Blue Dog Coalition: 44 Democratic House members

[nodular]

I'm sure some on DU do not feel particularly supportive of this group, but it will be one factor in the next session of Congress.

(this information comes from an article, "Democratic Blue Dogs Mark Their Spot," by Salena Zito, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, November 26, 2006, page E6.)

Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas is the Blue Dogs communications co-chairman. He says,"The American people voted against Republicans on November 7 and voted not for liberal Democrats but for conservative to moderate Democrats...The American people are counting on us to give them a new Democratic Party, one that more closely resembles their grandpa's party." Nine (or 8, I'm not sure) of the Blue Dogs are newly elected.

According to Bill Burton, communications director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), "The Democratic Caucus is made up of all sorts of folks. Blue Dogs are the ones that pull the party toward the center in American politics."

18 Blue Dogs signed a letter to Pelosi endorsing Peolsi-nemesis and fellow blue dog representative Jane Harman of California over Alcee Hastings for the intelligence chair.

[mzmolly]

1. People voted for moderates/liberals and any Democrat in between.

Representatives in a given area are to represent their LOCAL constituents, it's not rocket science.

Thanks for sharing.

[nodular]

3. You're welcome

[madfloridian]

2. Bankruptcy bill. Think about it.

New Dems and Blue Dogs got it through.

Here are the Blue Dogs...

http://www.house.gov/tanner/blue.htm

[billbuckhead]

5. Pittsburgh Tribune Review is Richard Scaife Mellon, the grandaddy of neocons

If he's supporting something, I'm against it.

[onenote]

16. If every Democrat had voted against the Bankruptcy Bill, it still would've passed

in the House. There were 229 repub votes for. There were 73 Democratic votes against. Moreover, on the vote to recommit (which occured before final passage and would've killed the bill, 198 Democrats, including every Blue Dog, voted for (the only Democrat to vote against recommitting was Rick Boucher).

The reason I point this out is that folks sometimes ascribe too much power to these caucuses. The fact is that, in most instances, these caucuses have not had the ability to determine the outcome of a vote.

[madfloridian]

22. They pushed it...the New Dems "begged" the GOP to bring it to a vote.

They actually wrote a letter pleading with the Republican House leadership to get it out of committee and up for a vote...they were that eager. Please, please, they said, give us out bankruptcy bill so we can show all the bad people how bad they are.

Do I attribute the bankruptcy sell-out of the people to the so-called conservative Democrats?

You betcha.

The Democrats overall gave Bush his agenda so very easily.

The saddest was Iraq. Now that is heartbreaking. They ignored our calls, ignored the marching, ignored the emails, ignored everything we did to please with them.

They voted for it, and we are in a hell of mess now.

And this board has new people coming on everyday to defend all that. It is subtle sometimes, and sometimes it is not so subtle.

I am one of the more moderate DUers, and I can smell bullshit more and more lately.

[PassingFair]

23. This one's for YOU onenote:

'Cause YOU earned it with that post.

:rofl:

[onenote]

26. knock yourself out

I prefer to discuss facts not fantasy. And the fact is that attributing the passage of the bankruptcy bill to the blue dogs is a myth. Did they support it. Yes. Do I wish they hadn't. You bet. But suggesting that their votes made the difference is untrue and I see no reason to perpetuate untruths here on DU.

You disagree?

[PassingFair]

28. Bad votes ALWAYS make a difference.

They make us lose face.

They make it harder for me to defend democrats
across the board in every day life.

[onenote]

29. fine, but I was responding to the assertion that Dems "got it through"

In fact, it didn't need a single Dem vote to "get through". I agree it would've been better had the Dems been as united in opposition as the repubs were in support, but that's a different issue than the suggestion it wouldn't have passed without Dem votes.

[PassingFair]

31. They didn't just vote for it, they FOUGHT for it.

"These guys didn't just vote with the GOP on a bill. They sent a letter urging Hastert to introduce and pass the legislation."

Like my manager at work telling us that she FOUGHT for the 8:00 meetings! BAD POLITICS.

[onenote]

32. Serious question: why did all Democrats unite on vote to recommit the bill?

I'm trying to figure out why every Democrat, except Rick Boucher, voted for a motion to recommit the bankruptcy bill (which would've kept it from coming to a final vote), while virtually every repub voted against. Also, why virtually no Democrats, blue dog or otherwise, spoke in favor of the bill when it was debated on the House floor. I recognize that the Blue Dogs wrote to Hastert urging that the bill be passed and that when the vote came for final passage, most of the blue dogs voted for the bil. Just can't figure out the rest of it.

