I'm gonna be doing a bunch of statistical work on my thesis next week, so i could do it, if you want me to, jsut drop me an

I understand the disloyalty issue, but I would also like to understand the disloyal group in question before coming to a conclusion about them.

It seems that Al From, Joe Lieberman and Diane Feinstein contribute to the perception that the DLC is the problem, rather than the Blue Dogs, by so outspokenly criticizing "liberal" Dems. Have any of the Blue Dog Dems engaged in the ideological attacks on the Progressive wing of the party that From, Lieberman and Feinstein have?

It would be interesting to know if any of the "sources" in the party who think Pelosi owes the Blue Dogs an apology are DLCers. Is it possible the DLC is playing the other two wings against each other to solidify their power base?

Prior to Pelosi cracking the whip on bankruptcy, have the Blue Dogs ever been called to account? I'd like to add this trailer from Eschaton:

Additional contact information to email the crybaby sellouts:

Steny Hoyer

John Tanner

Ron Kind

"Blue Dog Democrats, on the other hand, are a relatively new group. The Blue Dogs are made up of approximately thirty conservative-leaning House Democrats who came together in 1995 to contest the liberal inclinations of the Democratic party. The Blue Dogs have now become the balance of power in the closely divided House.

The term, Blue Dog Democrat, is playfully derived from the original term "Yellow Dog Democrat". It was Former Democrat Rep. Pete Geren, of Texas,  who said that the members have been "choked blue" by those extreme Democrats, from the left. Thus, he is credited for coining the term Blue Dog"Democrat.

Blue Dogs are descendants of a 1950s defunct Southern Democratic group once known as the 'Boll Weevils', who played a critical role, in the early 1980s, by supporting President Ronald Reagan's tax cut plan. Well anyway, Boll Weevil is out and Blue Dog is in. Today, the Senate has its very own version of the Blue Dogs, a.k.a. the New Democrat Coalition, which took shape in 1999.

<attempted humor>

Great work Chris. Thanks for doing these.

Personally I think the right thing to do is to have Blue Dog Dems vote 100% pro-life and for all defense spending increases, and be full-throated social justice democrats outside of those issues. But even that might be idealistic.

I am not sure how many Republicans are currently in districts that are as hostile to the GOP as the Blue Dogs are to the Dems.

As much as we wan't party unity, the most important goal for the Democrats right now is winning back the House, and for this to happen they will have to be able to maintain the 41 seats the currently hold that Bush won in 2004. This means allowing those who represent heavily red districts to actually represent their constituents, even if it means defecting on almost every vote other than RC 2.

Once the Democrats can win that vote, we can discuss unity all we want. But until then, maybe we shouldn't bust their chops so much...

He's nearly bolted to the GOP at least twice that I know of in the past five years, but his district isn't as conservative as he thinks it is.  (Furthermore, he voted the wrong way on both the B-Bill and the Estate Tax repeal, neither of which was popular in his district.)  A nice primary challenge might shake him up a bit.

It's time for us to pick someone from either Chris' list or Atrios'/Left Coaster's expanded Dirty Thirty-One.  If the idea is to pick someone in a blue or bluish area, Peterson's district is perfect.

In fact, B-Bill opposition was/is loud and crosses party lines.  Conservative bloggers like RedState.org teamed up with liberals like DailyKos to fight the B-Bill.

So the only real constituency that wanted this bill, was, in fact, the banks.

By the way, here's some interesting info I had found in the aftermath of the bankruptcy bill:

The news of that letter signed by DLC members certainly made the rounds in the blogosphere.  But I completely missed that the Blue Dog Coalition had their own letter, and they were a lot more unified.  27 out of 35 Blue Dogs signed the letter.  32 out of the 35 Blue Dogs voted Yea.  Interestingly, Barrow was one of the 27 letter-signers, but he voted Nay.

The DLC Dems were more fractured.  20 out of 39 New Democrats signed their letter.  25 out of 39 New Democrats voted Yea.  And a few of the letter-signers actually voted Nay:  Larson, Inslee, and Smith.  Berkley signed the letter but abstained.

