Blue Dog Democrats, Staunch Bush Allies

[babylonsister]

Blue Dog Democrats, Staunch Bush Allies
By Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 10 August 2007

A tightly-knit group of self-styled moderate and conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives known as the Blue Dog Coalition supported controversial legislation granting the Bush administration expanded powers to spy on Americans. The group was instrumental in passing legislation that was opposed by a vast majority of Democrats.

According to their web site, the coalition named themselves Blue Dogs because "their moderate-to-conservative-views had been 'choked blue' by their party in the years leading up to the 1994 election." They have had some success taking seats from Republican incumbents. According to their web site, 24 Blue Dogs won elections against Republican incumbents since 1996.

The Blue Dogs pride themselves on being a fiscally conservative group intent on balancing the national budget and paying down the almost $9 trillion national debt. Tim Mahoney, who became the Representative for the 16th district of Florida after disgraced Republican Mark Foley dropped out of the 2006 election, recently became a member of the Blue Dogs. When he joined up, Mahoney described the coalition as a select group with an agenda. "We're hawks on national defense, we're pro-business, especially small business, and we believe in balancing the budget," Mahoney said. According to Mahoney, he faced a thorough vetting process before being accepted into the group. "You have to be interviewed and accepted by the group. You have to be able to demonstrate that you're ideologically supportive of being fiscally conservative. You show them speeches and statements you've made in the past," Mahoney told the Charlotte Sun, a local paper from his district.

The Blue Dogs have apparently informed the Democratic leadership in the House that they support the ongoing occupation of Iraq. According to Mahoney, he met with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and told her "The president should be free to maintain troops in Iraq, if the purpose is to thwart terrorism."

Mahoney's description of the Blue Dog's hawkish stance is not officially part of their platform, according to their spokesperson and their web site. The group does not issue press releases on national defense votes, although they have played an instrumental role in passing controversial bills that have been framed by the Bush administration as legislation intended to prevent terrorism.

The Blue Dogs have provided key votes on controversial bills backed by the Bush administration. In September of 2006, 31 Democratic representatives voted with the Republican majority in the House to pass The Military Commissions Act. The controversial act empowered Bush to designate individuals as "enemy combatants," and deny them certain legal rights. Twenty-three of the Democrats who supported the bill were Blue Dogs. At 10:20 PM on Saturday, August 4, 2007, with the help of 31 Blue Dogs, the House Republicans passed the Protect America Act, a bill that altered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and weakened safeguards against domestic warrantless wiretapping. The bill, a replica of a proposal by the Bush administration, passed with a 44 vote margin, with 227 Yeas and 183 Nays. Despite comprising 76 percent of the Democratic support for the bill, communications director for the Blue Dogs, Kristen Hawn, said that the Blue Dog Coalition took no official position on the bill.

Despite the fracture among Democrats, Pelosi allowed the Republican bill to come to the floor for a vote. After it passed, she went on record saying that the bill "does violence to the Constitution of the United States."

more...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081007J.shtml

[redqueen]

1. WOW! 24 seats in 11 years!

Thats, like... more than two every year!

:bounce:

:eyes:

[babylonsister]

3. If they can block legislation, they're dangerous. nt

[rodeodance]

6. seems not to be an "IF" anymore

[redqueen]

11. It surely is not. It's demonstrated fact, now.

I wonder if anyone's still rationalizing that FISA bill.

[redqueen]

10. Oh I recognize they're dangerous.

I don't see how anyone could still manage to not notice that.

We've had far too much triangulation... even this war of choice based on lies isn't too much for those... people.

I'm just mocking their 'success'. *ptui*

[Taverner]

2. How do we eliminate them?

Splitting the vote and getting a Repub in if we have to...

[rodeodance]

7. seems we are to happy to anyone with a D after their name.

[Exiled in America]

22. You stop voting for them and accept the short term consequences for long term benefit.

Short term = republicans may take the seat, even possibly congress.
Long term = a return to a true opposition party with principled representatives that we can trust and be proud of. In the end, THEY win over lying, manipulative, self-absorbed, vicious republican elitists. If people could once again see the CLEAR distinctions between the parties, there would be significant change.

In order to do that, we may need to accept some tough years while we get this party back on track by REFUSING to vote for assholes, accepting the short term risks/costs.

