Go ahead. Try it.

[cali]

Try running someone like Pat Leahy in NE against Ben Nelson. And say he wins. What do you think you get in the general? You get someone even more conservative who's a Republican. Same goes for Indiana and Bayh.

One can genuinely debate whether the Bayhs or Nelsons are of any benefit in passing decent legislation, but one can't reasonably deny that their replacements would be republicans and even worse.

Where you can elect a progressive, do it, but not all the pixie dust in the world is going to get you a progressive in some districts.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Then, just perhaps our democratic tent is too damn large to hold our traditional

principle of supporting Working-Class Constituents before the Mega-Corporations?

For the life of me, I do not understand corporate Blue Dog/DLC democrats.

Back in the 1970s these men/women would proudly label themselves *moderate republicans.*

Just perhaps - we are stretching our party's LIMITS?

[cali]

2. that's pretty much a non-answer.

It's also incorrect to say that the blue dogs would have been republicans 40 years ago. There were were blue dogs equally conservative in the party back then. This isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

[ShortnFiery]

11. I remember more moderate republicans with such beliefs.

That's cool. *The Answer* would be to wait until "the people" in these rural areas figure out that neither the blue dogs nor the GOP gives a damn about them or their family members and start voting for THEIR economic best interests instead of supporting the greedy corporatists. That will be a long wait, but it will happen some day.

I'm far from a purist but if Ben Nelson or Evan Bayh left our party, I would not shed many tears. :shrug:

[Tesha]

4. It's simple: the Blue Dogs are trying to help advance the conservative agenda.

And they're being very successful at it (much to our detriment).

Tesha

[Toucano]

20. They're lining their pockets. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

23. yep. it's a farce, but not funny.

[existentialist]

8. We may be stretching our party's limits.

That's not all bad. If the Republicans self destruct as some of us see them as potentially doing within their ongoing "struggle for the soul of the Republican Party," and if we could beat them soundly at the polls in 2010 taking additional Democratic seats in both houses of Congress, and if the same bitterness mutual recrimination and cluelessness continues to dominate in the Republican party thereafter, and if we don't make the same mistakes, then there will be a legitimate reason for the party to divide naturally into progressive and conservative elements, with the conservative branch taking over the place presently taken by the Republicans.

This would be good. The extreme right wind would be discredited to the point of inconsequentiality.

Those that we argued with would at least be merely right of center inside of extreme wing nut, and it would again be possible to practice the art of the possible in politics,and to do so toward mutually beneficial ends.

But fighting amongst ourselves at this point would be making the same mistake as the Republicans.

I am certainly not happy with my own Blue Dog Congress-critter at the moment, and I would vote against her if there were a credible Democratic opponent such as Ned Lamont was against Lieberman in Connecticut.

There is no credible Democratic opponent at this time, and although I don't like it, and don't like the fact that she seems to have my vote triangulated, I expect that I will end up voting for her as against (some wing nut) Republican in 2010, and I expect that she will win, and she will be better than the wing nut Republican that will run against her.

Let's not make the same mistake that the Republicans are making.

[Tesha]

3. You do understand the damage that the Blue Dogs do to the Democratic "brand", though?

One reason why people can no longer see a clear difference between
Democrats and Republicans is that for many Democrats (such as the
Blue Dogs) there *ISN'T* any practical difference.

And that has essentially destroyed the Democratic brand.

Tesha

[cali]

7. I do. It's a conumdrum. I'm not saying I have any answers

I am saying that there are districts and states where that's all you're going to get. Either a blue dog or a repuke.

[FLDCVADem]

14. Exactly

And well said.

[DJ13]

5. Republican or Blue Dog makes little difference on the most important issues

At least you KNOW what kind of sleazeball corporate blood sucker you'll get with a Republican, but the Blue Dogs many times campaign as middle of the road then turn around and block the same legislation the Republicans do once they no longer need the voter support.

They're not even socially moderate in most cases, they're just Republicans who abuse the Democratic party for campaign support then turn their backs on the party's most important principles.

Screw them.

[Captain Hilts]

10. The numbers ARE important - for committee chairmanships, etc. It counts. nt

[DJ13]

12. Commitees chaired by Blue Dogs?

[ShortnFiery]

13. No, the large counts in both parties only support corporatism and predatory capitalism

I'm sick of sacrificing every damn thing for "party loyalty." The RESULTANT legislations are VERY SIMILAR. :thumbsdown:

[Fire1]

21. Ditto. n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

6. In our two party system, a big tent is the best route to a majority.

The problem, of course, is it makes it difficult to do anything that crosses the center left or center right position. Other than passing tax cuts, Republicans did not enact their culture war legislation. Democrats will find it painfully difficult to move far from the center. That is why health-care is having so much difficulty.

