Skip to comments.Coalition of Moderate 'Blue Dog' Dems Shrinking Fast
Posted on 08/19/2011 10:20:52 PM PDT by Libloather
Coalition of Moderate 'Blue Dog' Dems Shrinking Fast
Published August 19, 2011
WASHINGTON -- The Blue Dogs may be losing their bark. Despite polls showing a desire for more compromise in Washington, the political climate for moderate to conservative Democrats in the House has continued to deteriorate.
The 2010 election dropped the number of so-called Blue Dogs from 54 to 25. And the shrinking continues.
Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas will not seek re-election next year. Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma also plans to retire. Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana has opted to run for the Senate. Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina is reportedly being considered for the athletic director job at the University of Tennessee.
Other House members, such as Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah, face the prospect of running in less friendly congressional districts after their states complete redistricting. Rep. Jane Harman of California resigned earlier this year to run a think tank.
The early departures and the potential for more are feeding Republican hopes that they will win more of the country's swing districts in next year's elections and maintain their majority in the House. That also raises questions about whether the Blue Dogs as a group are in an extended decline as moderates from both parties disappear from Capitol Hill.
"The parties are becoming more polarized and that's unfortunate," Boren said. "The success of our political system weighs in the balance depending upon how many moderates, how many problem-solving pragmatists are going to be elected."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
No, Congressman. "Problem-solving pragmatists" are of no use when your Democrat party is largely composed of rabid socialists who want to destroy the country.
Compromising with Democrats today means giving up your livlihood and your liberty. So, don't expect "compromise".
I didn’t know there were any Blue Dogs left. Stretch made sure of that.
One of my core beliefs is that the desire for 'compromise' by the American people is a load of crap. What doesthat even mean--compromise as a concept? When you go to the supermarket for a loaf of bread and the cashier charges you $45, do people want to compromise and pay $20? Do we want to compromise when it comes to calling 911?
One of the people I've most wanted to slap in my lifetime was the girlyman who got up at the Clinton-Bush debate and said something like "Please, stop the namecalling!" What mealy-mouthed garbage. It's this exact same thing with this poll--why don't they poll Americans who 'want peace' or 'like nice things'?
Yet who actually brings in the votes to get someone on either side of the aisle elected? Over and over, it's uncompromising people like Barney Frank, Pelosi, and this last time out, the Tea Party people.
On election day, compromisers stay home, because they don't like conflict. They want to stay home and 'veg' with a bowl of chips and watch the freakin tube and hope everyone doesn't shout too loud. Forget substance, they just want people to be NICE so they can stay in their little cocoon where the nice TV people tell them who's good and who's bad, and the good ones are always 'compromising'.
Damn, what a nation of freakin babies. I wonder what the polls were like about 'compromiaw' back in the days of World War 2?
The MSM loves to pretend that polarization is unprecedented. It’s merely reported more often in a 24/7 news cycle. which they didn’t have when polarization began...back around the time of the Declaration of Independence.
Huckabee said this week when Carter was elected, only 25% of the country lived in landslide counties (where the winner won with a 20% margin). In ‘08 it was around 48%.
When push came to shove they voted with the liberals every time. Good riddance.
I’ve lost sight of any difference between parties— they do what they want and what pays them best.
I thought a representative meant just that— they’re average folk, take office and represent.
Horse-apples. They get in there and their income increases and increases. They are bought and paid for.
We send our pitiful, small, hard earned dollars to get them elected and how often do they listen and do what we sent them there for?
Tired, just damn tired of this suckers game.
Centrists are dying because, as they struggle to stay in the middle, the LIBs move further to the left. That forces the MODs to move leftward, just to stay in the middle. As they move leftward, the LIBs move further left, and so on and so on.
Hmmmm. Gosh! I can't even begin to fathom why this is so!!
I agree - what they really want is for the parties to work in concert FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY - not to keep "compromising" our way down the tubes.
Actually, there was a whole lot of politics going on during WWII.Required reading.
I thought this is where a challenger for the Democrat nomination will come, someone who has voted against the Health care bill. But, it may be from someone not currently serving in government.
Exactly. This is a move towards clarity, which is a good thing.
Thanks for the recommendation. I just ordered a used copy for $2.
Blue dogs should become RINOs and drink a little more TEA.
Everyone on our side needs to get this absolutely clear in their minds:
When dealing with the marxist scum that comprises the heart of the Democrat party > > Compromise = Slavery
Whether by the inch or the mile, the chains forged by their ilk are intended for the enslavement of YOU and yours, and their goal is the destruction of Our Republic.
They are enemies of the Constitution .. they are traitors inside the gates .. they are the cancer eating away this Nation's vitality .. and they MUST be stopped.
One way or another.
Its called a time to choose folks,This Bipartisan crap sandwich that has been a Sop to Morons for decades ,served only to give the elites in Washington the Go ahead to screw everyone in the Country,when the politicians are fighting among themselves nothing gets done and that is good,when they agree we all get screwed.
