Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot

Push all the "Blue Dogs" out we could end up with filibuster proof Rethug majorities.

And have NO control or say in what is ram-rodded down our necks.

?

I know them well, I live among them. I talk politics with them, I help them to go vote (when they are on our side)

They are solid Democrats. They just don't ascribe to the "urban" Democrats ways on many things. Most of them and their family's have been Democrats for generations.

I have trouble with people pretending that needs of people in cities and rural areas are different.

Living rurally, I can't tell you much about "urban democrats," other than that there is a disdain for people who live rurally; an impatience, a sense that they, and their issues, don't matter.

I'm seeing it here now. Our Republican Senator, Gordon Smith, is running ads appealing to the more rural voters in Oregon, suggesting that the Democratic contender doesn't "get" the rest of us. It's an urban vs rural theme.

There ARE rural Democrats. We're not all Republican, but we don't get much respect from the majority.

If rural voters need Blue Dogs, then rural voters are Republican at heart.

It is the reason the party is becoming all religious now.

I think it's other Democrats, more than the candidates or reps themselves, that create the divide.

Oregon is a perfect example; the urban centers are west of the Cascades, and they are strongly Democratic. East of the Cascades, outside of Bend, it's rural and republican. The rural Democrats don't get any respect from their republican reps, and don't get any respect from urban Democrats, either.

I REALLY want Merkely to beat Smith this November. In a big way. I hope he will address rural issues; I don't think he can do it if he allows Smith to frame it as "urban vs rural."

It is different, at least now the Conservatives don't have free rein.

And those of you that THINK, they do, really have no idea what they WOULD do if they had filibuster proof majorities.

They are freakin above the law.

I live in a small town/rural county and we are going to have some problems with those voters due to Obama being seen as overly liberal. They are usually somewhere between liberal and moderate. Union working men and women, they don't want guns taken away but are ok with limitations. But they really resent the "wine and cheese" crowd both Dem and Rep.
And they don't appreciate being mocked for their religious beliefs.

But they have been generation after generation of Democrats in their families. They are liberal to moderate Democrats. Some of their grandparents or parents were Reagan Dems back in the early Reagan years. But most of the younger one's are much more liberal than their parents/grandparents.

However, giving them the boot should start now, at the state primary level.

They really do need to go, but it's unrealistic to expect all conservative backwash states to start electing progressives. Getting rid of them will likely be a long term process, never complete.

The only thing that will convince a brainwashed electorate is results and that will mean governing in spite of the Blue Dogs, not because of them. However, they will still count toward a majority.

Then prepare to Loose two senate seats right of the bat... We would loose Sen Webb, and upcoming Sen Mark Warner.

They ARE Democrats, but they have some Conservative leanings...

Push them out, with a Diane Finestine, or a Carolyn McCarthy "type of canadate" and the Rethugs wont need to steal the election. And there goes two, Democratic controlled Senate seats..

Loose a couple more, and their goes the Majority in the Senate...

Mr Webb, and Mr Warner, are both, well liked in Virginia, I have NO problems getting folks to vote for them... But, you will not, in many years, get them to accept a full blooded Urban Democrat.

Times are a changing, but that will be many years down the road.

instead of the first sentence.

You are agreeing with me, you know.

I need to go take a nap...B-)

She aint exactly a liberal!

(unless of course you consider lieberman a Democrat, in which case he goes first.)

"convincing your neighbors to vote for somebody else", right?

It's our job. We have to find the candidates we like and convince them to run, and support them, and populate our local Parties with like-minded people who will also accept and support them.
Then we have to talk to our neighbors about them.

It's a lot of work. Might take a long time. But if not us, then who?

Democratic way on issues and governing for all instead of the ' poll-taking, double-talking ' candidate who wants to be anything & everything to everyone and never leads the way through his/her beliefs.

:bounce:

But, my rep is in a safe seat, so it won't count for much.

I have heard it said, even from the Chairperson, that our goal is to elect more Democrats. I, however, think our goal is to enact more Democratic policies. Electing more Democrats is just the mechanism that gets us there. But when we are focused only on "electing more Democrats", we avoid establishing party principles and robust platforms. We don't really always define what it is we are electing democrats FOR.

It's no wonder many voters only know us from what the repubs tell them. We are so dependent on candidates that we live and die by their ability. The Party adds very little. I would like the "D" by someones name actually HELP an unknown candidate. I don't think that's the case right now in much of my state. We need to build the brand some more.

So often in politics though, we don't get the choice between "good" and "bad". It's more like "better" or "worse". We do the best we can and try to get a little better next time.

Why would anyone who wants us to win the election want to be kicking Democrats out?

Why would any Democrat do that?

I do not trust the bona fides or judgment of any such advocate.