"Conservative Democrats Seek Larger Role" Wonderful. JUST FREAKIN' WONDERFUL!

[in_cog_ni_to]

These assholes have picked up on the repuke taking point..."Republicans did not lose their seats to liberal Democrats" in last weeks elections, said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. "Republicans lost their seats to Blue Dog Democrats.":grr: We already have f*cking threats and they haven't even been seated yet!


Conservative Democrats Seek Larger Role
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - For a dozen years, the Democratic conservatives known as Blue Dogs have been baying at the moon, ignored by Republicans and tolerated by their more liberal Democratic colleagues. Now, these House lawmakers say that is about to change.

Republicans "did not lose their seats to liberal Democrats" in last weeks elections, said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. "Republicans lost their seats to Blue Dog Democrats."

"We'll have a lot to say about what passes and what doesn't" when the 110th Congress convenes in January with Democrats in control for the first time in 12 years, said Ross, new communications director for the caucus.

With the addition of nine newly elected freshmen, the Blue Dogs claim 44 members, nearly 20 percent of the incoming Democratic majority. They will be led by Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., and include Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., in line to become the next Agriculture Committee chairman.<snip>


http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2006/11/15/521461.html

[LoZoccolo]

1. Where is that a Republican talking point? n/t

[Dr Fate]

6. The OP assumes that loud-mouth media pundits are mostly conservative .

And for many people, "conservative" is more associated with Republicans than with Democrats.

At least that was my take on it- maybe all the cable media people who have been saying this are secretly pro-Democrat, but I doubt it too.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. THAT is what EVERY repuke has said on every show they have been on

since the damn election! EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! HELL! Roy Blunt said it this morning on Washington Journal! It's total BULLSHIT.

We didn't win because our party moved to the RIGHT....we won because THE PEOPLE want us the hell out of Iraq, the economy SUCKS and people are sick and tired of the rich getting richer and the poor and middle class getting poorer, and because the repukes are so damn corrupt!

[Dr Fate]

12. All the hosts and pundits in "the liberal media" have been suggesting it to.

That is one thing I have learned about some of these DLC & Conservative DEM defenders- they dont want you to ever believe your own lying eyes- much less trust your gut instincts.

[muntrv]

2. These GOP parrots can't explain why NONE of the Democrats up for

re-election lost their seats. Nor can they explain why Missouri approved state funding for stem cell research or why Arizona voted down gay marriage. The new dems may be conservative, but they're hardly 700 Club-dittohead-members.

[Dr Fate]

9. That is why they frame it in terms of what the GOP lost rather than what DEMs won across the board..

You nailed it- that is why they are framing this in terms of what Repubs lost seats to DEMS as opposed to looking at ALL of the seats DEMS won or retained in general.

[DaveinMD]

3. the real headline

maybe should read populist Democrats seek larger role. Because that's what the Blue Dogs really are.

[madmusic]

27. But what is populist was twisted by right-wing spin...

Many have been brainwashed and until that brainwashing is washed away, it will continue. Until it is understood that liberalism is another, equally viable, world view in comparison to conservatism, the spin is to the Right.

[DaveinMD]

32. then spin right back

this election we elected a bunch of new economic populists. That's a great thing. And the great thing about that is that it transcends the left-right debate in our party. Its the winning formula.

[madmusic]

55. Agreed, this is a good start...

But if we have too many conservatives in the party that will make it more difficult to swing it back if they have too strong of a voice. Compare the Right under DeLay, no dissent, everything solid Right-wing. We could argue whether that propaganda machine is what brought them down. I'd say, No, what brought them down is not playing it cool enough.

But then my whole rant against the Right-wing-machine is their propaganda machine. Without it, they were nothing.

[TahitiNut]

4. The voters were told "San Francisco values"! The voters said "Yes!"

It's totally specious propaganda to infer that the voters had a more nuanced view than what consumed the media circus. GOP corruption; loss of civil liberties; exploitation of fear ... versus "San Francisco values." The election was nationalized! The voters chose the "latte liberals" over the corrupt corporatists. Fuck the corporatists, whether they call themselves 'Republicans' or 'Blue Dogs.'

