Riddle me this. How to replace bluedogs with progressives in states where the voters deny evolution?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004740-503544.html

May 11, 2010 6:21 PM

Alabama Gov. Candidate Attacked for Belief in Evolution


<snip>In a response, Byrne said the ad was filled with "despicable lies" - and insisted he is no opponent of creationism.


"As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God," he said. "As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books. Those who attack me have distorted, twisted and misrepresented my comments and are spewing utter lies to the people of this state."


He also said that, contrary to the ad's claims, he believes "every single word" of the Bible is true.

[VMI Dem]

1. How do we get a progressive in the White House?

:shrug:

[NNN0LHI]

2. How well did Dennis Kucinich do in our Dem primary?

What was his best showing, percentage wise, in any state?

That should tell you all you need to know.

Don

[VMI Dem]

3. You just answered your own question then.

:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

4. We should run evolution denying homophobic asshats.

?

Or not.

[Amaril]

38. errr......nevermind

Completely misread your post.

:blush:

[vi5]

5. I don't think that's the issue....

I'm not so naive to admit that in some places it would be better to have a dem than not have a dem and the only dem that can get elected is a blue dog.

My issues (with the house and the Senate, but less so with the house and more the Senate) is giving them the degree of power over the rest of the caucus that they've been given. If they want to vote with republicans then they shouldn't get committee chairs or even seats at the table for these committees, where they have the power to shape legislation above and beyond more loyal, more progressive dems.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. +1

That's the realistic view. You're absolutely right in your response to a disingenuous OP.

[jobycom]

16. That, of course, would turn the seats Republican, anyway.

Either the candidate would switch because the Republicans would give them a better package, or they'd just lose because they were ineffective.

The problem with a democracy is that the other side gets a voice. It sucks, but there it is.

[vi5]

17. Nobody is saying they shouldn't get a voice...

..but it should not be disproportionate to the body of opinion they represent which in the democratic caucus is a minority.

And at some point we do have to accept that they may just need to switch and have us stand for something rather than continually allowing ourselves to be duped and punked and just made to look like cowardly idiots who stand for nothing.

Considering how many people on here love to urge many of us to "look at the big picture...look at the long game not just immediate gratification", you would think those same people would understand that at some point we are going to have to suck it up and say "We're not going to let you hold us hostage any more. If you think you can get a better deal with the GOP then switch" and we'll have to deal with the immediate pain and consequence of that, but in the long run it will build a stronger, more cohesive caucus which will actually show itself to stand for the principles of the democratic party rather than continually pulling us rightward and causing us to betray our own constituencies.

Continually allowing the Nelson's and Baucus's and Bayh's an inordinate amount of control over our party is driving away and disillusioning our core voters anyway, so it's going to have the same effect in the long run.

[Gaedel]

27. The problem is.....

If you come down to a close vote, you always have to "party loyalty" card to play. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. If you treat the Blue Dogs like trash, the "party loyalty" gambit doesn't buy you much.

[vi5]

28. 2 Things..

1) Nobody is saying "treat them like trash". But we don't have to treat them as kings or queens, and we don't have to give them more power than others have.

2) They don't have party loyalty anyway. It rarely works unless they get their way which is not party loyalty, it's a hostage crisis.

Again, as I responded above, keeping the blue dogs and conservadems happy, at the expense of our party, for the sole purpose of holding on to a majority is like a crack addiction for our democratic leaders and it's dragging us down to an abyss. We need to deal with the short term implications of finally saying no to these clowns, for the better of the long term health of our party and our country.

[Gaedel]

34. The very point!

The guys in the "swing position" have the power. Both sides compete for the DINO/RINO vote. Why give Kucinich anything. His vote is in the bag.

Neither party has to cater much to their extreme wings. They do have to try and buy swing votes.

If we start to "vote people off the island" our party will be a lonely place.

[vi5]

37. Neither party has to cater much to their extreme wings?

The republicans do. Their extreme wings are their leaders. Their radical fringe members are given front and center attention and prime focus. Ours are relegated to jokes (ie. Kucinich) at the same time our side allows the DINOs to shit all over us and a democratic agenda.

