Tag: Blue Dog Democrats

Blue Dogs–A Dying Breed

It all started in 1995 during the Clinton admin…..Dems, some Dems, were ultra-conservative Democrats that came together in our Congress….but for a more in-depth look at these, in my opinion, party cowards…..if there are DINOs then these people are the very definition.

The Blue Dog Coalition was created in 1995 to represent the commonsense, moderate voice of the Democratic Party, appealing to mainstream American values. The Blue Dogs are leaders in Congress who are committed to pursuing fiscally-responsible policies, ensuring a strong national defense, and transcending party lines to do what’s best for the American people.

The name “Blue Dog” was inspired by the famous Blue Dog paintings by Cajun artist George Rodrigue. The term is also based on the long-time tradition of referring to a strong Democratic Party supporter as being a “Yellow Dog Democrat,” who would have “sooner voted for a yellow dog than a Republican.” The founding members of the Blue Dogs said they felt that they had been “choked blue” by the extremes of both political parties, leading to the Coalition’s name.

Since 2010 their numbers have been declining for why have a Dem conserv when you have those thugs in the GOP….

But as I say they are declining…..(which is a godsend, IMO)

Blue Dog Democrats are seen as a moderate bloc in the House—a “fiscally conservative, pro-national security caucus” among Democrats that acts as a counter to progressives, per Roll Call. After the 2008 elections, the group had a healthy 54 members. Today, however, the number is down to seven, the lowest in the group’s long history, reports Politico. It might have been 15, but seven members have bowed out and an eighth is undecided. This group, which includes Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, wanted the Blue Dogs to ditch their name and rebrand as the Common Sense Coalition, per Politico.

When a vote on the name change failed, the exodus began. Spanberger’s camp (she and Sherrill were the last two female members) worries that the group still carries a stigma of a “boys’ club,” as Politico puts it, from its Southern roots. Remaining members, including four members of color, dispute that. “It seems like it’s been a pretty diverse group of people over the last four years,” says an unnamed member. “I’m not thinking of 30 years ago. I don’t really entertain that type of critique.” As small as they are, Blue Dogs could still wield influence, both sites note. Given the Republicans’ slim majority, even a handful of votes can make a difference in the current House.

The Democratic Party is dying as well and personally I believe the Blue Dogs are speeding the demise up.

That is my opinion but others see it not so differently…..(the DNC sucks!)

The future of the Democratic Party is bleak.

Up until recently in possession of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, the Democrats have failed to accomplish anything meaningful, anything that improves the quality of our lives.

Voters tend to notice that sort of thing. 

However, the DNC’s problem isn’t merely about contemporary underperformance; it’s not about Joe Manchin or Kristin Sinema’s moderate-conservative disruption of the liberal agenda.

No, the DNC’s problem is much deeper and more profound; the Democrat’s problem is the culmination of a four-decade ethos shift that has left what was once the party of the people a shriveled, impotent shell of its former self.

The Democratic Party is supposed to protect the middle class. And through the middle of the twentieth century, the Dems did just that.

Middle-class voters (i.e. the majority of Americans) responded favorably, and the results were politically prosperous – the Dems dominated federal elections; The Dems held the White House from 1933 until 1953 and then again from 1961 until 1969 – and once more from 1977 until 1981. Liberals also dominated the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Warren led a nearly two-decade run of consistently progressive case rulings.

More importantly, during this time period of Dem vitality, America prospered. The American middle class was the envy of the world; long overdue reforms regarding race and gender were implemented; the American dream was a tangible thing – rather than just a campaign slogan – available to an ever-increasing swath of the U.S. population. The GOP had a powerful counterpoint in a righteous, convicted Democratic Party that knew how to win elections and knew how to govern. Professor Mark Lilla called this era the “Roosevelt Dispensation,” which “pictured an America where citizens were involved in a collective enterprise to guard one another against risk, hardship, and the denial of fundamental rights.”

Why the Democratic Party Is Dying

The Dems are now the Party of war….the middle class is not safe with the Dems nor the GOP.

I have been calling for a third party that has the interests of the workers and the middle class at their core…..we have none of that with our party system these days.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Changing Of The Guard?