[xchrom]

4. the biggest caucus is the progressive caucus.

but of course the ONLY thing that's important is ''centrist'' or ''moderate'' dems.

[onenote]

17. being the biggest didn't help the Progressive Caucus get bills passed or defeated

No single caucus -- Progressive, Blue Dog, New Dem, etc. -- has had the numbers to determine the outcome of legislation on their own. All of them need to work together as Democrats, not as (fill in the blank) Democrats. This obsession that folks have (on all sides) as to which caucus is the biggest or most powerful is kind of silly.

[OzarkDem]

19. Time for REAL innovative policy

that reflects the wishes of the voters and works to achieve long term solutions to our economic problems.

Promoting the needs of corporations at the expense of long term economic planning isn't innovative or helpful. Those who have been promoting corporate agendas are going to have to accept that their theories have failed and that its time to develop new solutions.

[xchrom]

20. i don't suppose dems crossing over to vote with the republick party

has anything to do with this -- or under another name -- many of them -- blue dogs?

[Nite Owl]

6. The new Dem representative that

we just worked hard to be elected joined this Blue Dog caucus. I am very unhappy with this. We probably would have worked to get her in because the representative we had was so corrupt but there really wasn't a hint of this before the election. I don't like what they stand for or how they vote. Their idea is to make deals with moderate Republicans and I see no room for deals with any of the other side. They can join our votes but conservatism as an ideal should be discredited not enouraged. Conservatism has done nothing for the American people. Fiscally conservative is a sad joke. The word should be responsible and have nothing to do with being conservative. That is what people are looking for not deals that hurt us like the bankrupcy bill. And of the the 34 dem votes for the Military Commissions Act, the torture bill, 25 came from the Blue Dogs. Being a dem is not going to give her a pass if she votes with other side or things that are not in the interests of America like the bankrupcy bill or torture act.

[OzarkDem]

10. Newly elected Rep Charlie Wilson (D-OH) had better watch out, too

All the grassroots Dems, who helped him get elected despite a pathetic start, won't take very kindly to his voting on craptacular legislation like the bankruptcy bill or privatizing social security. Most of the people in his district are poor and won't appreciate his supporting legislation that doesn't work for their interest too.

Surprising he would support a cro-mag caucus given voters in his district supported people like progressive Sherrod Brown.

Charlie will learn soon enough. He must not be the sharpest tool in the shed.

[NV1962]

7. You can't take anything for granted here

The Blue Dog Democrats definitely have their place, and a very strategic position at that. Spurn them at your peril. Blue Dogs are the key to crush the damn lock on the key Southern states, and sway the big muddy middle into the fold.

The way things are here in the US, absent other party options and therefore also the corresponding coalition dynamics, neither party can do away with sub caucuses. A party that can't negotiate a joint practical agenda -- certainly in the face of the current GOP extremist-driven and ridiculous mess -- isn't worth the trust to take over the WH and more Congressional seats in 2008. This is a situation where the Democrats can simply ride to victory by not making mistakes, and cobbling together a practical agenda.

That doesn't mean giving away the crown jewels; it doesn't mean muzzling oneself to placate either wing of the party, either. And since I don't see Joe Lieberman in a credible position to lead the Blue Dogs, and haven't heard any serious noises from Blue Dogs to "embrace" Mr Connecticut Cutaway, I can certainly live with them. There's plenty of important things to get done over the next two years.

Blind rejection -- again: blind rejection -- is not the way to go.

The way forward here is with the Blue Dog Dems, not without them.

[madfloridian]

8. No one wants to "spurn" anyone. Bankruptcy bill....

I just have watched closely as they helped get the bankruptcy bill through with the help of the New Dem Coalition.

The people that bill hurts the most are the poor, elderly, ill, disabled. It should never have happened. Seniors can lose their homes over medical bills because of it.

They only helped the credit card companies and big business by that bill.

Only God knows how many innocent people were hurt by that bill during the hurricanes of 04 here in Florida and Katrina in 05. Their homes were lost, but the mortgage did not go away...

They need to be more concerned about the people's needs.

[NV1962]

9. I have no qualm whatsoever with your angle here - BUT...

During Clinton, welfare was butchered to get the federal books back into the black. And on the whole, that got him re-elected.

Of course, the reverse cynical angle is also possible: look at what good it did, all that sacrifice tossed away by the current junta...

The thing is, if you want to get things done - even with a minimalist "at least let a gentle hand limit the carnage" approach - you have to strike compromise deals.

We're seeing the alternative at work since 2000, with precisely the weak taking the brunt: you already mentioned Katrina, but don't forget Iraq, where the disproportionately overrepresented "poor" soldiers are footing the bill for a "principled" lack of support for Gore back in 2000, and even Kerry in 2004.

