BREAKING: Conservative Dems expected to vote with GOP to give Bush unfettered blank check on Iraq

[warrior1]

tomorrow.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/05/breaking-conservative-dems-expected-to.html


Have at it.

[mike_c]

1. I hope they don't-- I'll wait and see what happens....

eom

[annabanana]

7. You hope they don't? You'll wait?

Why should you expect them to do otherwise? We already KNOW Lieberman will vote with them. And probably Landreau. And one or both of the Nelsons...

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. The article refers to the House, not the Senate

...

[mike_c]

13. I'm suffering outrage fatigue-- these days I try to avoid...

...getting my blood pressure up until folks do something to merit it.

[EFerrari]

18. Me, too. I have a hard time reading the email I get from

political groups and I don't want to watch the news. How about them Warriors?

:hug:

[Blackhatjack]

24. High Five on the Warriors! (from North Carolina Tobacco Road Basketball Country!)

Our candidates can learn a thing or two about teamwork from watching the Warriors in the playoffs this year!

[Telly Savalas]

20. Sorry to be a pedant, but Lieberman isn't a Democrat.

[Cha]

30. That's not pedantic it's

fuckin' true!

[warrior1]

2. honestly

I don't believe it.

[quinnox]

3. well lets see

what happens, this would be interesting development. I'm not too unhappy because the conservative Dems have to worry about their seats too but I doubt they got everything they wanted in the bill.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. Now THAT's a headline. LOL.

:rofl: MKJ

[flyarm]

5. IF THEY DO , THEIR CAREERS ARE OVER IN CONGRESS! EOM

[aquart]

6. There's one born every minute

And then they elect congressmen.

[jimshoes]

8. Now that bush seems to be

on the ropes, personally I'd like to see the dems tweak his nose a bit. But we'll see.

[BlooInBloo]

10. (shrug) No names, no evidence, implausible on it's face.

[EFerrari]

11. John has street cred. He's careful. I hope, though, this turns out

to be wrong. :(

[BlooInBloo]

14. I agree with all you said, none of which contradicts anything I said.

[EFerrari]

16. So it's a wash!

lol

:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

17. ;)

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. If this is true, it certainly explains the public Bush upbraiding

GOPers leak story in which they upbraid the President, then pass precisely the bill he wanted all along, with a troupe of douchebag Yellow Dogs along for the ride.

If this hadn't been standard procedure for the entire life of the 2002-2006 GOP Congress, you'd almost have to laugha at the absurdity of it all. But it was common procedure. And - of we are to believe this report - thanks to the douchebag Yellow Dogs (and all their douchebag supporters, including numerous Yellow Dog Douchebags on These Very Boards), it still is.

[w4rma]

19. Blue dogs, not yellow dogs. (nt)

[peacebaby3]

32. Actually, Yellow Dogs, were die hard Southern Democrats during the

Reconstruction period in the late 1800s. They were the ones that said that they would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for a Republican of the Lincoln era so I've never really understood why anyone would want to call themselves a yellow dog dem because in the South those are the Dixiecrats.

[w4rma]

35. I still think blue dog is a more accurate term, but you're right.

Blue dogs:
The term is a reference to the "Blue Dog" paintings of Cajun artist George Rodrigue of Lafayette, Louisiana; the original members of the coalition would regularly meet in the offices of Louisiana representatives Billy Tauzin and Jimmy Hayes, both of whom had Rodrigue's paintings on their walls (and both of whom later switched to the Republican Party).

The term is also probably meant as an ironic counterpoint to the traditional "Yellow Dog" label, which is applied to Southern Democrats so loyal to the party that they would vote for a yellow dog before voting for a Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

Yellow dogs:
In the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century, Yellow Dog Democrats were voters in the U.S. Southern states who consistently voted for Democratic candidates — simply because of lingering resentment against Republicans during the Civil War and Reconstruction periods. The term arose from the notion that a Southerner would vote for a yellow dog before voting for a Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_dog_Democrat

[Telly Savalas]

21. Having read your post, I've come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party

should change its name to the Liberal Party, so that when you see somebody on CSPAN with a "D" after their name, there would no longer be ambiguity as to what the letter stood for.

[mmonk]

33. Somebody needs to be the second party in a two party system.

Otherwise, its a one party system masquerading with diversions around the edges.

[rocktivity]

15. Moderate Repugs crash the oval office and tell Bush to get real, and now this?

I've no reason to doubt Arivosis, especially since he writes that there is "serious concern," rather than confirmed certainty, from his "impeccable source." But it sounds like just another scene in the political theater that's been going on all day. If those Repugs really HAD succeeded in scheduling an impromptu private meeting with Bush during which they read him the riot act, do you REALLY think it would have been leaked to the press?

:headbang:
rocknation

[firefox_fan]

22. Breaking! Conservative Dems won't be reelected

[Gloria]

39. Oh, yes they will.....heck, I'm reading polls that say that 91% of

Democratic voters are OK with Hillary's IWR vote and don't care about any apology or whatever.

From TPM:
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/09/poll_nine_percent_of_dems_hold_her_iraq_positions_against_her_huh


I'm reaching the point of thinking "why bother?"

[mvd]

23. I don't understand this

Why can't we stay together? It is Bush that should be on the defensive. It isn't like voters in conservative states want the war to go on forever. If they strip everything out, we must make sure that it doesn't pass both Houses. I feel like sending Bush a bill that says that in 5 years we must begin withdrawal. If he vetoes that, we're golden!

[EFerrari]

25. Imho, we're just not used to DISCUSSIONS any more.

We're been treated to choreographed Republic lockstep for years. So, when Democrats actually negotiate, it's freaky.

The rumors, the arguments, the public disagreements are healthy -- we're just not used to a real conversation any more. :shrug:

[mvd]

26. Yes, but on the war, I would think that we could..

mostly stick together for some kinds of restrictions.

[EFerrari]

27. Maybe we can and maybe we will. I guess I only mean

we're out of the habit of talking.

I trust Nancy and Harry to lead. Not to be perfect or to do what I want, but to lead.

[mvd]

28. I don't trust this story yet. But I will be very disappointed..

if it is true. It's time for offense.

[EFerrari]

29. Long past time. I agree. n/t

[mmonk]

31. I heard dems would not cut the funding

on Ed Schultz sometime ago in passing. If the story is true, more lives are to be lost. All I can say is I'm glad my rep is not a blue dog or I couldn't vote for him. I opposed this illegal action from the start. Therefore any who keep it going I oppose politically and I share no common ground with (its just not possible). All this unprovoked bloodshed and misuse of our armed forces is the shame of this current era.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

36. Dems are NOT cutting off funding if it's Bush who vetoes the funding. Fuck this.

[mmonk]

37. You don't get what I heard.

I heard there is no way they aren't going to keep funding the war currently because they don't want to not fund the troops. This is what I heard. Kill the messenger?

[mmonk]

38. Maybe I should have said allow.

Anyway, I was just trying to pass along what I heard on the show in light of the OP.

[The Magistrate]

40. There Is No Reason To Take This Report Seriously, My Friend

Among other things, if there were any serious danger of it, Speaker Pelosi would simply shut it down by parliamentary manouver....

[Neecy]

34. *sigh*

My Blue Dog bastard is one of the leaders of that shitty caucus, Dennis Moore. Time to write his office (again). I'm so sick of this faux Democrat I could scream.

[mzmolly]

41. I'll believe it when I seez it.

:hi:

[orleans]

42. so then what about the 11 republics that did the "walk" to

fuckhead's office to tell him the country thought he was a lying sack of shit (or whatever they said)?