FORGET the DLC. The real problem is the "BLUE DOG" DEMs

[yodermon]

First I'd heard of them. But then again I'm a political noob.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/28/122920/723

In the second part of this series, I examined the voting records of the thirty-nine members of the House of Representatives who are also members of the DLC. I concluded that the DLC receives far too much share of the blame for the lack of loyalty within the Democratic caucus. Overally, DLC loyalty was close to non-DLC Democratic loyalty, and DLC members exhibited no clear voting pattern whatsoever.

However, the above passage from Roll Call, via Escahton, made me curious about another group of Democrats, the Blue Dogs. I did a quick Google search and found a list of their thirty-five members in the 109th Congress. I then added up the number of times they defected from the Democratic majority in the 109th Congress when the Democratic majority was different from the Republican majority on an actual piece of legislation. The results were staggering.

Out of the nine votes (the child interstate notification abortion act has since been added to the original eight) and the one proxy vote (I have also added Social Security to the totals via the Fainthearted Faction and Conscience Caucus collected by TPM) here are the current levels of party loyalty among different groups in the House:

* All Democrats: 82.5%
* All Republicans: 96.1%
* DLC: 79.0%
* Democrats, non-DLC: 83.3%
* Blue Dog Democrats: 54.3%
* Non-Blue Dog Democrats: 88.3%

Bingo. Caucus disunity has a name-o. Outside of the Blue Dogs, Democratic Party loyalty on the important, party differentiating votes in the House is comparable to Republicans: 88.3% to 96.1%. Further, Blue Dog Party loyalty, 54.3%, is massively lower than that found either in the DLC, 79.0%, or among non-Blue Dog Democrats, 88.3%. Overall, the thirty-five members of the Blue Dog coalition account for 44.9% of all Democratic Party defections over these ten votes / issues, even though they only make up 17.2% of the caucus.

Wiki entry, with current membership: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

[Skidmore]

1. First of all, what is a Blue Dog Dem, and secondly,

who are we talking about in Congress is such a critter?

[yodermon]

6. from the wiki link

Differences between the Blue Dogs and the Democratic Leadership Council

Blue Dog Democrats tend to differ ideologically from another coalition of moderate Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The DLC describes itself as new Democrat and positions itself as centrist while taking moderate positions on social issues and conservative positions on economic issues and trade. Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs, on the other hand, tend to be social conservatives, but have differing positions on economic issues ranging from fiscal conservatism to economic populism. For example, most Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, many have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups, which cannot be said for most members of the DLC. On economic issues, Blue Dogs span the spectrum from fiscal conservatives to supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures, while the DLC tends to favor free trade.

A small number of newer Blue Dogs, however, hold positions closer to those of the DLC, and some Blue Dog Coalition members are also DLC members. Blue Dogs share with the DLC a desire to keep the Democratic Party grounded in their view of the political center, and to ensure that the party does not drift too far to the left of their own positions and no longer appeal to what they believe to be the majority of U.S. voters.

List of Blue Dog Coalition members

* Joe Baca (California)
* John Barrow (Georgia)
* Melissa Bean (Illinois)
* Marion Berry (Arkansas)
* Sanford Bishop (Georgia)
* Dan Boren (Oklahoma)
* Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
* Allen Boyd (Florida)
* Dennis Cardoza (California)
* Ed Case (Hawaii)
* Ben Chandler (Kentucky)
* Jim Cooper (Tennessee)
* Jim Costa (California)
* Bud Cramer (Alabama)
* Lincoln Davis (Tennessee)
* Harold Ford, Jr. (Tennessee)
* Jane Harman (California)
* Stephanie Herseth (South Dakota)
* Tim Holden (Pennsylvania)
* Steve Israel (New York)
* Jim Marshall (Georgia)
* Jim Matheson (Utah)
* Mike McIntyre (North Carolina)
* Charlie Melancon (Louisiana)
* Mike Michaud (Maine)
* Dennis Moore (Kansas)
* Collin Peterson (Minnesota)
* Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota)
* Mike Ross (Arkansas)
* John Salazar (Colorado)
* Loretta Sanchez (California)
* Adam Schiff (California)
* David Scott (Georgia)
* John Tanner (Tennessee)
* Ellen Tauscher (California)
* Gene Taylor (Mississippi)
* Mike Thompson (California)