In 2018 the House reverted back to the Dems and in that election more women and Millennials were elected and they came to Congress with one plan to do the work of the people who elected them.

While they set about making their mark they were told by the “Old Guard” to be silent and keep their heads down…..they did not take that advice. And now the Old Guard is running scared and are doing all they can to make these Congresspeople as least effective as possible.

Come let’s be honest these old farts Dems are as conserv as the GOP all their noise made in contrary is just political theater knowing full well that their opposition will not be taken seriously and the status quo will remain….that means you will be crapped on as usual.

Starting with Clinton, Bubba not Hil, the Dems have drifted into conservatism and remained there…there has been lots of talk about change….but really? What has changed within the DNC? Obama may talk a good game but policies remained in the conserv vane…and yet he is seen as a progressive.

As a true progressive I despise the use of the term used to describe anyone in the DNC…the new brand is embracing true progressivism over the conserv BS from the past…..the country will win in the end.

These freshmen Congresspeople are giving the American people what they have had so little of in the past…a voice in their future.

I am so tired of these pundits on TV that make 6 figures or more telling the American people what they need and what they want.  These people have NO idea what an average family wants or needs……but yet they bad mouth the so-called Left populism…..

The considerable advances that the labor movements made in the period 1945–1978 (known as “The Golden Age of Capitalism”), and the considerable expansion of social, labor, and political rights that these movements achieved on both sides of the North Atlantic (North America and Western Europe), generated a response from the economic and financial establishments—as well as from the political and media establishments which they influence enormously—that had an extensive impact. These establishments developed the anti-labor movement policies, known internationally as neoliberal policies, that significantly reduced the powers of labor and weakened the rights that had been won over the previous decades.

The data speaks for itself: labor income fell as a percentage of GDP in most of these countries at the cost of a large increase in capital income from the 1980s until now (see my book Ataque a la democracia y al bienestar. Crítica al pensamiento económico dominante. Anagrama, 2015).

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/26/why-left-wing-populism-is-not-enough/

I worries me when I see so-called unions come out in favor of the conservatism of Biden and most other Dem candidates…..unions NO longer represent the worker in the manner they were intended to in the past. (a post in waiting?)

The DNC needs a sharp turn to the Left…….we have had at least 3 decades of big money party politics….those days need to go away and stay away.

There are way too many “centrists” in this field of Dem candidates……these are the cowards from the past time for them to do what they can to help the changing of the guard…..

Democratic centrists — or you can call them New Democrats or moderates or “pragmatic progressives” or whatever label you choose — have had quite an impressive run in national politics. They have won seven consecutive Democratic presidential nominations (or perhaps eight, depending on how you classify Michael Dukakis), and then went on to win the popular vote in six of those general elections. This stretch of relative success came after Republicans had won five of six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/a-new-role-for-democratic-centrists-helping-the-left-win.html

I have never liked Centrists…..pick a path a stay on it…the center of the road is a dangerous place….especially for the nation.

Change the guard and move the nation forward…we have had enogh back peddling.

Is There A Resurrection In Progress?

As Easter approached the term “resurrection” becomes more and more popular in our society and what better time to offer an political opinion than now?

The big news of the week is the election of a Dem in Western Pennsylvania a deep red district……..

It is still officially too close to call, but Conor Lamb has declared an against-the-odds Democratic victory in the special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th District. He was introduced as “Congressman-elect Lamb” at a Hilton Inn campaign party, even as officials were counting hundreds of absentee ballots, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports. “It took a little longer than we thought, but we did it. You did it!” said Lamb, whose Republican opponent, Rick Saccone, has not conceded. Unofficial results put Lamb ahead by around 600 votes. The margin is narrow enough for supporters of either side to get a recount if they can find three voters in the same precinct who attest to error or fraud, the AP reports.