Look around for the alternative, seriously.

[madfloridian]

12. There were no compromises in the bankruptcy bill.

I believe in compromise. I always have. That is why I am upset with those two centrist groups....they do not compromise in favor of the people. They generally give big business all they want.

And that welfare deal was spun to make some very good people who needed a hand up look very very bad...even calling them welfare queens. I did not hear any of those Democrats speaking up against that.

They do the bidding of the corporations, and then they call it compromise...and it usually isn't.

Life is full of compromises. I am far more moderate than most people here, but I despise the direction they have taken our party. They said we need to limit the damage by compromising.

They are still saying that. It hasn't really worked. As to the South, Harold Ford, Blue Dog and New Dem...lost. Jim Davis...New Dem leader..lost as governor in Florida. Those two only come to mind quickly. But their comfy cozy I'll compromise with you attitude, and their distance from grassroots....did not bring about wins.

[NV1962]

14. Just to make sure we're on the same page

When I say "compromise" I really mean compromise - not one side surrendering its positions just to placate the other side involved, in the name of preserving some elusive "unity".

You'll surely have noticed I haven't mentioned the bankruptcy bill. I think it's cr*p legislation, just as much as you do.

My single and hopefully not equivocated point here is "compromise" can avert future such disasters, and lay the groundwork for "repair legislation".

If you don't try to reach out, you'll never get the deal. That's why I'm not slamming the door shut on the Blue Dog Dems; not because I have big tent illusions, but because there's work to be done now, through 2008 and beyond - to ensure the wholesale corporate prostitution of government over the past years can't return in our lifetime.

[BlueCaliDem]

13. I'm with you on this madfloridian. I'm still aghast that Congress passed the BK "reform" bill...

...that Pres. Clinton himself vetoed TWICE saying that the bill will unfairly hurt the poor, working poor, and middle-class too much.

Those who believe themselves to be christians, and Jews need to understand that Chapter 7 BK was founded on the biblical belief that debt should be "forgiven" every 7 years. Credit card companies, and banking institutes knew this and calculated interest rates to offset any losses.

They also need to understand that the right to file for Federal protection against debtors (Ch. 7) was the only law that truly protected the consumer from corporate greed that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to fight in court.

Over 50% of BK Chap. 7 filers filed because of astronomical medical bills. I believe Congress should repeal this unfair, corporate-written BK "reform bill" until Congress passes a fair law regarding health insurance for all in the U.S., otherwise, it's once again "money trumps people" business---and am really appalled that so-called "democrats" voted for passage of this bill three times!

I'm NO Bill Clinton fan, but for his conviction NOT to sign into law this very same bill that came before him TWICE during his presidency, he'll forever have my respect.

[OzarkDem]

11. Blue dogs must realize

after the last election, voters aren't interested in "repub-lite" positions on the issues. Conservative public policy was soundly rejected on Nov. 7 and that includes the voters who put the blue dogs in office.

The blue tsunami sent a message to Congress that voters are fed up with "business as usual". People are worried about jobs, the economy, health care, their futures. They want the US out of the expensive nighmare in Iraq. Blue dogs ignore that message at their peril.

[NV1962]

15. "blue tsunami" is a dangerously self-congratulatory term

If you forget or ignore that it's an effect magnified mostly due to large numbers of disgusted traditional GOP voters deciding to sit on their hands, you'll get a nasty surprise come 2008.

Landslides don't arrive on the highest levels of fervor among the "hard core base" of a candidate, but on his (her) cross-over appeal.

And the Blue Dog Dems play an important part in achieving that.

It's an observation not aimed at decaffeinating progressive values, but at making sure we keep it real enough to get a massive electoral backing.

[OzarkDem]

18. Take heed of your own words

As someone who works on the "front lines" with voters, the Dem win was due to many of the biggest chunk of voters - Independents - who became disillusioned with GOP corruption, Iraq and failed domestic public policy.

Since the DLC and "Blue Dogs" have a history of running on and supporting the same issues as the GOP - your POV is out of favor with most voters.

Blue Dogs had better pay close attention to the message voters sent them on election day - no more GOP - that means Blue Dog policies, too.

[NV1962]

21. Are you serious, or just facetious?

I mean, at 40.3% participation in mostly Congressionally tinted elections, you're willing to extrapolate to Presidential elections no less!?

Whoa. I mean, I seriously hope that you're kidding!

[nodular]

24. Another point for consideration.

This one (from memory) from the Wall Street Journal editorial page (condemn me for reading it if you must, can't remember the date but recent).