These are people who arrive at the battlefield after the fighting is over and try to stake their claim. (While picking the pockets of the wounded.) Fuck 'em!

The 'ownership elite' are the same no matter what they call themselves - predators. They persist in claiming some entitlement to what others give their blood, sweat, and tears to achieve. Corporatists are obsessed with the dream of profiting from the labors of others. Corporatists expect others to die for their sins. Fuck 'em!

[Stuckinthebush]

5. Someone (Pelosi) needs to get control of all this crap

Hey Dems...shut the hell up!!! We aren't even sworn in yet! At this point, all Dems should be singing the same damn tune. Don't give the fucking GOP any ammo.

[KingFlorez]

8. Here we go again

A lot of people who beat Republicans are Blue Dogs, that is the truth not a Republican talking point.

[Dr Fate]

14. It is a GOP TP when you dont say that more non-Blue dogs won their elections.

We know it is a GOP talking point b/c we have seen enough pro-GOP media people say it, without presenting ALL of the facts.

Sorry, but I'll go with my lying eyes on this one- I've seen this deceptive- incomplete at best- talking point being repeated all over "the Liberal media."

Unless you can show me that Liberals took over the media all of a sudden, I'll assume it is a Conservative talking point.

[gully]

10. BIG TENT

We need it. We won with diversity and we'll maintain power if we allow for differences.

[Dr Fate]

16. Diversity? I thought these Blue Dogs opposed civil rights for gay folks.

I'd rather have gay folks in my tent than people who oppose them.

In the article the Blue dogs suggest that they agree with Bush & Rush Limbaugh on "Protecting marriage".

I can see wanting to avoid the issue so that you can hang on to socially conservative, populist voters- but the in the article the Blue-dogs suggest that they want to preserve gay-bashing/scapegoating as a pet issue.

From the article:

"There are Blue Dog Democrats that want to... protect life and marriage"

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. They do oppose civil rights for gays.

:(

[gully]

22. They oppose "marriage" for gays as does John Edwards and John

Kerry and many others who would prefer "civil unions" be the avenue toward equality.

[Dr Fate]

28. But you dont hear them using GOP code words like "preserve marriage"

If these Blue Dogs want my trust (and they could easily gain it on many issues), they need to talk more like Edwards & Kerry & less like Rush Limbaugh.

You may pretend to not know what they are saying, but I KNOW what they are saying.

[gully]

35. I think they are relating to the people they represent.

And unfortunately, not all of America is enlightened - yet.

I honestly think those who want gay marriage need to go MLK on this government. Refuse to pay taxes without representation, march in the streets, start a national movement. Eventually we're going to have to deal with this issue fairly as a nation.

[Dr Fate]

36. I agree. But they can do that with the defense & pocket book issues that won '06.n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

23. Practically speaking- hear me out- I dont mind that reality so much...

...my problem is that they are suggesting that they want to bring up the issue themselves- they are suggesting that they want to spearhead oppostion to civil rights.

I would not have a huge problem if they just wanted to side-step the issue for the benefit of their conservative constituents- but they are listing "protecting marriage" as a priority- and that is unacceptable- especially now that we can control the agenda and could have the country focus on less divisive issues...

[gully]

21. Do gay people want health care?

How bout rational foreign policy?

[Dr Fate]

26. I'd prefer the Blue dogs to focus on that and leave gay folks alone.

Why cant they do important things instead of focusing on Rush Limbaugh's "protectin marriage" crap.

I dont understand why they need to list opposition to civil rights as a priority along with the two important issues that you point out...

I wish DEMS would leave the bashing and denying of rights tot he bad guys and stick to more important issues.

[gully]

31. "Marriage" is the key word. I think if we were to say ok, give us civil

rights, I don't care what you call it, we'll have some room to bargain?