The district voted for President Trump by 20 points in 2016 and has been so reliably Republican in recent years that Democrats didn’t field a candidate in the 2014 and 2016 House races, meaning the result will be a major worry for the GOP heading into the midterms even if it ends up as a narrow Republican win, the New York Times notes. Trump campaigned in the district and Republican-aligned outside groups spent more than $10 million on the race, even though the winner will only hold the seat for eight months. “The real impact of this race has to do more with the symbolism of the outcome as a harbinger of things to come, and as a reflection of President Trump’s popularity,” pollster Chris Borick tells the Post-Gazette.

And of course the media is painting it as a “blue wave” year coming in the November mid-terms…..but to me the humorous story to come pout of this election is that Lamb is a Repub….(I know…say what?)…..

the RNC and its supporters reversed course and seized on a false talking point that Lamb’s victory was unusual because he was “pro-life” and basically ran as a Republican.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) told reporters that the result was not a “big surprise” because both candidates “ran as a pro-life anti-Nancy Pelosi conservative.”

(think progress)

Brings a smile to my face and as moronic as his statement sounded……. deep down Ryan may have a point…..

WTF, Professsor?

Lamb sounds like a “Blue Dog Democrat”….(I will pause here for all the people that have NO idea what I am saying to hit the Google button)…..(Times up!)

A Blue Dog Democrat is a member of Congress who is moderate or more conservative in their voting record and political philosophy than other, more liberal, Democrats in the House and Senate. The Blue Dog Democrat, however, has become an increasingly rare breed in American politics as voters and elected officials become more partisan and polarized in their beliefs.

To make it easier to understand…..A Blue Dog Democrat is one who views himself/herself as being in the middle of the partisan spectrum and as an advocate for fiscal restraint at the federal level

The preamble to the Blue Dog Caucus in the House describes its members as being “dedicated to the financial stability and national security of the country, notwithstanding partisan political positions and personal fortune.” (sounds like a Repub to me)

Members of the Blue Dog Democrat coalition listed among their legislative priorities a “Pay-As-You-Go Act,” which require that any legislation that requires an outlay of taxpayer money cannot increase the deficit. (still smells like a Repub)

They also supported balancing the federal budget, closing tax loopholes, and cutting spending through the elimination of programs they feel don’t work.

For further information on Blue Dogs…..

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1913057,00.html

I give all this information to my readers for I see a return of the Blue Dog Democrats……Dems finding  a way to win elections in an ever expanding conservative base….Clinton-esque crap of the Democratic Leadership Council……

The Myth of the Reagan Democrat

I am an old fart so I can remember the 1980 election when it was Carter versus Reagan……I also can recall some of the dirty tricks and some of the media slogans that accompanied the election……it was a vote for either a true statesman and a movie star hardliner that worked closely with HUAC to “uncover” Commies in Hollywood….

But the election was about Carter….all the events that took place under his guidance of the country…..the hostage thing was the most pronounced….but there were economics involved and of course the ever present energy crisis….back in those days the media had to explain the popularity of Reagan and his eventual win and in doing so they came up with the term “Reagan Democrats”…..

The easiest definition of a Reagan Democrat…….A media term referring to blue collar voters who are thought to vote for Democratic presidential candidates but who actually vote for Republicans due to their conservative social views.

The problem is that the media has never let the term die a natural death…..every election they attempt to resurrect the term to explain a candidates popularity…..but is the situation as simple as the MSM wants it to be?

Of course it is not as simple as the media would like it to be….and in most cases there is NO validity to the claim…….

Reagan Democrats originally described blue collar white men who left their traditional allegiance to the Democratic Party to back Reagan over Democrat Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election. The phenomenon was vastly overstated from the start, as many blue collar Democrats began voting Republican in presidential elections in 1968 when they backed Richard Nixon. These so-called Reagan Democrats supported Nixon again in 1972, and were Democrats in registration only by the time of Reagan’s 1980 election.

Source: The Myth of the Reagan Democrat – LA Progressive

Blue Dog Democrats were these same voters but since they voted for Bill Clinton a new term had to be found….it was Dems voting for Dems……and then in 2010 the Blue Dogs lost their butts in the mid-term and the media needed to find a way to explain it…..so re-enter the term “Reagan Democrats”……

The term is still in use today by the pundits in the MSM……

It is as silly now as it was in 1980……

Next time you are listening to the media analyze the vote….listen closely and you will find the “Reagan Democrats” are back……

Here’s another thought to keep in your mind……

Clinton’s the only candidate left who holds faith with the platform that’s guided the U.S. since WWII: classic liberal interventionism, more familiar as the globocop policy that fueled both Bush presidencies.