What RINOs are lavished with press and attention and given the power to hold up the republican agenda to the degree that our leadership allows Nelson, Lincoln, Baucus, etc. to hold the democratic legislative agenda hostage.

Which RINOs are given that kind of attention and power? Lincoln Chaffee? Oh wait.....never mind. Arlen Specter?......oh wait. Never mind.....Charlie Crist?.....Oh yeah....never mind.

Remember how we all laughed and talked about how the GOP would slowly whither and die as they purged their moderates and how the public would punish them in the court of public opinion and at the polls? We'll obviously see how the polls turn out in a few weeks, but they are no more in danger of losing their power and control over the legislative agenda due to a purging of their moderates.

[uponit7771]

39. +1

[meow mix]

6. well obviously we have to embrace christian extremist supremacy

and then we'll just be the rightwing.. we'll have 2 teams on the same side!!! wow great idea.

how about we try acting like democrats instead?

[NNN0LHI]

7. Forget the sarcasm. Try giving a real answer once

If you have a real answer that is?

Don

[stray cat]

8. Why don't you just let the GOP replace them?

Conservative states usually don't elect the du favorites

[bherrera]

9. American Fundamentalists are identical to Iranian Fundamentalists

if you allow one of these guys to get power in Washington, you will be religious cavemen with nuclear weapons.

You don't need to replace these backwards politicians with progressives. Progressive politicians don't have a following in most of the South of the country, why insist on selling something they don't want? You should compromise, and only hope to have politicians elected who have common sense, are honest, and do not fall victim to religious or racist extremism, which seems to be the common denominator in the South of the USA. I don't think these guys understand they lost the Civil War.

[HereSince1628]

10. Just chuckle gently when evolution is pushed at you.

Chuckling is good for your mind and your heart. The offender will have no idea how to proceed with your amusement but over time will come to realize you are definitely not laughing _with_ her.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. You don't, unless you get one to lie about everything...

Yes, amazingly enough there are conservative areas that will not elect anyone more than 2 degrees from far right.

I can't do anything about that from here. Neither can you.

The advantage to having blue dogs in there is that we still get to pick the leadership and the Republicans don't.

[hayu_lol]

14. When the choice is a Blue Dog...

Ben Nelson for example...vote for a repugnant. At least you can point the finger at them when they cause problems.

[dixiegrrrrl]

21. good thing there are no blue dogs in those leadership posts, eh?

[Le Taz Hot]

13. I don't know,

why don't we try it and see?

Now, Riddle Me This. Why continue to elect Blue Dogs if they're going to vote against our interests in favor of the corps and with the Republicans?

What have we gained?

[suzie]

18. Did the Blue Dogs filibuser Sotomayor and Kagan?

[BzaDem]

22. +1

[Le Taz Hot]

24. I'm not sure what a "filibuser" is

but this goes far beyond a singe issue or even the most rudimentary "understanding" of government -- most progressives are smarter than that -- it' why we're progressives.

Peace

LTH

[JI7]

42. the Supreme Court usually covers many issues

[csziggy]

31. Because Blue Dogs vote more often for Democratic issues than Republicans would

My Representative is Allen Boyd, one of the Bluest Dogs out there. But on issues important to me, he votes the way I want roughly 50% of the time and more often than not, when it comes down to passing Democratic issues, he votes with the party.

His Republican opponent this time around, Steve Southerland, is so far to the right, he is only 23% aligned with my beliefs (according to the ranking on the VoteEasy.org page). Southerland is trying to "smear" Boyd by aligning him with Pelosi - frankly that ad opened my eyes since I did not realize Boyd had voted with Pelosi that often.

So yet again I must hold my nose and vote for Allen Boyd. I did not vote for him in the primary, I voted for his opponent there. But as much of a Blue Dog Boyd might be, he is infinitely better than the alternatives.