The Facade has been pulled down now and The Communists have become emboldened and are Just running roughshod over the Country,the Only choice for right Now from my Perspective is to get some Red Blooded AMERICANS elected,not some Ivy Leaguse Theorists and Attorneys,just Common sense America Loving people to Majorities and if that takes One Party rule for awhile, fine, as long as they put the Constitution back in Vogue. Of course the Enemy at this point in time, the Democrat Party, which has been taken over by anti American Radicals would like to gain back control of all branches of Government and finish the total destruction, Better Known as the Fundemental Transformation of the United States Of America.
Time to Chooose Folks
As odd as it Might seem I have wanted to see the Comming election Framed as a Choice Between Communism and Tradional American Values,and It is Obama who is setting it up just that way! The Republicans are stopping all his wonderful Programs and Giveaways,The Pied Piper wales. This Just shows that they are Convinced the Jealousy,envy and Greed,the Lowest Human Traits that Democrats have Exploited for decades is at the Tipping point and with all the Misery they have created with Unemployment,housing and the Collapse of the dollar,people are going to again vote based on HATE of the Rich as opposed to George W Bush. They May be Right
You sound Like Me,All this Garbage about Coming together to have a Discussion and Offer Ideas and all that crap,sounds Great but at the End of the day,a DECISION has to be Made and One side is going to Lose,that is why you have a Constitution,ALL policies are Based On THAT,Not Facists and Communist Liberal Panty Waists. If you dont like it then you work to ammend it you dont Ignore it
Well, the bloom is off the rose. Moderate democrats are nothing of the kind. They’re handmaidens to the leftists. Harry Reid was considered a “conservative” democrat. In reality, he was doing what he needed to do to obtain more and more power, and now he shows himself to be what he is, a dictatorial, militant leftist.
I’m glad these wolves in the fold are folding. Give me an outright liberal any day. At least you know what you’re getting. And as they’re policies become more and more crazy, they’re easier to be thrown out of office.
FYI, Brian Lamb interviewed the author on C-Span, and asked him if he voted for FDR. He replied that he had been too young, but that he had voted for Harry Truman in '48. And would consider doing so again.
IOW, the author isn't a conservative, even tho the book is very revealing - damning, to my way of thinking - about FDR and his administration.
Many, even now, may not have paid close attention to the manner in which their father's Party has been "transformed" into what is euphemistically called a "progressive" philosophy, when, in fact, it fits another description entirely.
Winston Churchill, in 1908, in a speech entitled, "Liberalism and Socialism," laid out, with amazing clarity, the distinctions between the two and the dangers to liberty of the latter.
To so-called Independents and remaining "blue dogs" a reading of this speech might shock some into reality in understanding what is happening to individual liberty and the liberty of this Republic.
Another source for such analytical definitions of the two philosophies can be found in the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classesthe class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Of course there was politics going on during WW2—that wasn’t my point. My point was that the Voices of Reason at the time were calling anyone who wasn’t 100% for kicking Nazi butt an “America Firster” and a fascist or dictator-coddler. The mushy middle and the left weren’t wringing their hands saying, “Oh, we must compromise!” like they are now.
That’s it, exactly—I think my way is right, and that guy thinks his way is right. But somehow magically combining both ways doesn’t create this harmonious perfection—it creates a big mess, and more chaos, like what we have now. If my way is tried—fully, as planned—we can see if it works, and if it doesn’t we discard it and try the other guy’s way.
What we are seeing in this country now is what comes from this stupid “A little of what I want, a little of what you want.” You end up with a system that is half-fish and half-fowl.
If I wanted to have pizza for lunch, and someone else wanted pancakes, and a third person wanted cottage cheese, but we could only make one, we would each make our cases, and then one of those three choices would be selected. The result wouldn’t please everyone, but it would be acceptable, and it would work. This ‘compromise’ stuff as described in this article would result in adisgusting mush none of us would like...but it would be a ‘compromise’ so the jellyfish in this country would grin and say “Now everyone got what they wanted!’
That’s what this bizarre idea of ‘compromise’ is about—not finding the way that really works, but not letting anyone have to face that their way SUCKS and SHOULD be rejected.
Before Pearl Harbor, polling on entering WWII ran 80:20 against. After Pearl Harbor, FDR tried to get the people who had agreed with their Congressman before PH that we shouldn't get in it, and agreed with that same Congressman after PH that we had to fight, to vote against their congressman because he hadn't been on FDR's side before PH. It didn't work.I had a card from my uncle who fought under Patton on the occasion of VE day, saying, "Your uncle is finished fighting. We licked the Jerries."
I don't think he was the only one in the ETO who thought they were finished with war. Absent the A-bomb, the Army would have expected them to fight Japan - and I suspect there would have been mutiny if they tried to make them do it. I do know that my uncle said later, "If they want to get me to fight again, I know where I can go that they'll never find me."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.