Blue Dogs say their mission is to restrain the influence of party liberals

[Robbien]

Led by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), members said early press reports of their meetings were mischaracterized as an opposition group to President Barack Obama’s agenda and budget. But they acknowledge that they are seeking to restrain the influence of party liberals in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

. . .


http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/12/senate-blug-dog-coalition/

They say the moderate Democrats in the Senate are willing to work with moderate Republicans.


Now tell me again what makes these guys Dem?

[ixion]

1. restrain progressives, and enable the GOP

that sounds like a snake in the grass, to me.

[Robbien]

4. The article also says they are completely dislocated from the main Dem caucus interests

and are happy when they win concessions from Dem party leaders.

[redqueen]

2. Worse than the DLC, they are...

going by voting records.

"Moderate," they say, as if the vast majority in this country have not completely lost touch with the meaning of that word.

Oh, it is to laugh.

[Jennicut]

11. The DLC are moderate to centrist Dems, the blue dogs are centrist to conservative Dems

The DLC gets a lot of attacks here but the Blue Dogs are way worse.

[Solly Mack]

3. Snort

[KharmaTrain]

5. They Don't Have The Votes in The House...

Last year, Democrats had only a 30 seat majority...enough for the Blue Dogs to create a mess. That's not the case with a 79 seat majority. The problem is that Hoyer is one of them and he's been carrying their water...this shit needs to stop.

While rushpublicans claim they had a big tent, the Democrats now truly do. This was due to the push to create a 50-state party and to make the party competitive in areas where it hadn't been. In many cases, we made alliances with candidates (like Heath Schueler) who we knew would be very "conservative"...using the Democratic party as an easy ticket over a more competitive or restrictive local GOOP. It was a trade off...getting someone with us 25 or 50% of the time was better than 0. But that was then, this is now.

The next step to creating a more Progressive America is to create more and better Democrats. More progressive and challenge those that beleive the party is too "liberal" to primaries. Let the people be given a clear choice and let them decide. Our job is to help fund these candidates so they can effectively challenge.

The Democrats are getting to the saturation point. Most of the rushpublican districts are crimson red now...not as many purple in play. While it'd be nice to grab a few more seats (especially in the Senate), the future focus will have to be on clearing out the faux Democrats...the GOOPers who ran as Democrats who are now Blue Dogs.

Cheers...

[Robbien]

8. It doesn't make a difference if they have the votes or not

Obama supports them and Pelosi is constantly giving them concessions. While their number may be small, their power is great.

Having a 50 state program is not good when party officials make sure that the Dem candidate is a Blue Dog. If a progressive gets in the race, Dem leaders solicit a Blue Dog to also run. And for good measure they get another progressive to run in that same race so as to make sure the progressive vote is divided.

Progressive candidates are not supported with DNC money.

[redqueen]

12. Well, both parties in this godforsaken two-party system

like things the way they are.

[BlueJac]

6. Get a leash!

[Skidmore]

7. Spoken like the Rs in sheep's clothing theyare.

[Vinca]

9. Time for some new Democratic senators. nt

[JHB]

10. And there are , what, a grand total of three "moderate Republicans"?

Or is even that too generous?