[NorthCarolina]

15. The people are already largely liberal, they just don't know it because of MSM misinformation.

Most polls on "the issues" clearly show that the majority of Americans hold Liberal beliefs. However, the MSM, the GOP and DLC Dems have worked collectively to distort the public understanding of what Liberals embrace. The anti-evolution folks you speak of do not represent a majority. Rather, they are a highly vocal minority that is purposely given the media presence to appear as if they are a majority. Both the GOP and the DLC continually work to reinforce these false messages in order to remain politically viable. Unfortunately for the DLC however, the public is beginning to wake up to these false arguments, the DLC knows it, and is understandably afraid. That is why we have seen such an uptick in OP's of the nature of this one on DU. Clearly an act of desperation by the conservatives. I believe we are witnessing the death throes of the dino's.

[Davis_X_Machina]

23. They don't vote policy positions, though.

They vote tradition, they vote tribe, they vote narrative. They don't vote policy. And they don't vote pocketbook until things are much, much worse than they are now.

The public loves the chaos GOP ideology is causing, and is about to ask for more of it at the polls. Because the chaos is good theater. Liberals are fighting a theological battle with graphs. They're trying to fix an economy, while the the marginal voter needed to grow out the Democratic coalition to governing size has abandoned himself to a morality play.

Via the elections, he or she is about to give it four stars. And why wouldn't they? They get to be the hero/victim. People they hate -- immigrants, hippies, gays, women, liberals, colored people -- get to be the villains. And the narrative arc is as familiar and comfortable as their peculiar version of the Bible. Comes dressed up with a little sex, too.

The most secure parts of the Democratic coalitions are those groups that are watching another, different, play: African-Americans. The GLBT community. Hispanics. Union households.

The marginal voter needed to grow out the Democratic coalition to governing size is still an elderly, non-union, middle-class, suburban white Protestant -- and he or she will sit hungry in the seats to watch the GOP show, and feel privileged to have tickets.

[bvar22]

19. Simple.

Good Marketing!
Run a charismatic Populist that talks slow, looks like the Marlboro Man, can ride a horse and shoot a gun...

who refuses to voice an opinion on the Wedge Issues, just smiles when asked about them and says only "I'm a good American Patriot with wholesome Family Values,",

who runs on a vague platform of Economic Justice for Working Americans.
(Huey Long's "Chicken in Every Pot").

Provide that man with heavy Party funding,
and THAT man can WIN in ANY state.


Of course, it would be helpful if he could point to examples where the Democratic Party has actually helped Working Americans.

[Davis_X_Machina]

20. Giant puppets. That's the secret. n/t

[Tsiyu]

25. It's just an effing game

It's all a game, especially in the South.

We have the highest divorce and infant mortality rates of the nation as a whole, and Tennessee is in the top five most dangerous states for women. Hardly a "moral" atmosphere or safe place to raise a child.

But the Good Old Boys in charge insist they are so squeaky clean and right with gawd, even their assholes never stink. All of the political ads are designed to make you think this white dude's asshole smells more like lily petals than the other guy's.

Meanwhile, the massive numbers of poor - of every race and creed - often don't vote, leaving the elections to the "upstanding Christians" of older generations who pull up in their land yachts and extended cab pickups and who vote to elect Jesus and no taxes while they collect their SS and enjoy their Medicare.

My rep is a woman-hating smooth talker. A DINO all the way.

And he is probably the best this area will ever do because the right people are apathetic and the wrong ones are in charge.

[olegramps]

30. The non-voting poor is a major issue.

I haven't seen where the Democratic Party has tried to actually encourage this huge unrepresented segment of our citizens to get to the polls. The working class poor were in the time of FDR his most loyal supporters that allowed him to enact sweeping reforms. I believe the DLC has had a lot to do with its concentration on getting the vote of the upper middle class and neglecting this segment of the population. It appeared to me that the DLC was transforming the Democratic Party into Republican Lite as it strove to attract contributions from corporate sponsors. It became their motto that we aren't anti-business. We are just as favorable of corporate interest as the Republicans.