Source: Hillary Clinton Trumps the Republicans on Foreign Policy – Haaretz – Israeli News Source Haaretz.com

It seems that Clinton is the only Republican left in the election race of 2016……

2016: Now There are 5 Dems

The Dems have not been as prolific as the GOP in getting candidates to come out of the woodwork to seek the party nomination…….so far we have O’Malley, Clinton, Sanders and Chafee and now there is one more…….Jim webb….

Jim Webb, who’s spent time as a soldier in Vietnam, assistant secretary of the Navy, and US senator from Virginia, today became the fifth Democrat to declare his intention to seek the Oval Office next year, per a decidedly non-flashy statement on his campaign website. Acknowledging that “more than one candidate intends to raise at least a billion dollars—some estimates run as high as two billion dollars” in the campaign, and that he’ll likely be vastly outspent, Webb rejects “messaging” and doubles down on his rough-around-the-edges image and military and foreign policy bona fides.

“We need to shake the hold of these shadow elites on our political process,” Webb writes. “And at the same time our fellow Americans need proven, experienced leadership that can be trusted to move us forward from a new President’s first days in office. I believe I can offer both.” Webb formed an exploratory committee last November, in what was regarded as the opening salvo to the presidential election; he’s the 19th candidate overall to declare. Still yet to come: Ohio Gov. John Kasich, set to announce July 21, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Meanwhile, some pretty unsavory characters are more popular than most of the candidates; the New York Times runs down the list of who’s really running here.

Unless you are a political junkie this name will mean very little to you……..Clinton is the presumed nominee but she is being pushed hard from the Left by Sanders and Clinton has tried to grasp some of the stuff that Bernie is pushing and that has worried the d/bags in the center…..Webb is in the race to try and make sure that Clinton stays near the center and does not wander too far Left……

Sorry this dude is going to waste a bunch of money just to try and keep Clinton in the center……..his only reason for existing in the 2016 primaries.

6 Surprising Ways Progressives Are Actually Kicking Butt in Congress | Alternet

Please stop using ‘progressive’ to describe Democrats……

When Bill Clinton was elected I told anyone that would listen that the country was in for a good thumping…..but as usual NO one listened.

My problem was is popularly called a “centrist” Democrat…..what crap!  Look what that type of politics has done to the country and now they are asking for another shot at governing…….I say NO way!

But the American people are so scared at being labeled that they will turn a blind eye to the crap that has happened in the last 20 years.

Yes a Repub would be worse but why do Americans have to settle for Bad or Worse?  Progressives are coming on……..they are leading the way…..

 

6 Surprising Ways Progressives Are Actually Kicking Butt in Congress | Alternet.

The Evil Of Liberalism

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Neo-Liberalism

The closer we get to the general election, the more savage the insults toward people on the opposite end of the political spectrum….that is both sides…there are NO innocents when it comes to verbally assaulting another person for the political beliefs….me?  I just try to help.

Before too many get excited that I may have strayed away from my more Leftist positions….sorry….No can do!  I hope that people will take this post for what I intend, an explanation of a term that is in use liberally (no pun intended) in the media and among pundits.

In these days of anonymous insults via Twitter, Forums, etc, much has been said about the parenthood of liberals, and the mental capacity of said people and best of all the socialist thing….but I will talk about just what a liberal is……not from a media based definition but rather from a political philosophical position.  And yes there is a difference.

The media looks for ways to explain complex theories in 30 second sound bytes.  So what you know about conservs and liberals may be a bit off the point.  I would like to remind readers that I am speaking from a political philosophic point.  I am NOT condemning any philosophical point of view….only trying to help people understand the more complexities to political philosophies……

To all my conserv readers and friends….do you believe in the following?

