"I don't want to be called a liberal, because I'm not Liberal"......

[Historic NY]

Hold onto your tin foil folks...Murtha's not even in the ground and the wood work is yeilding a lot more than dust. My local NY paper this morning ran an article about how it would be big medicine for the Republicans to knock off the formerly Democrat seat held by John Murtha. They interviewed a local women age 69 who said she was a Democrat but was considering switching to Republican because, because..... "I don't want to be called a liberal, because I'm not Liberal".
Our Murdoch controlled paper only had a snippet so I search for the real article.

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/all-a12_murthaseat.7173368feb10,0,6269620.story

[Richardo]

1. The perfect illustration of 1) why there's such a thing as Blue Dog dems, and 2)

...why you can't just run them out in favor of your progressively-pure ideologues, as many blue-state DUers keep frothing about.

In PA-12, your choice is now Blue Dog Dem or Republican. That's all.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. It's not just blue-state DUers -

I, for one, would rather have a republican in office than a blue dog, because I can FIGHT the republican, whereas I would have to support the blue dog for the SAME FUCKING POLICIES.

I'd rather have to deal with an enemy than a traitorous friend.

[lonestarnot]

3. Oh now there's a winning approach.

:rofl:

[Richardo]

4. Your preference, obviously

I'd rather have enough Dems in Congress to maintain the majority.

[lonestarnot]

5. I'd rather too. Dems not pugs dressed up as dems.

[Richardo]

6. How will that work in PA-12 for example?

Run anyone to the left of Murtha, you get Rick Santorum Jr. (R-PA)

It's conservaDem or GOP - pick one.

[lonestarnot]

11. No.

I will not pick one, if that is really the picture there, as I am not familiar with PA-12 folks. The picture I will look at is the one that has a focus on combating failure of representative government by way of the blue stranglers' obstructionist tyranny.

[Richardo]

20. I understand all those words, just not in that order.

You don't have to pick one. However, run a Charles Rangel or a Sheila Jackson Lee or a Dennis Kucinich in that district and it goes GOP by a landslide.

[Bunny]

17. I live in PA -12 and everything you are saying is correct, Richardo.

It is a conservative area and come the special election we'll be lucky to hang onto the seat at all, much less get a progressive Dem. That's just the reality from someone who actually lives here, and, as a survivor of the 12-year Santorum Regime, I can assure you that any Democrat is going to be preferrable to the alternative.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. If the 'majority' is made up of politicians who vote with the minority

IT'S NOT A FUCKING MAJORITY.

[Richardo]

8. It is if the party with the most seats gets the Chairs and sets the agenda

You may not like what you've seen from the Dem majority, but cast your mind back 4-6 years and remember how miserable THAT was.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Yeah, it's so much better now that we have Democrats introducing

Republican initiatives instead of Republicans introducing Republican initiatives.

[Richardo]

10. It IS better, there are plenty Dem initiatives being passed as well - plus a Supreme Court appt

I'm not a big fan of the Dem-controlled agenda either (so far), but I know that the alternative is NOT more progressivism.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. How do you know unless we actually TRY it? nt

[Richardo]

15. Who's 'we'?

It's up to the constituents in the districts that elect Blue Dogs.

I myself (TX-10) would LOVE a Joe Sestak, but I'd be extraordinarily lucky to get a Bart Stupak, or anybody with a 'D' after his/her name, including Zell Miller. I'm going to get an (R) representative every time because that's the nature of the demographics of suburban Houston. And nothing short of redistricting is ever going to change that in the near future.

So, I'm not saying progressivism isn't a preferable alternative - it is, and I'd love it. It's just not a currently-attainable alternative.

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. What majority?

When your "majority" includes treasonous fucks who vote with the Repukes, what kind of "majority" is that?

[Richardo]

19. Again - count the seats

If N(d) > N(r) then (Agenda + Committee Chairs + Speakership) = 'D'.

That's why it matters. It's really that simple.

Your ideal ideologically-pure Democrats would be lucky to hold more than 150 seats.

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. I never said anything about "ideological purity"

But in general, they should vote for DEMOCRATIC principles. Idiots like Bart Stupid and Heath Shiller can't even get that right.

[KingFlorez]

12. You have a better chance of getting a blue dog on board than a Republican

Everything is not about fighting, it's about the big picture. You can't have a Democratic majority without blue dogs and the majority selects the leadership that puts forth the policy.

[spanone]

13. the media will play this up and do all they can to turn this seat over....watch

[Historic NY]

16. its already started.