We have to realize that the vast majority of Democrats in congress are wealthy and have very little in common with the majority of American citizens. It seems like the only time that they have time for union members and minorities is when they want a donation and their vote. I was really encouraged when I saw the younger people who usually sit out the elections backing Obama and minoities flocking to the polls. It really is disheartening see that their enthusiasm has been allowed to evaporated. Obama has allowed his administration to be just another lack luster DLC controlled middle of the road flop.

[Tsiyu]

33. Except in Memphis and Nash Vegas, Dems don't want

us poorer, more liberal Dems involved.

We've tried, and used to GOTV for Lincoln and other Dem candidates, posting signs, etc on our own.

No more.

My Rep in TN does not rep me, and wants me to stay out of sight except on election day.

It's costing the party in the South, but they want to hold on to their assholes-clean-as-lily-petals aura at all costs....

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. economic populism is a message that can transcend

If a candidate fights for real universal health care, decent paying jobs and more rights for working people; if a candidate is seen as someone who stands up to Wall Street and fights for ordinary working people - they can still attract the support of those who hold some arcane beliefs. Sen. Bernie Sanders demonstrates that even many people with undeniably socially conservative beliefs and wins socially conservative rural counties by landslide proportions. Some of the old liberal lions of the Senate like Frank Church from Idaho, Birch Bayh from Indiana and George McGovern from South Dakota were able to hold on to their seats for decades by addressing the bread and butter issues that affected ordinary peoples lives. Granted, the rise of the religious right has made it harder these days. But if a candidate is seen as the advocate for the bread and butter issues of ordinary people - they can still win in somewhat socially conservative areas. What cannot sustain in such areas are candidates who are advocates for Wall Street, but socially somewhat liberal.

[Tatiana]

29. This is a very good question, Don. I wish some would lose the sarcasm.

Your question goes right to the heart of the problems we are experiencing with our party in Congress.

I liked what someone said above about denying committee chairs. If these Blue Dogs are the best we can do in certain states, so be it. You are not going to elect a Russ Feingold in Alabama. That's just reality.

However, I firmly believe Howard Dean was on to something with his 50-state strategy. He got into a lot of hot water by saying he wanted to reach out to those gun-toting, Confederate flag waving white Southerners, but he was dead-on right. I say this as a woman of color who hates everything the confederate flag stands for, but we are only going to change the viewpoint of some of these people by actually reaching out to them and showing that we care about their lives and livelihoods. We don't have the type of strong progressive presence needed to challenge some of these entrenched beliefs held by people living in conservative states.

Also, I do think some of these Blue Dogs need to be primaried Tea Party-style, even if they may not win in a general. The immediate goal is to get progressive ideas and values into the mainstream of those communities to the point that eventually a progressive can run for office and win.

[Blue_Tires]

35. +1000

[ieoeja]

32. Remind them that we do support creationist theories called "The Big Bang" and "Evolution".

The Big Bang, theorized by a Jesuit Professor of Mathematics and based on Einstein's work, was originally dismissed by scientists precisely because it is a creationist theory. Scientists at the time believed the universe was eternal. Then Hubble came along and proved that the universe was expanding.

While scientists were skeptical, religious leaders at the time immediately embraced The Big Bang precisely because it implied that the universe had a creation.

In a like fashion, Evolution implies everything was created as opposed to life having always existed. Like The Big Bang it is science that supports the religious notion that a god could have created life. Evidence that life was always here in its current form would actually be evidence against creationism. Something religious leaders once understood. But the new American breed just aren't bright enough to see it.

Of course, the real reason people do not believe in evolution is because it makes them feel ... icky. Religion is pretty much just an excuse on this issue.

[Motown_Johnny]

36. improve the education system and wait 50 years

[Tatiana]

40. Kick

[and-justice-for-all]

41. I would comment on this

But since there are people here that I am sure believe this, my comment would be to insenstive. :eyes:

[JI7]

43. you have to try to change the mind of the people in that state, district etc

but that takes hard work and usually a long time.

[JI7]

44. you have to try to change the mind of the people in that state, district etc

but that takes hard work and usually a long time.