"Wyldwolf" is probably right. The "Blue Dog Coalition"

picked up seven new members (Blue Pups) according to what I heard yesterday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

They used to be called the "Boll Weevils" because they were conservative Democrats from the South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil_(politics).

That was when the South was call the "Solid South" because they voted for Democrats almost always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South

This is what a LOT of people don't understand. The only way for the Dems to get and hold any kind of lasting majority in the Senate and South is to run candidates in some of these rural or southern districts who are more moderate on many issues like gun control, abortion, etc etc.

The Blue Dogs were 38 strong before Tuesday, based on the #s I actually think that group grows to about 50-51. About half of the newly elected Senators are social and fiscal moderates.

So, look for them to govern from the middle and not from the far left.

...is much larger than their numbers.


The Blue Dogs are often called on to help compromise by both party's leadership.

...as they'd like, it's up to them to change that. By the time the primaries and elections come around it's too late to try to change that. And sitting around complaining on a message board about how stupid they think the rest of "'murika" is won't do it.

.. That I can't convince people to come over if I call them "stupid, morons, etc".

the south-baiting stuff when Webb was down in VA hurt my heart a little from fellow progressives here. Thnx.

My fantasy world is a helluva lot more progressive than anything I can realistically hope for.

Thank you, fellow Big Tent people!

People in rural areas have a right to their guns, while people in cities with honest cops on every corner might not have the need. For some asswipe in the city to suggest that Joe Rancher in the country can't shoot the beast attacking his livestock is flat-out stupid.

And the way people get elected is by reflecting the earnest desires of the voters in a given area.

All politics IS local. Demanding that everyone see only one lockstep point of view is terribly Repiglican, IMO....

If women are going to be forced to bear children they don't have equal rights. How do you moderate that?

I can understand basic things like TRUTHFUL counseling (not the crap and lies the right wing currently forces on doctors) and limits based on term and viability (even that I have a problem with, because I don't know a single woman who would abort a viable baby for any reason other than severe defects or dire medical consequences), but how far are you willing to go?

Waiting periods place an undue burden on the poor.

Banning late-term abortion is unfair to the women who need it - those with babies who are not going to live, who risk losing their fertility or their lives if they give birth.

And parental notification sounds fine in theory, but what about abusive parents and girls who are victims of incest?

Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Blue Dogs Howl in Victory: Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Stro ng in 110th Congress
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Contact: Eric Wortman 202-226-4571

BLUE DOGS HOWL IN VICTORY
Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Strong in 110th Congress

WASHINGTON, DC – Nine new members-elect are set to join the Blue Dog Coalition, including FL-16 Tim Mahoney, IN-02 Joe Donnelly, IN-08 Brad Ellsworth, IN-09 Baron Hill, NC-11 Heath Shuler, NY-20 Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-24 Michael Arcuri, OH-06 Charlie Wilson, and PA-08 Patrick Murphy.

......

Still waiting for the House New Dem coalition's (DLC)new membership list, though most if not all of the above (and others) are expected on that list, as well.

similar to previous incarnations but without the racism. It may not seem ideal, but FDR would never have been elected without this segment of the party.

It is certainly true many of the new Representatives and Senators are of moderate stripe, and some could be even classed as conservative. But it is also true that in all instances, the Democratic victor was positioned to the left of the Republican vanquished. The election as a whole thus does demonstrate a willingness of the people to vote for, if not an actual desire on their part, for a person and party more to the left than in the past. The degree in which this is so varies from region to region and place to place, but it is present in some degree everywhere.

In some respects, Harold Ford ran to the right of his opponent...!

This is the tie that binds Democrats, and is at the core of what our party stands for.

measuring the election returns in terms of left and right seems speculative at best ... yes, successful Democrats were no doubt to the left of their republican opponents ... but whether that reflects an ideological motivation on behalf of the electorate is a conclusion that cannot necessarily be drawn from the facts ...

my view is that republicans were cast out purely because the public saw their corruption, their failure in Iraq, their arrogance and saw the Democrats as a hope for change ... i think it was an "anything is better than what we have so let's give the other guys a chance" kind of election ...

Americans are very rightfully worried about the direction of the country ... they see a government that is far too influenced by big oil and big pharma and big money ... i suppose you could label that view "progressive" ... i label it just plain common sense ... Americans rejected bush's arrogance when he claimed he would never get rid of Rumsfeld; they wanted Rumsfeld out not because he wasn't progressive enough but because he screwed everything up ... Americans saw a need to NOT "stay the course" in Iraq NOT because they are ideologically opposed to the war but because it's a total disaster ...

and i certainly don't think there's a tidal wave building anywhere on social issues like abortion and gay marriage ... national views on these issues evolve very, very slowly ... i see no ideological shift reflected in the election ...

so, while i would love to agree that the country "moved left", i think the message is more focussed on simple "we need a change" ...

I believe that Democrats can win in the South and liberal ideas can take root there as long as they are the right liberal ideas. Social issues are losers in the south for liberals at this time, but at least the message can get there if it is phoretically attached to a liberal idea that CAN work in the South, which is economic populism.