Personally, this is why I think a health-care plan with even a microscopic public option is the best we will get. Once enacted, it will get better over time. This is how it was done in other progressive laws.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not include sex until Title IX in 1972. Only with the enactment of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 were special needs children given equal rights. Those were by no means the only changes to that venerable piece of legislation.

Progressive policies are an evolutionary process not a revolutionary change.

The only way to change this would be expand the number of viable parties in the US. However, the existing big two have created a set of laws that makes it almost impossible for a third or fourth party to elect anyone to national office.

[Toucano]

19. What good is this majority, I ask you?

I suspect this Democratic majority might even have authorized the invasion of Iraq.

I'm disgusted by them.

[Ozymanithrax]

24. It takes a majority to legislate and govern.

Without a majority, all we can do is sit around a bitch about how bad the ruling party is.

If you are content to sit and complain, or content with whatever legislation the Repubicans put through, then a majority doesn't matter.

But a majority doesn't get us everything. Here in the US, we move with small incremental steps.

[Toucano]

26. Bullshit.

Sorry. Bush did most definitely not move in "small incremental steps". He changed the face of government virtually overnight.

This majority of Democrats is incapable of realizing the needed changes.

The real world is different than your civics textbook, thank you very much.

[Le Taz Hot]

27. Well, while the corporate Democrats

are building that "big tent" and inviting in fundamentalist Christians, homophobes, misogynists and right-wing Blue Dogs, you're losing your BASE in the process.

The corporate whore health care plan is nothing but a giveaway to big pharma and the insurance companies AND 51% of the nation's population just got thrown under the bus in the process.

Your reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and tying it in with the Title IX of 1972 shows that you're getting your information from books and not from experience. The WOMEN'S MOVEMENT is what drove the Title IX legislation and the reason it passed was because, in 1972, we had REAL Democrats and the reich-wing Republicans were still considered "fringe." It was Reagan who brought in the fundamentalist and both Clinton and President Change continue to court them. Back then, we had a REAL SC -- Roe v. Wade. Nixon v. U.S. NONE of those exist now so, no, I don't trust these homophobic misogynist bigots to pass ANYTHING even remotely close to populist legislation on anything. They haven't so far and there's NOTHING indicating a change of direction in the future.

"Progressive policies are an evolutionary process not a revolutionary change." Really? I got news for ya, hon. The 1960's and 1970's WERE revolutionary change. We just managed to do it without bullets but then again, we still had a democracy back then. That no longer exists.

[onehandle]

9. No! We must be the teabaggers of the Democratic Party.

The GOP would funnel us money in a New York Minute.

[HughMoran]

15. Apparently the truth hurts

Why can't people accept the simple math involved in some of these areas? Mind you, I despise some of these Democrats worse than some more moderate Republicans, but giving up a "maybe" vote to the Party of 100% NO is to cut off one's nose to spite thy face.

[Junkdrawer]

16. Because the only way to beat 'em is to join 'em.

Great.

[Luminous Animal]

17. You build a party from dogcatcher on up.

You don't start with the senate. You start with local politics by seeking out good communicators and an ability to get things done. The best of the best you move on to the statehouse, then to congress. It is a long term strategy which the Republicans recognized 40 some odd years ago.

Teabaggers didn't pop out of the head of Tom Delay. They're leaders have been nurtured for years at the least level of electoral government.

So, you have a choice, throw up your hands and let clearly un-Democratic democrats stay in office year after year, decade after decade, or get involved with local Democrats to mentor future solid Democrats that will represent the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

[Toucano]

18. If they're Republicans, let them run as Republicans.

I can absolutely deny that their replacements, as Republicans, would be even worse.

They could be the same.

Or like Chaffee or Snowe, they could be better.


Don't put a D behind your name and act all R. I don't care where you're from.

[Odin2005]

22. I'm fine with actual moderates in those seats, But I don't want conservatives calling themselves...

"Moderate Democrats".

[tekisui]

25. My problem is the Democrats are unwilling to EXPLOIT the blue mutts.

The mutts and conservadems should be owned. The Democratic leadership should be busting their kneecaps if they even start to get out of line. The Dems should OWN them. If they aren;t wiling to play ball, everything should be threatened and then stripped.

The Dems welcomed the mutts in to gain the majority and control of the agenda, but have given way too much to the mutts, with getting way too little in return. It should be a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one. If the mutts like their jobs, they should be forced to get in line. We can throw small, symbolic conservative crumbs to the districts that elected them, but keep them in line on the big stuff.