44 Democrats who need a pie in the face:

'Fiscally conservative' Democratic faction refuses call to end war; Plans legislation focusing on accountability for funds Bush wants to spend on Iraq



A group of forty-four "fiscally conservative" Democrats will not call for an end to America's military involvement in Iraq, RAW STORY has learned. Instead, the Blue Dog Coalition of House Democrats will introduce legislation this week focusing on accountability for money the White House wants to spend on the nearly four year long Iraq War.

In a press conference last Friday, Rep. Jane Harman, the California Democrat who was formerly the ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee, announced a bill she would sponsor this week on behalf of the Blue Dog Democrats: "Providing for Operation Iraqi Freedom Cost Accountability." The provisions of the bill focus on Congressional oversight of the funds used to pay for operations in Iraq.

The Blue Dogs will not speak out as a group on whether or not to call for an end to the Iraq war. "They will not draft a resolution or course regarding the troops other than one of support for our soldiers in harm’s way," said Jon Niven, Communications Director for Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), who co-chairs the caucus.

Niven's language is comparable to a bill introduced by House Republicans leaders which resolves "to pledge the faithful support of Congress to members of the United States Armed Forces serving in harm's way," and states that "Congress will not cut off or restrict funding" for US troops in Iraq. However, several Blue Dog staffers told RAW STORY that the caucus hasn't held any formal meetings with House Republican leadership.



http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Blue_Dogs_announce_Iraq_plan_no_0122.html

List of Blue Dog Coalition members

Joe Baca (California)
John Barrow (Georgia)
Melissa Bean (Illinois)
Marion Berry (Arkansas)
Sanford Bishop (Georgia)
Dan Boren (Oklahoma)
Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
Allen Boyd (Florida)
Dennis Cardoza (California), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
Ed Case (Hawaii)
Ben Chandler (Kentucky)
Jim Cooper (Tennessee), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
Jim Costa (California)
Bud Cramer (Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (Tennessee)
Jane Harman (California)
Stephanie Herseth (South Dakota)
Tim Holden (Pennsylvania)
Steve Israel (New York)
Jim Marshall (Georgia)
Jim Matheson (Utah), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
Mike McIntyre (North Carolina)
Charlie Melancon (Louisiana)
Mike Michaud (Maine)
Dennis Moore (Kansas)
Collin Peterson (Minnesota)
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota)
Mike Ross (Arkansas), Blue Dog Whip
John Salazar (Colorado)
Loretta Sanchez (California)
Adam Schiff (California)
David Scott (Georgia)
John Tanner (Tennessee)
Ellen Tauscher (California)
Gene Taylor (Mississippi)
Mike Thompson (California)<3>
Elected In 2006:
Baron Hill (Indiana)
Heath Shuler (North Carolina)
Tim Mahoney (Florida)
Brad Ellsworth (Indiana)
Kirsten Gillibrand (New York)
Joe Donnelly (Indiana)
Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania)
Mike Arcuri (New York)
Charlie Wilson (Ohio)
Raw Fan | Email | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 5:38 pm
Direct link to this comment

From the same link found under comments

are they responsible for due to their procrastination?

:mad:

in 2004, he has had some change of spirit. He was one of the early signers on (before being defeated in 04) of a resolution calling for investigation into the intel used to sell us into war in Iraq. Last week he was quoted in one of the papers as directly opposing Bush's escalation of the war. Thus I don't fully accept that his name on this list reflects how he stands or how he will act on various resolutions before the house. Not sure if his previous affliliation with "blue dogs" earned him a spot - or if being a part means the name gets tied to a stand - even if the personal public stand differs from the groups stand. I will have to wait and see to determine where he falls (local statements suggest otherwise than is suggested in this article) - and if my inclination is correct, than I would wonder if there aren't others on this list, whose inclusion is possibly not quite accurate. Will hold my judgement until I see how folks vote on different resolutions.

I'll hold out that your optimism is a valid one.

They just don't want to leave the troops unprotected. Just because they don't say bring the troops home tommorrow and cut off all the money NOW without a plan for what to do doesn't make them traitors.Everyone doesn't have to march in lockstep, or so many DUers say. Or is it different when it comes to this issue?

I just provided the list.

So I would really appreciate you not telling me to grow up.

I'm not the one too immature to reply to the proper post. And I'm not sure that your response is a mature response to any post.

And I am just annoyed at those who can't accept any viewpoint but their own.I apologize if I have offended you.I am just frustrated.

so none the less, here it is.

I looked for a list to see who from Texas might be on it so I could make an informed judgment as to whether I thought they deserved a "pie in the face." Although, amazingly there were no reps from Texas on the list, I thought the list would be helpful to other posters.

So I posted it.

OKAY BY YOU?
Does that meet with your approval?

Edited to add that "sorry, But" really disturbs me.

block you from posting to this thread.

that Democrats have a conscience. So we need to tweak them. Bring them out in the open.

What a shame. What a sham.

This war was based on lies. It is a complete failure, perpetrated by evil
neocons who are bankrupting and disgracing our nation--as they strip away
our civil rights and destroy our democracy.

ANY politician who is not shrieking from the rafters about these third-rate
thugs--who are destroying this country--is wrong. Dead wrong.

I'm happy that these "Democrats" are allowing us to see their agenda in
broad daylight. They disgust me. They are compliant with the neocon
warmongers.