In all honesty, I TOTALLY agree with you on this: "I dont understand why they need to list opposition to civil rights as a priority along with the two important issues that you point out... I wish DEMS would leave the bashing and denying of rights tot he bad guys and stick to more important issues."

I wish they'd just not take up this particular banner however, I don't think it works in anybody's favor to suggest a purge.

[Dr Fate]

34. I agree. But I doubt many these Blue Dogs openly advocate "civil unions"

As opposed to what they are openly adovating: "protecting marriage"

Hey- I would be fine with it (sort of) if they did not adress the issue one way or the other- but if they have to bring it up, it should be pro-civil rights, not anti.

I dont suggest a purge of DEM asses in seats- I mainly suggest we not focus on certain issues or non-issues.

[gully]

37. Gotcha,

and as I said, I do agree.

[KansDem]

11. Consider the source...Comcast

Right-wing neo-con fascist Repubs need the "blue dog dems" in order to suppress the progressives and their populist movement.

Watch for more "reports" like this one...

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Comcast donates MORE to Democrats than they do repukes....

http://www.buyblue.org/cg.php?&Democrats=433553&Republicans=383496&Others=

$433,553 to Democrats
$383,496 to Republicans
$0 to Others
$817,049 in Total Contributions

[KansDem]

45. You don't suppose they donate to those "blue dog dems" they report on?

Wal-Mart Elected "Grinch of the Year" for 2004
Jobs with Justice

Wednesday 22 December 2004

Cintas and Comcast runners-up in national contest to determine who did the most harm to workers and their families this year.

********

Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV and broadband internet company, won third place in the poll. Like Wal-Mart, Comcast has adopted a low road approach to its employees. "Comcast acts like a bully, refusing to adhere to the rules or community standards," said former maintenance technician Shannon Kirkland, who worked for Comcast for 11 years. "Comcast uses its disproportionate power to deny workers their rights."

Earlier this year, Jobs with Justice's National Workers' Rights Board released a report "This is Comcast: Silencing Our Voice at Work" documenting its widespread pattern of abuse of workers' rights and illustrating why the United States' 75 year-old labor laws need to be modernized.

Comcast is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and employs 68,000 people in 4,000 communities. Learn more about how Comcast is harming workers at www.comcastwatch.com.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122604G.shtml">T r u t h o u t

Comcast Censors ImpeachPAC - and YOU

********

We contacted Comcast, the largest cable company in Connecticut - and in the U.S. We sent them the link to the ad on July 18. We signed the contract on July 21 and sent the link to the documentation. We gave them our credit card.

Everything was ready - except for Comcast's censors.

We waited... and waited... and waited. Each day we were told the censors were reviewing the ad. But we were never told when - or even if - they would decide.

Frankly, this censorship is intolerable.

Our ad is factual. It is based on a report by a credible, non-partisan organization. The report was credible enough to appear in the New York Times and other publications. Neither the Pentagon nor the White House have challenged the report in any way. The comparison to the Swift Boat ads is night versus day.

Comcast has no right to censor us - or to keep us in the dark. So we need your help.

ImpeachPAC

Comcast blocks DSM e-mail!

Cable, Internet Monolith Comcast Kills Email from 'AfterDowningStreet' Coalition!
Advocacy Group, Internet Host Charge 'Political Motivation' Behind Filtering of Email by Country's Largest Net Services Provider!
*** BRAD BLOG EXCLUSIVE ***

The BRAD BLOG has learned that cable company and Internet service provider, Comcast Corporation has been automatically deleting email sent to Comcast customers with the text "http://afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the email.

AfterDowningStreet.org is the citizen's coalition advocacy group organized to raise awareness of the leaked British memos and minutes referred to as the "Downing Street Documents". Comcast is the nation's largest Internet Services provider....

Full Story and Statement from AfterDowningStreet's Web Host:

Democrats.com

Let's see: abuse of workers' rights, suppression of free speech, and censorship. Makes ya kinda wonder why they're donating so much to Democrats?

