The biggest losers will be the Blue Dogs

[pstokely]

and those running Blue Dog campaigns

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. 92% of Congress?

:grr:

[meow mix]

2. if thy leg offends thee, cut it off

ill give them a happy goodbye

[stray cat]

19. I think we should rejoice if we lose the house and senate and only keep Kucinich

we will finally have things just the way we want them - pure and powerless

[elocs]

3. Yep, replaced with a true Republican who will never vote with the Democrats on anything.

Blue Dogs do vote with their party about 75% of the time, so that sounds like a great trade.

Add to that the Republicans will probably hold that Blue Dog seat for years and it gives the GOP a great chance to take over the House and this is certainly a deal too good to be true. Definitely, cause for celebration.

[DJ13]

6. Blue Dogs do vote with their party about 75% of the time

75% on issues that wont impact the corporate bottom line.

Its the other 25% thats of the greatest importance to average Americans.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Actually, most Blue Dogs vote with the Democratic Caucus more than 90% of the time:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/party-voters/

[elocs]

12. "A Close Look at Blue Dog Democrats' Voting Record"

From the summer of 2009:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_2009080... /

With help from the Heritage Foundation and a variety of Republican congressional staffers, HUMAN EVENTS picked 16 of the most important votes from the 1 1 Ith Congress and examined how the Blue Dogs voted using Democrat House Majority Leader Hoyer as a benchmark (Rep. Nancy Pelosi because she is House Speaker - often does not vote except when her vote might be decisive. With the large Democratic majority in the House, that's not very often).

Looking at these 16 most important votes so far in the 1 1 1 th Congress, of the 52 members of the Blue Dog Coalition 78% have voted in lockstep with ultra-liberal Hoyer.

-----snip------

Again, in these 16 important votes in the lllth Congress, Blue Dogs have voted for the liberal Democratic agenda 78% of the time.

The Blue Dogs will have to answer to the voters for their record of fiscal irresponsibility which doesn't match their promises. They have an opportunity coming to redeem themselves - at least in part - by standing strong against Obama's expensive (and expansive) nationalization of health care.

In the past - on the "Cap and Trade" energy tax committee vote, for example - the Blue Dogs quickly bowed to pressure by liberal Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and voted for the bill. Should they choose to once again fold to their leadership's pressure - and vote for government run healthcare that is so expensive and complex that ii would change the role of the federal government forever - they will have more to answer for to their constituents. And will have to rethink their "Blue Dog" label.

Regardless of how they vote, Blue Dogs serve a very important function for the Democratic Party at this time: their names in the D column help to keep the House under Democratic control along with everything that goes along with that. If the Republicans take control of the House it will not be pretty and lots of Americans will be hurt. How could that ever be considered a good thing?

Rooting for the defeat of Blue Dogs in this election is the perfect example of cutting off the nose to spite the face. Blue Dog seats will never be held by any Liberal Democrat or even a moderate one.

[polichick]

17. "Blue Dog seats will never be held by any Liberal Democrat or even a moderate one."

Not true - that's the convenient argument of corporate Dems.

Sure, Blue Dogs are better than Republicans, but if we ran populist progressives who proudly painted a clear, bold picture of who we are and who Republicans are policywise, many middle class Americans in red states would vote Dem.

[elocs]

21. So, it's not true because you say it's not? Well, I happen to believe it is true.

Any examples of a seat formerly held by a Blue Dog that is now held by even a moderate Democrat? Not likely. Politicians position themselves so they can get reelected and so Blue Dogs are Blue Dogs for a good reason--they would otherwise lose.

[DJ13]

22. So its true because you say its true?

[Drale]

4. Wrong the biggest losers

will be the people of the united states, if what the MSM says is going to happen, happens.

[polichick]

5. Maybe next time we'll run populist progressives and paint a very clear picture...

...of who we are and who they are, policywise.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. Nah, that would be too easy --

and wouldn't line the proper pockets. Damn, we need 100 Paul Wellstones. :(

[polichick]

13. It may take a revolution of sorts by progressive Dems...

I've been looking for a strong, bold (but peaceful) organization to join.

[stray cat]

16. It hasn't kept Boxer or Feingold out of trouble

[polichick]

20. I'm with Kucinich on this election: "I'm not conceding anything."

This is an anti-incumbent year so it's not surprising that Boxer and Feingold are having to fight hard - but they haven't lost yet.

[sharp_stick]

7. Yeah keep telling yourself that

when instead of a plain asshole like Ben Nelson you have to deal with an enormous asshole like James Inhofe or Jim Demint.

[Warpy]

10. Across the country, Blue Dogs are in the biggest trouble

That would be fine if it was telling the rest of the party anything, but they seem impervious to learning the lesson.

Look at Blanche Lincoln. Aside from being cheated into the candidate's slot, she's campaigned relentlessly as a loyalist Republican. Had she put forth even minimal effort at campaigning as a Democrat, her seat would likely not be in as much jeopardy. As it is, she's slated to lose to a raving lunatic called Boozman.

And still the conservative dominated party does not learn a thing.

[kentuck]

11. Serves us right...

They are more trouble than they are worth. They only vote against us when we really need them. They are back stabbers.

[kctim]

14. I agree

and the most disappointing thing will be watching some Democrats trying to explain that the reason those voters voted to the right of a the blue-dog was because the party isn't far enough left of the blue-dog.

[stray cat]

15. and the american people. Look at Feingold and Boxer if they lose....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. They "triangulated" themselves into the unemployment line.