Senator Schumer, architect of the Democratic victory in the Senate, was recalling a conversation some time ago with Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania. Schumer had figured out that Santorum was vulnerable, but he needed a candidate to beat him. He asked Rendell about it.

Rendell's answer was, the only guy who can beat them doesn't want to run and you wouldn't want him to run anyway.

Schumer said, "Why not?"

Rendell answered, "He's pro-life."

Shermer's answer was, "The days when a Democrat had to fill in a 28-box checklist before running are over."

That said, they preceded to recruit Casey and get him to run.

Were they wrong?

[madfloridian]

25. Blue Dogs and New Dems give in to Bush agenda...and call it "compromise."

They have been doing that for years now.

We might never have caught on if the Iraq War had not happened. We saw true colors then.

So many dead and dying, and the main ones in the centrist groups are still saying stay a little longer and we can win. Just like Vietnam.

[onenote]

30. So the voters in Heath Shuler's district were rejecting conservative public policy?

How do you figure?

The "voters" are not some monolithic group. Voters from district to district and within districts vary widely on what motivated them to vote a particular way. To suggest some universal rejection of all things "conservative" is rather odd given the fact that the repubs held onto 89 percent of the seats they previously occupied.

Without question, the House that convenes in January will be more progressive than the one that adjourned, and for that I'm extremely thankful. But I'm also realistic enough to know that the gains were incremental, not sweeping. And I'll take what I can get in terms of blue dogs, new dems or any other group that caucuses with Democrats if it means John COnyers, Henry Waxman and other progressives are chairing important committees.

[DaveinMD]

27. the blue dogs

are hardly a monolithic group. Many socially conservative dems who are quite liberal on economic policy. Populists if you will.

[JCMach1]

33. The AIPAC Princess as Intelligence Chair is NOT a solution

:grr:

[Debs]

34. I'm tired of hearing this mantra

,"The American people voted against Republicans on November 7 and voted not for liberal Democrats but for conservative to moderate Democrats
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Lets look at the Senate three of the six new Dem Seats were Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobucher. There is no possible way to characterize those three as ANYTHING but liberal. The rightwing is always trying to create a conventional wisdom that has little to do with reality.

[Iris]

35. And to me "grandpa's Democratic party" means the southern version of the Democratic party

which means racist.

[madfloridian]

36. C-Span has an interesting description of that group.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly55.asp

"The Blue Dogs derive their name from the artwork of a Cajun painter, George Rodrigue, well known in Louisiana for his series of paintings featuring an unusual blue dog. The fledgling members of what became the Blue Dog Coalition used to meet regularly in the offices of then-Democrats Rep. Billy Tauzin and Rep. Jimmy Hayes of Louisiana. Tauzin has since switched to the Republican party and Hayes was defeated in a run for the Senate. The Louisiana representatives had Rodrigue’s blue dog paintings displayed on the walls of their offices, and these provided the inspiration for the coalition’s name. One of the Blue Dogs, Rep. John Tanner from Tennessee, maintains that Blue Dogs are simply “yellow dogs that have been choked by extremes in both political parties to the point they have turned blue.”

Blue Dog Democrats are an actual voting coalition made up of Members of Congress, whereas Yellow Dog Democrat is an expression -- it describes a certain kind of voter. Nor are Blue Dogs ideological relatives of the "Yellow Dogs" of the South, even though they have similar names.

When the South as a region was a political stronghold for Democrats in the first half of the 20th century, it was said that a Southern voter would vote for a mangy yellow dog before he/she would vote for a Republican. So a “Yellow Dog Democrat” implies one fiercely loyal to the Democratic party, with a strong partisan profile. The expression achieved prominence in the 1928 presidential campaign when southern Democrats, reluctant to support their national party's nominee, Al Smith, voted for him anyway, out of loyalty to the party ticket. When the term is used today, it is meant as a compliment to one who remains a true Democrat, no matter what.

The Blue Dogs, on the other hand, are less fiercely partisan, and they do not all hail from the South. They seek to build ideological bridges to the Republican side of the aisle, are known for their independence from the leadership of their own party, and tend to be more pragmatic than partisan. Blue Dogs are closer in purpose to a former coalition of southern Members of the House known as the “Boll Weevils,” whose heyday was in the early 1980's. These Members defected as a group from the Democratic party to vote with Congressional Republicans on budgetary and tax bills. However, all Southerners, they were named after the insect that infected and often destroyed cotton crops, so the name “Boll Weevil” had a pejorative implication."

"Known for their independence"...sounds good. But they need to be known for standing up for the people.