The South is, on average, poorer than the North. Messages that are targeted at blue collar workers and the rights of the little guy over the big carpetbagger work very well in the South. Play up to those issues and keep the conservative social issues and you have a recipe for competitiveness in the South and Midwest. From there, improve the economic situation of Southerners and they will have more time to come around on the social issues all on their own. Leisure time means progress....it has been that way throughout the history of this country. How do we get leisure time for Southerners? By making their economic situation better and letting them know Democrats made it possible.

But the social issues will have take a back burner for that to happen. It is a tough compromise that can only be made through lengthy debate.

I think it is great that we are trying to redefine ourselves. The only losing strategy is to stick with the old ways that no longer work. Not every election is going to be the "perfect storm" we saw in this one.

At the 1980 Democratic convention, members of Ted Kennedy's delegation started a "go home Boll Weevils" campaign against Jimmy Carter.

The term "Boll Weevils" reminded me of that.

against the party of corruption.
For 12 years the people have been told that the Democrats are Socialists. And for the last 6 years they've been told that the Democrats are also traitors who want America to be destroyed by its enemies. Thus terrorized, the people have stayed in Karl Rove's "Voter Vault"--unable or unwilling to consider the Democratic Party as an option. The mass media echoed and amplified the messages that the Democrats were disqualified, discredited, not a real party and certainly nowhere close to the mainstream. But after 12 years of dominance by the Republicans and 12 years of being told that Democrats were the Enemy, something snapped. The people finally decided after 12 years of seeing their interests sold out and their liberties ground down, that "the enemy" can't be worse than the people claiming to save them from the enemy.
The center has come to us.

"The center has come to us."
I LOVE THAT!!!

Thank you kenny blankenship!

Economic issues were important this time around, too. Not as much as corruption, but important nonetheless. Especially since there was such cynicism about lower gas prices (even in purportedly solid republi-CON areas, they didn't dismiss the notion that the price breaks were manipulated by Big Oil to favor bush's friends) and all the "good news" was correctly perceived as being good news for somebody higher up the food chain than for the average bloke. When you're not heavily invested in the stock market or other big money manipulation, how does it benefit you that the Dow is allegedly booming? If we show them THEY do better, and keep more, under OUR leadership, then as they age, and more disease and illness befalls them and their family, they'll start coming around to our view on sticky social issues as stem cell research, health care, saving Social Security without piratizing it, and even things like gay marriage. My sister-in-law, whom I always sort of assumed leaned to the "right," mentioned to me how the signs "One Man, One Woman" in her neighborhood revolted her. She said if those same people looked even three houses up the street, they'd see the gay couple who were the friendly, kind, helpful, discreet, non-threatening, good neighbors everybody'd already recognized them as being. Even the dreaded anti-gay crusader Anita Bryant, once buffeted by the indignities of later life and the collapse of her own "picture book perfect" marriage, did come around on homosexuality. She was quoted as saying she had come to embrace the idea of "live and let live." And believe me, in the mid-to-late '70's, we were all convinced that she was a lost soul.

you see this election the same whay that I do.

We have temporarily earned the votes of the People. Now we must earn their trust by governing in a way that will reverse this horrendous anti-worker trend we have embraced for 25 years. And we need to do it in a way that can be trusted. Transparency and accountability are the demands of the people. We need to give it to them.

It's not socialism. It is old fashioned American values that the power lies with the people and our strength is a large middle class protected from corporate leeching. That idea took hold after the robber baron period, and it is taking hold again.

articulates the issue of the "war on the middle class". Why have we let the republic party scare us away from our core beliefs by bloviating about the "class war'. Hell's fire! If they're not the ones doing class war-- on the little guy--I'll eat your hat!

He is the one who has made Democrats run away from themselves more than anyone.

Mondale's trouncing really affected the party, as did Dukakis. In my opinion, both were weak candidates who were beaten for that reason and that reason alone.

The war is basically on the little guy, not the middle class. That war on the little guy has now reached the middle class and it is now getting noticed, but it began long before then. The middle class and the poor had better get it into their heads that they are both the little guy and they are at war.

The first big battle was fought in New Orleans, and the little guy lost. But we now all know that the war is on, so we have a chance to win the next battle.

That sounded like a G.I. Joe PSA.

...for hide thread functionality Skinner!

Howard Dean earned that smile. We have a real chance to show how true Democrats can govern.

Emmanuel's attempt to steal Dean's thunder did not go unnoticed. They know that the DLC's ways are moribund with such a grassroots presence in the party. They have to get on top of this and change the discussion before it even happens.

At least here on the net, they will not get the chance. We now it was the people who won in 2006, not the old party machinery.

http://www.hankgilbert.com/

Hank Gilbert could be/should be the face of the new Democratic party in Texas.

Pragmatic, plain-spoken and holding to the ideals of the Democratic Party.

Check out some of the audio and video!