[smitty]

15. Does the words "political diversity" means anything? There's

many Democrat Congressmen/women and there's a diversity of ideas. I don't expect a Democrat politician from Lincoln, Nebraska to have the same outlook as one from San Francisco, California. They have their own philosophy and they have to respond to the people who elected them.

Of course, we could brand the Blue Dogs as traitors and purge them. That would make a lot of Republicans happy.

[Dr Fate]

17. How about actual diversity- like not being opposed to civil rights for gay folks.

"There are Blue Dog Democrats that want to... protect life and marriage"

These Blue Dogs need to cool their jets on that one- I dont mind giving an inch here or there- but if they are going to join Repubs in continuing to scapegoate gay folks over "protecting marriage"- then we are going to have a problem.

[gully]

25. So diversity is only about you and your agenda?

Accept MY agenda or you're not diverse? If the Bluedog dems start calling for a purge they'll hear from me. However, we all have to realize that Jim Webb won Virgina because he's MODERATE. We're in the majority because of Dean's 50 state "politics is local" strategy.

[Dr Fate]

30. No. I just think picking on Gay people is for Republicans.

It is ironic that we have to allow people to oppose diversity in order for us to be diverse ourselves.

[gully]

51. Ironic, but true.

eom

[Telly Savalas]

43. But where do you draw the line on what constitutes acceptable diversity?

David Duke ran for office as a Democrat. I seriously doubt that most people here would accept his views on race relations as part of the "diversity of ideas" of the Democratic Party.

I don't expect Democrats from Lincoln to have the same outlook as one from SF either, but I still think it's unacceptable for a Democrat from anywhere to support torture or infringements upon civil rights. I'm willing to cut right-leaning Democrats a little slack, but at a certain point one must say "enough is enough".

Chanting the mantra "big tent" isn't a proper substitute for setting limits on what policy positions are accepted in the party. If I were to start a campaign to draft Donald Rumsfeld to be the Democratic nominee for president in '08, I'd be advocating a "big tent" approach to the party. So if a "big tent" is automatically desirable, then there shouldn't be a problem with Rummy with a D after his name.

[Speck Tater]

19. Round them up and send them to Gitmo!

To quote myself from a old post:

We simply can't govern effectively if we allow people to speak their minds! That kind of disloyalty is intolerable! You're either with us or you're against us! Why do they hate the Democrats? Don't they know that kind of talk gives aid and comfort to the Republicans? They are clearly traitors. Somebody should notify the Democratic Department of Partyland Security immediately! Now that we have control we must all toe the line and stay the course. This is perfect example of why torture IS justified. Why, torture would be too good for anyone who would betray the party by disagreeing! Perhaps we need re-education camps where these misguided fools can be retrained to see the error of their ways. Electroshock therapy, for example, might help them realize how they have been mislead by the Godless evil called thinking for themselves.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. They can think for themselves, but when they start making THREATS about how THEY

will be changing how the Democrats do business, THEN I have a problem with their THINKING. This is crap. They didn't need to call a press conference to announce this. Why did they have to do that now? Why couldn't they just say that to Nancy behind closed doors? They just gave the repukes a WHOLE BUNCH OF FODDER for the next few weeks.

Sending them to Gitmo sounds pretty damn good right now.:grr:

[madmusic]

20. For those who don't understand this...

I had to look it up...

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

[StraightDope]

29. Conservative Democrats need to wake the fuck up...

And come to terms with the realization that there is already a party for their nonsense and other assorted idiocy. It's called "Republican".

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. Thank You!

If they wanted to say this, it should have been said behind closed doors.....directly to THEIR Madame Speaker who is a LIBERAL Democrat. assholes.

