You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Blue Dog Dems" are burning up the House Floor on C-Span Now [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 05:11 PM
Original message
"Blue Dog Dems" are burning up the House Floor on C-Span Now
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Tue Feb-06-07 05:56 PM by KoKo01
They are ripping Bush's Budget for borrowing from China, Opec, Mexico and Carribean Nations while giving tax breaks to those making over $400,000. Stressing that all this borrowing is hurting our country and our troops.

Also, Senator Obama stood up today with Two Blue Dog Congressional Members (Mike Thompson (CA) and Patrick Murphey (PA) to call for support for his Democratic Plan to start the Redeployment of Troops from Iraq starting this May if "Benchmarks" are not met by the Iraqi's.

It was a good move for Obama and the Blue Dogs to UNITE for this BILL!


--------------------------------------------------
WHO ARE THE BLUE DOGS?

Differences between the Blue Dogs and the Democratic Leadership Council

Blue Dog Democrats tend to differ ideologically from another coalition of moderate Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The DLC describes itself as new Democrat and positions itself as centrist while taking moderate or liberal positions on social issues and moderate positions on economic issues and trade. Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs, on the other hand, tend to be social conservatives, but have differing positions on economic issues ranging from fiscal conservatism to economic populism. For example, most Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, many have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups. On economic issues, Blue Dogs span the spectrum from fiscal conservatives to supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures, while the DLC tends to favor free trade.

A small number of newer Blue Dogs, however, hold positions closer to those of the DLC; some Blue Dog Coalition members are also DLC members. Blue Dogs share with the DLC a desire to keep the Democratic Party grounded in their view of the political center and to ensure that the party does not drift too far to the left of their own positions and no longer appeal to what they believe to be the majority of U.S. voters.

Differences between the Blue Dogs and Liberal Democrats

The Blue Dogs' moderate-to-conservative agenda in Congress has upset many in the Democratic party, as it sometimes leads to voting with the more conservative Republicans. In 2005, the members of the Blue Dog Coalition voted 32 to 3 in favor of the bill to limit access to bankruptcy protection (S 256). Congressman Collin Peterson was subjected to a heated round of questioning from colleagues in the Democratic Party over several votes where he strayed from the party line before being nominated as the ranking member on the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, in what would otherwise have been a routine nomination.

On the other hand, some prominent Blue Dogs have also received strong support from liberal activists within the party, most notably Brad Carson of Oklahoma in his unsuccessful 2004 run for the U.S. Senate, John Tanner of Tennessee (whose Republican opponent in 2004, James L. Hart, was a radical eugenics advocate denounced by his own party), Jim Matheson of Utah, and Loretta Sanchez of California in her successful bid to unseat former Congressman Bob Dornan. Online fundraising efforts by liberal weblogs in 2004 named Brad Carson's campaign a top national priority. In some cases this support for Blue Dogs came about because the Republican opponent (former Representative, now Senator Tom Coburn) was seen as holding strong right-wing views; in other cases the support is because in some states like Tennessee (where native son Al Gore lost the state's electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2000), Oklahoma, the Dakotas, and Utah, a conservative Democrat is seen as the only kind of Democrat who can be viable at the polls. Some progressive activists also view the Blue Dogs as an important part of a Democratic Party big tent coalition, which will give the party important credibility with rural voters and social conservatives, while viewing the Blue Dogs as perhaps easier to swing to the left on fiscal and trade issues than the DLC.

Others in the party's left wing disagree, and have promoted the idea of running future primary challenges against both Blue Dog Coalition and DLC members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC