.htm

[xxqqqzme]

37. if you call yourself a Democrat - I don't care

which adjective is used moderste conservative - IF you call yourself a Democrat, you had NO business voting in favor of the last shredding of the OUR Constitution. Those named are no democrats.

[Moochy]

40. Blue Dog Curs

They are wolves amongst the sheep. These jackasses need to explain themselves. I want one apologist to cite polls that show majorities in their districts support the retroactive legalization of torture.

I am guessing that these BLUE DOG CURS most likely were given a barrel of pork pones to fight over. Digraceful sons of bitches.

[xxqqqzme]

39. so ford approves of torture

that's just great - another senator (maybe) w/ a 'D' voting w/ the rethugs.

[AtomicKitten]

45. Specter's vote on habeus corpus was just defeated

breaking ...

[paulk]

46. This is "gotcha" legislation

Republicans pull this stunt every election cycle. This law is going to be challenged in court where it will be found, once again, unconstitutional.

The Democrats voting for this are, for the most part, from conservative leaning districts. This would have passed anyway - what's the point of jeopardizing a potential Democratic majority over something that you can't stop anyway? Legislation like this would not have come out of a Democratically controlled Congress.

[madfloridian]

47. No more "red state" arguments for wrongheaded votes.

We need to stop that. I can excuse a few now and then, but not things like this.

[paulk]

48. the "red states" argument reflects political reality

This legislation would not have come out of a Democratically controlled Congress. And we need those red states votes to achieve that. That's the important point.

In fact, it's the only point...

[madfloridian]

49. So we vote for torture now so we won't have to do it later...

sounds like that kind of argument.

[paulk]

50. why don't you respond to what I wrote?

I just wrote - IF WE HAD A DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED CONGRESS, THIS LEGISLATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED.






This legislation, especially with the writ of habeas corpus stripped out, violates one of the basic tenets of our law... it's not going to pass judicial review... and when it comes back to the Congress... "later"... hopefully we'll have control of that Congress and will be in a position to set the bill right.


------------------

I'm willing to accept these votes, on legislation that is essentially meaningless, at least in terms of the Democrat's hope of defeating it, now, if it means gaining control of Congress in November.


And gaining control of Congress is the FIRST thing that needs to happen.

[Snivi Yllom]

53. this was not a gray issue

it was black and white