Former members of Congress who were prominent Blue Dog Coalition members include Brad Carson (OK), Gary Condit (CA), Baron Hill (IN), David Minge (MN), Max Sandlin (TX), Charlie Stenholm (TX), and Jim Turner (TX)

Their site: http://www.house.gov/cardoza/BlueDogs/bluedogs.shtml

[Mojambo]

13. I'm very socially liberal

But I'd rather have the Blue Dogs than the DLC in the party.

[The Magistrate]

2. An Excellent Point, Sir

In the old days, such were refered to as "Boll Weevils".

One difficulty in dealing with them, though, is the largely regional character of that caucus. Most are from places where it is not easy to run and win on a more progressive platform.

[bananas]

5. Yes, they are both the problem and the solution. nt

[AtomicKitten]

10. a dead-on accurate assessment

[xchrom]

12. well -- some of that has to do with fashion.

dems didn't ever deal with a strategy or language to deal with the pasting that republicans gave them -- it starts with the whole nixon viet nam war thing.

reagan intensified the problem and newt capitalized more and rove has made a grand living from it.

this just exemplifies the mistake dems have made of running away from ''liberal''/''progressive''.

[skipos]

3. Ah c'mon! Can't we blame the DLC anyway?!?

nt

[SteppingRazor]

4. Depends on the issue, I think...

Blue Dog Democrats are socially conservative, but differ on economic issues

DLC is economically conservative, but differs on social issues.

You can turn either one into a monster if you try hard enough

[Alcibiades]

7. Actually, the real problem is the Republicans

Disloyalty is less of a problem when your party is in the minority.

What was done to Clinton by Congressional Democrats in the first two years of his term, however, was shameful, and it cost our party the Congress. Let's hope we learn from that!

[hfojvt]

8. sad to see Herseth on the list

but I think I like blue dogs better than DLC - DLC has sold out to corporations and rich people - they are economic conservatives. Blue Dogs, are, like myself, more socially conservative. However, unless Blue Dogs are in the Senate or running for President or showing up all over TV, then it is not a huge issue now. House votes are not gonna matter until we take over the House. Until then we lose with even 100% of Democrats voting together (and most of the things I have cared about enough to check have fallen along party lines).

Blue dogs are not on TV trying to take over the Democratic party, but they are trying to stick together so they do not feel so alone or unwelcome in the big tent as they either a) vote their consciences, or b) vote in ways that will please more of their constituents who are very socially conservative. I like to see Democratic disunity - it means we are free to disagree about many things even if we agree on the essentials. It is disgusting to me that Republicans vote as a monolithic block - to me that often means that individual Republicans are voting for things they feel are bad for their country or bad for their district, but they do it anyway to further their career (or in the case of medicare prescriptions, their son's career)

[iconoclastNYC]

9. Problem with scorecards: you can cherry pick the votes to

Come up with any outcome you want.

The reason the DLC gets such harsh treatement is that they take seven or so million a year from a secret roster of fortune 500 companies and right-wing thinktanks and use it to push our party to the right.

It's an institution. As far as I know the Blue Dogs are just a loose coalition.

We must fight conservatism in all forms. In the Republican party, in the boardrooms, and in our party: The Bluedogs, the DLC, and the latest flavor : Hamiltonian Democrats.

[porphyrian]

11. Fuck forgetting anyone who hurts the party.

Do your job or be held responsible, period.

[Odin2005]

14. Blue Dogs have thier uses.

In certain districts they are the only Dems who have a chance in hell of winning, at least untill we can make social issies less of a issue in rural and exurban areas. My district is a good example, if it wasn't for Collin Peterson being the incumbent my district (which is quite socially conservative) the people here would elect a Puke. Too many DUers who live in the inner city or suburbia don't really understand the power of social conservatism in rural areas (I grew up in rural Minnesota, near Fargo). The fact that many urban Dems think us rural people are all knuckle-dragging degenerates doesn't help, either.