Comments on: It’s not nice to make a Blue Dog angry

By: Obloodyhell

Obloodyhell — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:29:05 +0000

> Those things smart.

Move closer — that’s going to be the only smarts she ever got.

By: Obloodyhell

Obloodyhell — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:26:58 +0000

> Charlie Rangel, Alcee Hastings, Jack Murtha, and how they’ll have to be carried out of the House (yes, I understand that they’re not Blue Dogs, well, a case could be made for Murtha)

They may not be Blue Dogs but every one is a damned son of a bitch.

:oP

By: Obloodyhell

Obloodyhell — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:25:08 +0000

> Say it isn’t so, Nancy!

Umm? Senate?

I believe the tagline you sought was “Oh, Henry!”

By: Darrell

Darrell — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:01:12 +0000

The blue dogs have crafted there message to fit conservative democrats ideals and capitalizes on the distrust of the republican party; fiscally conservative, tough on crime etc and a message that distances them from the whacko left wing of the party, makes the vote easier to swallow for people who do not support what the democratic party has become.
Time will tell if it is just an act or if they are true to their beliefs, we can sit back an watch the show as people see what having a large majority in charge of everything means, thinking people cannot approve of what is happening now IMO, my motto, reboot congress 2010, I bought that domain name btw.

By: betsybounds

betsybounds — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:34:18 +0000

Gary,

I understand what you’re saying, but it occurs to me that if the Reagan Democrats (or any other roughly conservative Democrat) were voting for Democrats because they don’t trust Republicans, they would probably vote for the Democrat in any case–so why bother to run conservative ones? But it’s the candidates themselves whose sense I question. Surely they know that when they get to Washington, they’ll be subsumed by the left-liberal nature of the national (congressional) party. I think, and have thought for some time, that the problem with conservatives, and with Republicans (to the extent that they are conservative) is that they don’t recognize the nature or the stakes of the fight they’re in.

As to Bush’s unpopularity–you have a point there as well, of course, but I think McCain was lame enough all on his own to have lost without Bush’s help.

I also understand that not everyone thinks in starkly ideological terms. But for those who don’t, what terms do they think in? Partisan, perhaps? If people vote Democrat because their Democrat is conservative, what’s that if not stark ideology?

By: Gary Rosen

Gary Rosen — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:05:29 +0000

“If you’re conservative, why are you a Democrat? That’s what I’d like to know. It makes no sense at all. None. Zero.”

Betsy, I think there are still a lot of “Reagan Democrats” out there – people with blue-collar backgrounds whose politics are centrist or even to the right but who retain an innate distrust of the Republicans as “the party of the rich”. And rightly or wrongly, Bush’s unpopularity spread to the rest of the ticket last year. Not everyone thinks in starkly ideological terms.

By: Wolla Dalbo

Wolla Dalbo — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:37:16 +0000

There are conflicting signals; one news story, time stamped around 3 P.M. yesterday, had Blue Dogs emerging from meetings with Waxman et al saying that they had been lied to and deceived, that what they thought were good faith negotiations were not, and that negotiations were off for now. However, right after that I found a news story, time stamped around 5:30 P.M. that same afternoon, about how grinning, bucktoothed, ratfaced Waxmen and Blue Dog negotiators had appeared jointly before the press to announce that things were on track, and that they were going to get this thing done. Similarly, there were stories reporting how Waxman was saying he would bypass his recalcitrant committee and bring the bill to the floor for a vote, stories about Reid and Pelosi saying that there was is no way the bill couldbe voted on before the first week of August recess, yet, other stories quoting Rahm Emanuel saying there would be a floor vote next week.

So, cynical me wonders if this is, indeed, a Democratic “Rope-a-Dope” strategy– i.e rest on the ropes, protect yourself, pretend that you are worn out–finished–and hope that your opponent will get tired of throwing punches, ease up a little when he thinks he sees the signs that victory is near for him, and, when he does this, you can emerge, rested and fighting–and that the Democrats involved are trying to confuse and defuse their opponents into thinking that they can relax, and that vigilance and constant pressure are no longer needed, because the bill is delayed or is, effectively, dead.

By: betsybounds

betsybounds — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:57:37 +0000

I’ve never understood the Blue Dogs. I understand where they come from–Rahm Emmanuel’s fertile trick bag: Run conservative Democrats in conservative districts! But I’ve never understood why the rubes fall for it. Anyone with half a brain and one good eye can see that, when the guys get to DC, they will be nothing more than numbers in the great left-liberal counting house. If you’re conservative, why are you a Democrat? That’s what I’d like to know. It makes no sense at all. None. Zero.

By: Hong

Hong — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:47:14 +0000

And here I thought the Blue Dogs were housebroken. Good on them. But Queen Nancy must be plotting up ways even now to deny them their kibble.

By: I R A Darth Aggie

I R A Darth Aggie — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:19:34 +0000

With the Blue Dawgs, their bark is worse than their bite. Watch for interesting things getting slipped into the bill to buy them off.

And watch for a number them to go down in defeat in the 2010 elections if they don’t at least pretend to read this legislation.