"Blue Dogs are diapered infants who have to be the center of attention."

[kpete]

The Blue Dogs don't want a solution and they never did. They want to stop President Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership from achieving the greatest legislative success since the New Deal. Because such a success would eliminate all the Blue Dogs' power.

Blue Dogs, you see, are not Democrats. They are repugs, pretending to be dems in order to play little "centrist" games that so entertain the Beltway Villagers. Blue Dogs are diapered infants who have to be the center of attention. They don't care about party loyalty; they don't care about their constituents, they don't care about policy, they sure as hell don't care about deficits (every single one of them voted orgasmically for Smirky's trillion-dolllar tax cuts and trillion-dollar war "supplementals" that exploded the deficit.)

Blue Dogs are political sociopaths: utterly amoral users with no empathy, no conscience, no remorse.

................

And after every betrayal of Democratic Party principles, every treasonous vote to wage illegal war and commit war crimes and destroy the military and eliminate the middle class and shred the Constitution and campaign for repug candidates, Democratic Party "leaders" always forgave them and rewarded them and welcomed the next shiv in the back.


more:
http://theygaveusarepublic.com/diary/3196/blue-dogs-get-smacked-down

[imdjh]

1. Are all the blue dogs from small delegation states?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. no FLA CA and NY have members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

[Lerkfish]

2. are you certain...

they are diapered?

:)

[Warren Stupidity]

6. that depends

:-)

[Cassandra]

8. They crap all over everything...

so probably not.

[kentuck]

3. Did all of them vote for Bush tax cuts??

I thought about that and wondered how much they were worried about deficits when they voted for $1.35 trillion tax cut with no way to pay for it?? They are hypocrites.

[tekisui]

4. Purge the mutts!

[spanone]

7. they are calculating politicians hell-bent on destroying Obama's policies

[aikoaiko]

9. Or maybe they are merely representing their constituents.

:shrug:

[Zodiak]

10. Over 70% of the American public is for the legislation

With numbers like that, favorable opinions stretch to red districts, too.

This is an old, tired excuse that is not supported by the poll numbers, and never has.

When people vote for Democrats, they expect Democrats.

The Blue Dogs did not run on bush's tax cuts and drunken sailor spending. They did not run on the war. They did not run on obstructing Obama's initiatives. But that is how they vote.

Pork, apathy, and corruption keep these assholes in office.

[Doremus]

11. +1 nt

[aikoaiko]

14. Pork, apathy, and corruption? You really have no respect for voters.

I think you're wrong about "When people vote for Democrats, they expect Democrats".

Some people are elected to deviate, in part or in specific ways, from their party. Some of them did run on Bush's war, some of them did run on upping military spending, some of them did run on being more conservative than Obama which made it easier for some to vote for Obama.

Really, what needs to take place is coalition building and horse-trading as if we were a more-than-two-party system.

[mmonk]

18. Only if they view their election as constituents wanting

to further Republican ideology intead of changing parties for something different (which is highly unlikely since their opposition was Republican).

[aikoaiko]

20. Its more complicated than that.

There are a lot of voters who were unhappy with the Republican party, but didn't want west coast or northeast style Democrats.

[mmonk]

22. The last election was a change election.

Therefore, that theory is less likely.

[aikoaiko]

23. Yes, and people did switch from voting R to D, but that doesn't mean all areas wanted big change.

Some just didn't want to continue Bushco doctrine with McCain. ]

Again, I hope the President and Congressional leadership use negotiation and coalition building instead of sticks to get the Blue Dogs on board.

[mmonk]

25. Well I can tell you Kay Hagan has been catching hell

from constituents by trying to hold up the public option in NC.

[aikoaiko]

27. And that's who she should answer, too.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. By 'constituents' you do, of course, mean 'corporations'. nt

[aikoaiko]

26. sigh....

no. I didn't mean corporations.

[RagAss]

12. The only "infants" are those of us who thought Healthcare had a chance.

You can't fight money with hope.

[BlueIdaho]

13. Fed up with the blue dogs?

Tell Them

Contact the Blue Dogs:

Kristen Hawn

Communications Director

[e-mail]

[dgibby]

15. My take on the Blue Dogs and their friends:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6142384&mesg_id=6142384

[Kingofalldems]

16. What about the blue dogs on DU?

Shouldn't they be told to find a republican site to post on?

[Tim01]

17. Blue dogs should give their seats to republicans. nt

[Shagbark Hickory]

19. Calling them "diapered infants" is putting it nicely. I'd use different words.

[Yo_Mama]

21. Well, I'm One Of 'Em

I read the bill - all 1018 pages. I looked up most the references.

Do you know that I have millions in assets, and that for most of the last decade this bill would have, to some degree, caused the public to be paying for part of my health care and insurance?

There are huge holes in this bill. It really needs much, much more work.

There are also provisions in it which I really don't like that cause me to suspect that they want to gut Medicare, which I do not support.

Sorry, but in my view the Blue Dogs are right.