Search
Home  |   About  |   Q & A  |   Archives  |   Credits  |   Contact  |  
« Border Patrol: Volunteers to Help Build Fence
What Media Bias? Part VIII: Seattle Times Edition »

Going After the Blue Dogs

Matt Stoller writing at Open Left is imploring “progressives” to gang-up and blackmail the moderate Blue Dog Democrats into becoming “more aligned” with the far-left nutroots’ way of thinking — or risk being targeted in their next reelection bid.

Sigh.

Sounds like a great way to get more Republicans elected to Democratic held seats.

Sounds good. You guys should go for it. In fact, I’ll probably contribute to one of these attack ads myself.

_______

As Sister Toldjah notes:

Newsflash: These Blue Dog Dems were elected in their states/districts, in part, based on their moderate to conservative positions on the issues. Why the hell should they change them because the Daily Kos, Morons.org, etc don’t like them? Those people weren’t elected by far lefties nationwide: they were elected by the people in their states/districts to represent them, not the far left.

Exactly. But that suggests that the “progressives” actually give a damn about the folks in the districts that elected these conservative-to-moderate Democrats (hint: they don’t).

h/t to Memeorandum

Posted by Robbie Cooper on Wednesday, August 15th, 2007 | Trackback |

16 Responses to “Going After the Blue Dogs”

It really worked in getting Ned Lamont elected. I say go for it.

Left by kma on August 15th, 2007 at 10:19 am

Exactly.

Left by Robbie on August 15th, 2007 at 10:25 am

The further left the Democrats go, the further right mainstream voters will go.

Left by Dianne on August 15th, 2007 at 11:03 am

Does this mean they will be supporting Cindy Sheehan’s run against Pelosi? In comparision, Pelosi is the the blue dog.

Left by kma on August 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am

Kos is still crowing about how he ‘defeated’ Senator Lieberman.

I’m with you 100% Robbie. Any nutter running against a blue dog gets $50 from me!

Left by Jim Howard on August 15th, 2007 at 12:19 pm

The nutters got the blue dogs in office just to win the seat and even encouraged them to espouse conservative positions just to win the seat (like anti-illegal immigration). However, I still think the blue dogs will for the most part remain true to the conservative positions they took..and the voters who elected them…look at Claire McCaskill…she has and her liberal pals are none too happy with her.

Left by Dianne on August 15th, 2007 at 1:22 pm

KMA-

You still don’t see the lessons of the Lamont primary challenge? The entire country learned that the Democratic Party was going to nominate candidates that would revoke Bush’s blank check. Democratic Congressmen learned that if they don’t get some balls they’ll be looking for a new job (unless they’re successful in convincing 80% of Republicans to vote for them).

Without Lamont’s challenge of Lieberman there would not be a Democratic Congress now.

All in all, I never expected to hear so much concern on this site that the Democrats might be persuing the ‘wrong’ strategy. Thanks for the help! Are y’all equally concerned about the ‘radical’ nature of Chuck Hagel’s pro-war primary challenge?

Oh, FYI- Cindy Sheehan was roundly panned when she announced her bid for Congress. Contrary to your caricature, Daily Kos is a rather pragmatic site dedicated to electing Democrats. Markos Moulitsas was notably an early of supporter of both Jon Tester and Jim Webb. Yet, when a Congressman is dedicated to trashing fundamental rights of our Constitution as some of the Blue Dogs did it’s hard to defend that as ‘moderation’.

Left by Preston on August 15th, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Preston said: blah blah blah blah

The lesson of Ned Lamont was how fkn sick and racist you progressives really are. No one has forgotten all the photoshops of Lieberman in blackface. Really really sick. No surprise though after all the racist comics of Condi Rice.

And no, Sheehan was not roundly panned at Kos. The majority of the comments supported her announcement to run.

And no one is concerned about, cough, donk strategy. We’re just really really amused.

Left by kma on August 16th, 2007 at 7:50 am

Daily Kos is a rather pragmatic site dedicated to electing progressive Democrats who are in lockstep with the message and doctrine of the Nutroots.

There. I fixed that for you.

Though, to be honest, Kos’ record of “getting Democrats elected” is about as successful as OJ’s attempt to “find the real killer”.

Left by Robbie on August 16th, 2007 at 8:39 am

Preston said: blah blah blah blah

KMA- It’s difficult for you to face people who disagree with you, huh? (Cue ad hominem attack)

Sheehan was not roundly panned at Kos.
I guess you have a different interpretation of the meaning of “batshit crazy” I understand this might be difficult to grasp but there are many people who responded favorably to her emotional appeal to George Bush as a mother who lost her son yet utterly reject her overtures to the likes of Hugo Chavez or her pointless run for Congress.

Though, to be honest, Kos’ record of “getting Democrats elected” is about as successful as OJ’s attempt to “find the real killer”.
Robbie, this comment would have had a bit more sting before November 2006.

In any case, the efforts to marginalize political disagreements is completely at odds with the spirit of a democracy. So what if Daily Kos tries to elect (as the phrase goes) “more and better Democrats”?
Don’t you think that the Club for Growth and Focus on the Family do the same thing?

Left by Preston on August 16th, 2007 at 8:20 pm

I have no problems arguing with people who disagree with me. However, your idea of debate is changing the subject when you are losing or know you can’t win, misrepresenting the facts, or out and out lying. You traditionally end it by whining that I am picking on you. You need a new schtick.

Again, Sheehan was not roundly panned at Kos. The majority of the comments in those threads supported her announcement that she intented to run for office and her canoodling with Chavez.

Left by kma on August 16th, 2007 at 8:41 pm

I’m not so much worried about you ‘picking on me’. I come here to talk about ideas with people that disagree with me (it’s a hobby my wife doesn’t much understand).

Unfortunately there’s only so much I can do with this:
Preston said: blah blah blah blah

Left by Preston on August 16th, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Don’t you think that the Club for Growth and Focus on the Family do the same thing?

Preston — you might find it hard to believe (with me being such a political savvy kinda-guy ; ) — but I have no idea who those two groups are.

Left by Robbie on August 16th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Club for Growth is the lobby for rich guys that funded the right wing primary challenges against Spector and Chaffee because they were insufficiently committed to the idea that tax cuts are the highest value of government.

Focus on the Family is James Dobson’s socially conservative organization that has a strong focus on ending stem cell research and abortion.

Left by Preston on August 17th, 2007 at 5:15 am

Preston…got married? Congratulations must be in order !!!!

You should have told us. Last we heard she was the g/f.

Left by Dianne on August 17th, 2007 at 8:07 pm

It’s true. It’s legal. Thanks.

Left by Preston on August 17th, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.