And you can ask whoever it was that offered to do the statistical analysis to help with going back over previous congresses to see if the patterns hold or change and under what circumstances they change.

Peace,

Andrew

The problem you have is that the Democratic Party will always have a moderate wing. Understand that as long as a party is majority, and able to control committee assignments...there will be more loyalty than in the minority.

It's an oversimplification to say that the only vote that counts is the one for leadership...but it is often true.

The Democrats shouldn't bother deliberately fielding challenges for people like Adam Schiff and Jane Harman. Instead, the better strategy is to run against the most vulnerable and moderate Republicans (or at least in states that are vulnerable and moderate). The GOP has no counterattack for that strategy--hence we ought to use it.

I'm also, conversely, one of those people who believes the Party should drop a number of unpopular social issues that it has taken on since the 1970s, particulary gun control and pandering to various pro-illegal-immigration positions.  We can and should move back to the left on issues affecting Joe Six Pack - whether it's bread and butter issues or individual freedom issues, and get back to the forefront on advocacy for small farmers and other rural issues as we were in the FDR era, while at the same time moving back to the center on those issues where the Party has alienated Joe Six Pack and made him a target for Republican recruitment and backlash narratives.

I've watched Congressional voting records for years and taken note that the Blue Dogs are the Democratic faction most likely to support the Second Amendment and serious work on rural/farm issues while still maintaining good voting records from the AFL-CIO on bread and butter issues.  This makes the Blue Dogs better than the DLC in my book.  Take an issue like "free" trade; the DLC are the strongest supporters in the Party, while Blue Dogs split on the issue depending on what district they represent.

I've even entertained the idea of an alliance among Blue Dogs, old labor/civil liberties Democrats like Russ Feingold, and Deaniac/Netroots progressives to bring down the DLC and the Democratic Party establishment.  The Blue Dogs, Dean, and Feingold all have the correct position, for example, on the gun issue, while the DLC, the entrenched party establishment, and far too many of the Progressive Caucus do not.  Most Blue Dogs seem to be good enough on labor issues to be worth keeping in Congress, and I even sent a couple of them donations in 2004 (Carson and Stenholm) to try and keep them in office.

Do the Blue Dogs have the answer?  No, but I think their main problem is that they are mavericks and free agents.  This means some of them are going to vote against the party where they shouldn't be.  Let's hold their feet to the fire on such things as Social Security and the bankruptcy bill.  But do I want a Democratic Party in Congress that all votes in lockstep?  No way, not if it means voting in lockstep with the way most Democrats have been voting in Congress the past 15 years.  For that reason I'm glad the Blue Dogs are there.  I'd be much more enthusiastic about them if they weren't so flaky and unreliable on major economic bills.  But then, I'd also be much more enthusiastic about the Progressive Caucus if they'd follow the lead of the Blue Dogs on some of the issues I mentioned above where the Blue Dogs come out ahead.

Collin Peterson a DINO?  He's a co-sponsor of the Americas Redrock Wilderness Act which puts him in the top tier of environmental champions in Congress; his labor voting record is in the 70-90% range depending on which union's scorecard you use; and he's a leader on farm and rural issues in Congress.  He also votes pro-gun and anti-abortion, a necessity in his district which borders North Dakota.  Tennessee?  We have a majority Democratic delegation from that state right now, and they are all Blue Dogs.  DINOs?  Again, that depends on whether one believes liberalism is defined by economic populism or by a postmodernist social agenda.  Those are really the two directions the Party can go.  If we lose the Blue Dogs, we will lose our entire Congressional delegation from Tennessee, Collin Peterson's seat in Minnesota, our one seat in Utah, many others.  

Somehow there has to be a way to push the Blue Dogs to the left (along with the rest of the party) on economic and labor issues, while letting Blue Dogs be Blue Dogs on social issues.  An uncompromising left-populist stance on economic issues will play well in the Blue Dogs' rural districts, and I'm convinced it won't take much to convince the Blue Dogs of this.  I can't say that about the DLC, who seem to be wholly in the pockets of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the "free" trade lobby.

Hi, super site, good themes! Luisia Kanthata Mandale Mirindala Alrosa Benedita Blog Lucy Brenda Thank you!