I'd bet money on the fact that Roy Blunt is behind this PUBLIC STATEMENT. He said yesterday he had lunch with a Blue Dog Democrat and that Blue Dog Democrat told him that the Blue Dogs don't agree with the Dems on MANY issues.:grr: Blunt said he will be whipping the Blue Dogs to vote with the repukes on THOSE issues.:(

[gully]

39. Sorry, we're not a single issue party.

Would you rather Republicans were in the majority right now?

[StraightDope]

44. No, but I'd prefer non-obstructionist Democrats.

Fuck conservatives, no matter what clothing they enrobe themselves in...

[gully]

50. Cute,

but ignorant. Check the voting record of Joe Lieberman and contrast that to Trent Lott. Let me know what you find.

[meisje]

38. It's a big tent, deal with it!

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. NO. They came into MY tent, not me into theirs. sorry.

I'll bitch and complain anytime they rag on MY party.

[smitty]

46. When did it become "YOUR" party? Get a grip, do you think that

ten of millions of Democrats all must think alike? Just in my circle of friends there's a diversity of opinions (although we agree on many things).

[in_cog_ni_to]

52. My grip is just fine and was much better until those assholes

called a press conference to inform their party leader that she had better be prepared to do things THEIR way. That's total bullshit. Me thinks THEY are the MINORITY in the Democratic Party...they have no right to start pushing their agenda on the party...MY party.

[KingFlorez]

53. Thank you

Some people can't grasp that

[mmonk]

41. So dang tired of the

liberal meme. I really hate the party is going through this crap at this particular crucial time in history of the country and of the party. Makes me feel like I'm walking uphill in an avalanche.

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. Yes, Comrade. We must purge this right deviationism from our ranks.

These errors of ideology must not be tolerated, lest they spread; those who would undermine the revolution must be sent to the gulags. </sarcasm>

It's unfortunate, but it's also very simple: in a lot of the country, the only Democrats who're going to get elected are going to be socially conservative and perhaps moderately economically populist. If you really want to change that, I'd suggest you start recruiting liberals to move to Arkansas and Nebraska and so on, to alter the demographics. Now, if you want a Congressional majority, control of committees, and the ability to set a legislative agenda, then you have no choice: even a conservative Democrat is better than any Republican.

[QC]

48. Liquidate the kulaks and counterrevolutionaries now!

All hail the glorious people's revolution!

In all seriousness, the reason the Republicans are in the mess they are in now--a strictly regional party identified with extremism--is their insistence on ideological purity. We need to learn from that.

[mmonk]

49. Let me know when a "liberal" democrat says

the same thing about "conservative" democrats in public. If these people are sure they can win as democrats without progressive votes, just keep it up and they'll see. I question if the party really has the cohesiveness to effectively deal with republican rightwingers sometimes with all the "liberal" phobia. Suckers for republican framing IMO.

[Tatiana]

47. I saw this press conference.

They want to send a message to Democratic leadership that they better "move to the middle."

***YAWN***

The progressive caucus is still the largest one, to my knowledge. That being said, there is a place for conservative Dems and conservative values in our party. Compromises will have to be made here and there. However, these people need to wake up and realize that appeasing Republicans only gives us the great rewards like the Iraq invasion, the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, and desecration of the Constitution.

If they want more of the same, they should switch parties.

[gully]

54. They, like we need to embrace our diversity as a party.

We need left, we need middle. Anyone who says "my way or the highway" is mistaken.

[bigtree]

58. I think progressives have a better chance of pulling to the 'middle'

as the middle has shifted far right under Bush and the republicans

[Odin2005]

56. This "Conservative Dem" BS is getting annoying.

The MSM is saying that crap because the real winners in this election are POPULISTS like Jon Tester.

[bigtree]

57. don't 'liberals' want the same thing?

you can't always get what you want

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Oooh scary conservatives are going to stall our agenda

Seriously these guys haven't named any specific policies in which they won't get through the House or Senate. Can we wait until the congress actually starts doing its work before we determine whether this is real or whether it's just a bunch of hot air so that they can win points with the constituents for rhetorically distancing themselves from liberals when they actually support a liberal agenda?