Privatization of public enterprises

Deregulation of the economy

Massive tax cuts

“Monetarists” solutions to keep inflation in check even with the chance of increasing unemployment

Strict control of organized labor

Reduction in public expenditures especially social spending

Down sizing government

Expansion of international markets

Remove controls on the flow of global financial markets

Answer these questions realistic, please.  If you agree with most or all of these proposals then you are a LIBERAL….granted it is neo-liberalism…..but a liberal none the less.

Bill Clinton is a neo-liberal….I wish pundits would STOP calling his a liberal!…….look back at his presidency and his membership in the DLC he fought for damn near everything on that list and succeeded on numerous occasions and thanx to that success we have the economic crap we are suffering with today.

My point in this post is to show that in the strictest philosophical sense, that in this world of political correctness, you may be mistaken when you are trying to pigeon hole others.  The list is pretty much the whole agenda of today’s conservs, at least that is what we call them…..when in actuality they are a neo-liberal and not a conserv in the classic sense.

I want people to think….not tell them what to think…..

Why No Tea Party Democrats?

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Political Theory

I was having this conversation recently with a friend.  Basically, he thought that the Dems need to find a way to get some support from the energy of the Tea Party and his question got me to thinking about the Tea Party and I found a couple of things will surfing……the first was located on the Newser website……

Think “Tea Party” and you’ll probably think “Republican”—but it turns out Tea Party Democrats do, in fact, exist. But it’s hard to say just how many, and harder still to gauge how much of an impact they have on elections, the Washington Post reports. Polls have put the percentage of Democrats in the Tea Party movement at anywhere from 4% (CNN) to 15% (Gallup); for her part, Michele Bachmann believes it’s actually 20%. And who are they? Bachmann describes Tea Party Democrats as “disaffected,” and a Republican pollster explains that some Democrats are shifting to the Tea Party because they are “anti-spending and for budget austerity.” Even so, no Democrat has yet emerged as a significant Tea Party candidate, and Democrats didn’t cross over to vote Republican in numbers any higher than normal during the 2010 elections.

With that said I think there is more than they believe….these people hold a lot of the same principles as the more conserv Tea Party….who are they?  Every hear of the Blue Dog Coalition?

In case you have forgotten the group……let Wiki help……..

Blue Dogs have an agenda that protects the interests of the vulnerable while also respecting traditional cultural values and keeping taxes low.

The Blue Dog Coalition is often involved in finding a compromise between liberal and conservative positions. The Blue Dogs are viewed by some as a continuation of the socially conservative wing of the Democratic party prominent during the presidency of Harry S. Truman. However, the only stated policy position of the Blue Dogs is fiscal conservatism.

Despite the Blue Dogs’ differing degrees of economic and social conservatism, they claim they generally work to promote positions within the House of Representatives that bridge the gap between right-wing and left-wing politics. Blue Dogs are an important swing vote on spending bills and as a result have gained influence in Congress out of proportion to their numbers. They are frequently sought after to broker compromises between the Democratic and Republican leadership, generally lending a more centrist character to US politics.

Unfortunately, the Blue Dogs lost heavily in the election of 2010…….their only sin was having a “D” after their names……which shows the stupidity of the voter…..they voted fiscal conservs out of office only because of the party with which they affiliate……..

So, I believe that there are Tea Party Democrats….right now they have NOT figured out just how they can align themselves with the TP and still win in a Democratic district…..as soon as they get a handle on this obstacle….they will be coming out of the closet.

Will The South Rise Again?

Well, I am talking about the Dems in the South…..the last mid-term in 2010 pretty much crapped all over the conservative Blue Dog Dems……the last remaining parts of the old Dem Party of the South…..the world was lost to the Dems with the passage of the Civil rights Act 0f the 1960’s……and the Party has never rebounded from that situation……

There is an old bumper sticker that says…”The South Shall Rise Again”…..total crap but I think that the Dem Party has shot its wad in the South……never to return as a viable alternative to the GOP…..

A little history for those not in the know….from the Economist…….