[Seabiscuit]

4. Is there any difference between "Blue Dogs" and "DLC"?

If so, is there a lot of overlapping?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. Blue Dogs is a group...

within Congress, the DLC is an external "think tank" and policy group. Ideologically they are just about one and the same.

[Individualist]

12. Same philosophy, different name

There are enough blue dogs and DLC members, along with those influenced by DLC, in congress to set the agenda - and that's what has been happening.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Yes, they are different

Blue Dogs tend to be more socially conservative on issues like gun control, abortion, and gay rights. The Blue Dogs are more likely to be economically populist, opposing free trade.

[Seabiscuit]

23. So we have a two-headed monster in the party in the House excreting similar crap

[leftchick]

20. no difference

the blue dogs from the class of 2006 were personally picked by DLC dick Rahm himself. I am sure he is readying a bumper crop for 2008.

[rodeodance]

5. "The president should be free to maintain troops in Iraq, if the purpose is to thwart terrorism.

[redqueen]

13. Madness!

Your purpose could be to crap golden rainbows... but REALITY is that our presence is making terrorism worse... they can't be that stupid. I smell filthy, lying rats.

[quiet.american]

24. What you said. n/t

[atreides1]

8. To make things clearer

The Blue Dogs are pro-business(even at the expense of workers), pro-war(don't seem to have a problem with troops dying for a lie), fiscally conservative(but love spending money on war), and finally they are pro-facist.

It would seem that the only thing they are not is pro-US Constitution!!!!!

So should we put more of these types of Democrats into the Congress so that we can get that veto proof majority????

[VP505]

14. Well is this just ducky?

"According to Mahoney, he faced a thorough vetting process before being accepted into the group. "You have to be interviewed and accepted by the group. You have to be able to demonstrate that you're ideologically supportive of being fiscally conservative." So who the hell anointed "the group" to be representing the Democratic party? How about being accepted by "we the people" and demonstrating how "ideologically supportive" they are of "DEMOCRATIC" party members?

[Bitwit1234]

15. In other words a 'REPUBLICAN INFILTRATON' into the democratic party.

[onenote]

29. so repubs oppose drilling ANWR and support a woman's right to choose?

Who knew. Folks really should study the voting records of the Blue Dogs before they embarass themselves. A Blue DOg like Melissa Bean casts plenty of votes with which I disagree, but its pure ignorance to suggest that she is really a repub. She is solid on the environment (opposed ANWR, voted for clean air/clean water acts), solid on choice (100 percent from NARAL), supports stem cell research, and voted for the bill to set a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq (the bill chimpy vetoed). Find me a repub, any repub, who has taken those positions.

[OzarkDem]

33. Its not about issues

Its about the way Blue Dogs are being dishonest in their triangulation against the Democratic Party. They're making the same false accusations against their fellow Democrats that the GOP uses. Its tactics not issues that are causing Blue Dog Dems to appear as a destructive force within the party.

[Coexist]

16. Yes, lets all move to the "center" like them.

Ugh.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. A truthout article? Will it be accurate in 24 business hours?

:shrug:

[onenote]

26. nope

[redqueen]

27. Nice dig, but meaningless.

Yeah, it's been accurate since this bullshit started. Conservative dems = cancer on the party.

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. So, it is to be believed as long as it enforces your point of view?

:shrug:

[leftchick]

19. Rahm Emmanuel has personally recruited most of the 2006 BDs

<snip>

Which would certainly be good advice if this were in fact "capitulation" to the weakest president in history and a classic example of Democratic cowardice. It's capitulation and cowardice, alright, but not to Bush.

To its own right-wing Democratic Leadership Council.

The DLC has a backstage bullwhip named Rahm Emanuel, and Rahm likes to win. But even more than he likes to win, he likes collecting money - campaign money from corporate contributors, many of which feature long-term membership in the upper echelons of the MIC (military-industrial complex) as integral elements in their portfolios, and/or a right-wing support for the war. Rahm is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, fundraisers in the Democratic party (it's the source of his power) and a major behind-the-scenes playa in the DLC leadership.

For the past week, probably longer, Emanuel has been button-holing benchmark supporters and haranguing them with every argument he can think of to bolster the "compromise" on the Iraq supplemental. I don't know what the arguments were but it isn't hard to guess:

http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com/

[OzarkDem]

34. Wouldn't it be great if Rahm used his skills and energy against the GOP

instead of causing division and infighting within his own party? It makes one wonder where Rahm's loyalties really lie, with Dems or the GOP.