And how about these jokers--calling themselves "fiscally conservative". Does
the irony ever end? These neocon Dems are against stopping a war that is
robbing our nation's treasury--and they have the audacity to position themselves
as "fiscally conservative". Furthermore, these Dems damn well know that millions
of taxpayer dollars have vaporized in Iraq. They know damn well that many corporations
and other high rollers are cashing in and laughing all the way to the bank. And
they're now asking for "cost accountability". What a crock!

These Dems are full of so much hooey--it's insulting---suggesting that the solution to
stopping warmongering, Fascist thugs--is to force them to keep tidy accounting records.

Glad we know who these compliant clowns are!

:puke: :mad:

What you said.

I refuse membership in the party...with friends like these, who needs enemies?

buddies. There's no excuse for this delay tactic. None at all.

Sometimes I think my head is gonna explode from the frustration of it all. They're actually working against Murtha on this.

Unfriggin' real.

I've never met a proponent of "fiscal conservatism" who wouldn't sell-out if someone waves a tempting offer.

follow the Democratic Caucus?

I understand several bills are being considered to express congress' intent of withdrawing from Iraq as rapidly as possible. Given those pending bills, why is another bill from the Blue Dogs necessary?

Another approach is to see how each Democrat votes on an Iraq War bill and judge her/him by that vote regarding the Iraq war issue.

Bush has had his chance and he has failed and failed again. Everything that is happening now is just a ploy to extend this war. And the blue Dems are a part of that ruse.

statement opposing the war as a group?

I haven't been following the Black Caucus or other special groups of Democratic congresspersons but each group should be judged by the same standard.

I know that individual members of the Black Caucus have taken the lead in opposing the Iraq war but I don't know whether the group has taken that position as some in this thread are demanding of the Blue Dogs.

I also know that Pelosi would not be Speaker of the House and Democrats control the House if it were not for the Blue Dogs.

Where is the Democrats weakest link?

Will the Republicans attempt to exploit it?

And will I block you from posting comments that disagree from mine?

The answer to the first two questions are answered in a link provided by fooj:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3070321&mesg_id=3070321

The answer to the third is, "No."

way of viewing them is that they have taken positions that attract votes from the center of the political spectrum. IMO that's necessary if the Democratic Party is going to retain control of Congress.

IMO it's political suicide for a national party to ignore the vast cultural differences between society in densely populated cities like New York City, where Senator Clinton lives, and sparsely populated areas like South Dakota, where former Senator Daschle lived.

IMO those who shout we must get rid of Blue Dog Democrats ignore the diversity among those who support the Democratic Party.

Now, if only we can give them the same welcome and status as the Democratic party gives the black caucaus, then we might call things fair and square.

Whatever you say about the black caucaus, you have to admit that what they ask for is what gives this party heart and soul. No pun intended.

within the House Democratic Caucus that immediately came to mind for a reply.

Have a nice day. :hi:

ADDED,
Wikipedia as always has useful information. Caucuses of the United States Congress

They should be the group that begins impeachment hearings.

Start the hearings, because Bush told all of his evangelical cronies that there would be no bloodshed, and he was wrong. The truth is that he was expecting to catch Sadaam by surprise in that first hour of shock and awe. Once that failed, he's been working out of plan. He's only gift is that he has an incredible ability to string people along.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/904

And he got him.

Want to be fiscally conservative, you buncha numbnuts? Stop wasting our money on this debacle. Demand audits & refunds from Halliburton & Bechtel on the $300 Billion we've pissed away on it already. Trim the half trillion military-industrial complex down to something sane. Legalize and tax marijuana, and take the $40 Billion a year we waste on the drug war and put it into something valuable, like a Single Payer Health Care System.

THAT is fiscal conservatism.

these Blue Dogs are SUPPOSED to be social conservatives and economic liberals. They are supposed to be looking out for the little guy in the tradition of the Populists.

But what do we get for Blue Dogs? Penny-pinchers who just happen to want more death and destruction in Iraq. Sure, that'll sell to Joe in the trailer park whose kid just got shipped off to Iraq because the boy couldn't get a job better than the local Wal-Mart to take care of his kids.

Do you know what I don't like about the Democratic party? All these "coalitions" that seems to be put together solely for the purpose of keeping Republicans in the driving seat and the actual concerns of average American citizens far from the halls of power, even when the Republicans are in the minority.

The Democratic party should be liberals, populists, and true centrists, not conservative seat-warmers whose sole purpose is to drag their feet when the party has a chance to do something positive.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Liberal Democrats are "fiscally responsible."

The pies will have peanut residue and someone will have an allergic reaction.

Can I say that Stephanie Hirseth of South Dakota is a very smart and reasonable person? My Uncle used to teach at Georgetown and she was one of his favorite students. I have heard an awful lot of good things about her. I am sure she has her reasons. I also think that this is someone who could be a very good candidate for President in a few more years. I know how my Uncle thinks well enough to be pretty sure she is NOT a war supporter but is very practical on how to accomplish things. I guaruntee she is no Repuke...

n/t

I've argued over and over that it would be a mistake to assume that the House would vote to impeach chimpy at this point are unfounded -- and that the focus needs to be on investigations/oversight without impeachment as the express goal. I think this basically proves my point. Yes, the Democrats have a significant majority in the House. But, no, that doesn't mean that the Democrats have the necessary votes to start an impeachment process at the present time.