AFTER President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he reportedly turned to his press secretary and lamented that Democrats “have lost the South for a generation.” Johnson’s judgment was optimistic. Despite brief flashes of strength during the presidential elections of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats—particularly white Democrats—have been losing ground in the South for half a century.In the Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the eleven former Confederate states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia—had a total of 128 senators and representatives, of whom 115 were white Democrats (see chart). In 1981 Republicans took control of the Senate for the first time since 1953, but most Southern elected officials remained white Democrats. When Republicans took control of the House in 1995, white Democrats still comprised one-third of the South’s tally.

Some have argued that such conservatism dilutes the Democratic brand: that Democrats lost in November because voters knew what Republicans stood for but could not say the same of Democrats. Ari Berman, author of “Herding Donkeys: The Fight to Rebuild the Democratic Party and Reshape American Politics”, wrote in the New York Times that “Democrats would be in better shape and would accomplish more with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive caucus.” If by “accomplishing more” Mr Berman means “make liberals feel better”, he might be right; but if he means “pass more legislation”, he is wrong. Moderates and conservatives outnumber liberals in Congress, among congressional Democrats and among the electorate at large. Democrats built their 2006-10 majority by extending their reach into traditionally conservative districts. Abandoning those areas, many of them Southern, after the first mid-term election of a new president’s term—when the president’s party tends to lose seats anyway—would probably be a blunder.

The black population in the South will stay loyal to the Dems….unfortunately they do not vote heavily, as a rule…..but the whites will now be totally behind the GOP and its conserv platform….even though the Dems offer more in the way of services to all Southerns….they will continually vote against their own best interests……not the sharpest pencils in the political box…..

I mean come on!  There are still Southerns trying to sell the Civil War as a matter of state’s rights and not slavery…..you can try to sell that piece of mis-information for so long…..why?  History contradicts that argument……

However, the Declaration of the Immediate Causes for Secession, an official document that was published alongside South Carolina’s declaration of independence, mentions slavery 31 times and cites the election of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, “whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery,” as one of the main reasons for secession.Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/SOUTH+rises+again/4028880/story.html#ixzz19bdj6AjW 

The Dems have been losing in the South for decades….but this last election may have finished it off with a fatal shot to the head…..

Blue Dog Bites The Dust

One of the original Blue Dogs, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, has gone down in defeat in the 2010 mid-terms….a victim of “throw the bums out” mentality racing across the country….only this time it was a moronic vote that defeated Taylor….

Taylor is my, or was my, representative…..and in the past I have not been too pleased with his voting stances on many issues that I hold dear…..but this time I am on his side…..he was screwed by the big money that the GOP received to beat any and all Dems in office…..

What makes this all the more  moronic is that Taylor is a conservative Dem and voted like on on many issues…however he got a great rating by the group that watches middle class issues and also by the ARA a group that watches votes by Reps and then grades them on senior’s issues….which again makes his loss even more moronic….since most of the registered voters in his district are retired, most of them from the military and of course are staunch supporters of FOX News and subject to believe the lies and the misinformation that it deals out daily.

The voters of the 4th district in Mississippi voted against their own interests…now you can understand why Mississippi is at the bottom of so many lists…..what kind of mindless person votes against their own interests?

His area is a conservative area meaning pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay, so on and so on…but yet that was not good enough for the mindless voter that let FOX and Limbaugh do their thinking…..sad case of stupid!

For instance, 100% rating from the National Right To Life Committee,  76% rating from the Christian Coalition, given an “A” rating by the NRA, a 90% rating by the Association of Retired Americans, 100% by the Citizens For Tax Justice, 92% by the US Border Control for a sealed border, all the issues that the conservs and especially the Tea Party stand for……his ONLY crime was that he was a Dem in the House that was controlled by Pelosi…that was the ONLY thing that was not to the special interest liking….so many bucks were sunk into the campaign of his opponent Palazzo and they succeeded in getting the great unwashed of Mississippi to vote against their own interests……

I have watched and commented on the situation in Mississippi for many years and it should not surprise me at the depth of stupid that its voters can sink to at any given time….Like I have said many times, I have never been a strong supporter of Taylor in his 21 years in the House….but he deserved better from the people that he represented for those years….especially when he was always voting in their interests….but then…..

Stupid is as stupid does……..