[Exiled in America]

21. This is very, very important to remember - and I take myself to task on this point:

I have been so angry at congressional inaction that my criticisms have not been very precise.

I am angry at two groups in Congress. I am angry at the democratic leadership (some may disagree with me about that and I respect that.) I feel that they have been too accommodating and caved too many times. Their reversal the first time money for the Iraq war came up is one place - I don't care what strategic theories other people may suggest. Their willingness to work with the Administration on the expansion of surveillance programs is another place. There is no excuse for that.

I would like to see new leadership, and I would democratic citizens to continue to express their dissatisfaction with appeasing leadership.

The second group are Blue Dog democrats in the House and democrats that fit the same label and ideology in the Senate. I have been so upset that I've painted with a very broad brush. But it IS true that numerous Democrats voted against the spy bill, and the reason it passed is because of Blue Dog Democrats. I should do a better job of targeting my frustration.

However, I believe something that it doesn't seem many other people believe. If I was in a district where a Blue Dog Democrat was running for re-election, I would vote for a Republican, or I would vote for an Independent, or I wouldn't vote. I would - under no circumstances - vote for a Blue Dog Democrat. I would accept the consequence that a Republican might get elected in that seat, and I would accept the consequence that this might even affect control of congress.

The reason why is this: I believe it is more important to deliver a no-negotiation message to the Democratic Party, that Blue Dog Democrats aka. REPUBLICANS cannot get elected in the Democratic Party. Period. Sometimes the only thing that forces a party to get the message is losing, and losing because their own party base abandoned their candidate. Sometimes I believe it is more important in the LONG RUN to say a resounding "NO!" when choices like this are the only choices presented to the people in the party.

It doesn't matter if they have a "D" after their name when the vote and act like Republicans when it comes to the most critical issues we are dealing with today. Blue Dog Democrats are the reason why nothing is getting done. They are every bit as much my political enemy (note I said political) as any republican.

[bonito]

28. You nailed it, imo.

:thumbsup:

[onenote]

25. Truthout's motto: we distort because we can

Truthout takes statements from Mahoney's interview with the Charlotte Sun out of context and reaches the following conclusion: "The Blue Dogs have apparently informed the Democratic leadership in the House that they support the ongoing occupation of Iraq."

Now, I will let folks make their own decision about what Mahoney's position is -- here' a link to the Charlotte Sun article: http://www.sun-herald.com/Newsstory.cfm?pubdate=030907&story=tp4ch9.htm&folder=NewsArchive2

But just as importantly, one might want to consider the following: The House voted 218-212 to set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops -- the bill that chimpy vetoed. How many of the 48 "Blue Dogs" supported that bill? 41 out of 48 (exactly 2 repubs supported it). Among the Blue Dogs that supported setting a timetable? Tim Mahoney.

So, I'd take Truthout's reporting on this with a grain of salt.

[ProSense]

It says the same thing:

"We're now in a police action in Iraq," he said. "It's weakened our ability to wage the war on terror."

The president should be free to maintain troops in Iraq, if the purpose is to thwart terrorism. Meanwhile, the U.S. military needs to beef up its capability to fight terrorists elsewhere, including Afghanistan, he said.

<...>

"We're hawks on national defense, we're pro-business, especially small business, and we believe in balancing the budget," Mahoney said.

[OzarkDem]

32. Blue Dog hypocrisy on "fiscal conservativism"

They preach "pay-go" while agreeing to give Bush carte blanche on wasting trillions in Iraq.

They also promote a false dichotomy with other Democrats by promoting the idea that regular Dems in Congress don't want a balanced budget. That can't be interpreted any other way than as an attack on fellow Dems and an attempt to distort the truth about their policy priorities.

Blue Dogs aren't just siding with Republicans, they appear to be trying to harm the Democratic Party. I don't have much use for those kinds of "Democrats".

[OzarkDem]

31. Blue Dogs and the Darwin effect

The Iraq war is very unpopular, even in conservative areas, and will become even more so as the economy founders, debt rises and talk of re-instating the draft continues.

Blue Dogs are at risk of losing their own seats by ignoring the change in pubic opinion.