Emanuel and Dean both courted the bluedogs.

Just reading email and this pops up...and op ed about the poor blue dogs getting the blame ( :sarcasm: ) and I find this:

<snip> There are a few strange things about this argument, even beyond the contention that American voters — 41 percent of whom described themselves as “conservative” this year, compared with 32 percent in 2006 — somehow deem Congress to be insufficiently liberal.

For one thing, many of these same liberal activists were saying something very different in 2006, when Rahm Emanuel, who was then overseeing House campaigns for the party, recruited a slate of less ideological candidates to compete in more conservative districts. Some leading bloggers then — who are now proponents of the Blame the Blue Dogs theory — proclaimed themselves to be against ideological litmus tests, arguing that the most important thing was to choose candidates who could actually win.

This was the same moment when Howard Dean, the unofficial leader of the progressive movement, was telling anyone who would listen that the Southern guy with a Confederate flag in his truck, as Mr. Dean invariably described him, should be a Democratic voter, too. The whole point of Mr. Dean’s “50-state strategy” as party chairman was to find candidates who could win everywhere.

Apparently it was easier for liberal activists to countenance ideological diversity when they were out of power. Now that the party has had to make the requisite compromises in order to pass major legislation, such a “big tent” vision of governing no longer seems so appealing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/us/politics/09bai.html?_r=1&nl=us&emc=politicsemailema4


I was floored. Rahm and Howard thinking alike? Get the majority and the big tent was the way to go? There is room for everyone....Isn't that just the oddest thing?

Let's not state things incorrectly.

ps....I have to go to work now, I am not abandoning the thread due to running away, but to make money to live on. I'm sure you all know how that is. :hi:

Dean wanted to win everywhere, and yes, he tends to be more conservative due to his Republican family background. BUT he did not go in and handpick Republican millionaires like Rahm did. We put a race in FL back in GOP hands because the Republican millionaire he picked had affairs and other problems....all those good family values.

Meanwhile the Democrat, Dave Lutrin, a good man and school teacher was forced out of the race by Rahm machinations.

Whereas Lutrin didn't have money. When the national party endorses one candidate over another, it's almost always due to the size of their warchest. And those people tend to be more centrist because it's easier to raise from big money. And the fact of the matter is that candidates with money tend to win elections.

People like Lutrin rarely get elected in a system where money is such a big factor. Paul Wellstone did but he's the exception and not the rule. And then if you do get elected you're less likely to stay in office because incumbents without huge war-chests are more likely to attract serious challengers. Russ Feingold and Carol Shea-Porter are perfect examples of this. They shunned traditional fundraising and attracted serious challengers every time.

Rahm did plenty of that, and in 3 races in Florida alone he manipulated to get the most conservative candidates to run, and get the less conservative out of the race by drying up their money.

and how Rahm flushed 2 mil down the toilet trying to get an unknown elected after elbowing out a progressive candidate who was known and popular statewide.

Rahm wanted to make huge bucks on Wall Street.

It so happened that certain parts of their plans overlapped.

the house and senate, and that's what we got. Anyway, they both brought bluedogs into the party and most of the time those bluedogs were the votes needed to pass legislation. Some were creeps, but then that's human nature.

they are against the DLC corporatist bureaucratic style of governance. They think Obama is a far left liberal because to them liberalism = big, bloated, ineffective bills like the health bill and wasteful government spending like the bank bailouts and the poorly targeted stimulus bill.

If I didn't know better, I would probably call myself a conservative, too, since I'm as opposed to ineffectual bureaucracy and corporate communism as anyone. Fortunately, I've traveled and studied and seen good, real liberal government in action.

The centrism is too working.

Stop saying that the centrism is not working!!!!

But was also its downfall. The success of our majority brought us a good number of Blue Dog Democrats. Dean should receive the credit, but I always chuckle at liberals who naively believe that Dean is the champion of liberalism. I love him, but he did bring us many Blue Dog Democrats who eventually lead to the fall of the party.

We need a true progressive/liberal Democratic majority, not "fake ass" DemoCRAPS!!!

The DSCC and the DCCC handpicked the candidates and forced the less conservative ones out of the races.

You are rewriting history.

Many of us who believed in the Dean campaign were and are moderates, and we had Republicans and Greens among us as well.

including Independents and moderate and conservative Democrats and Republicans, it stands to reason that you'll get Blue Dog Democrats, no?

I'm not rewriting history. That's what happened. Dean was the head of the DNC; he is in charge of supporting Democratic candidates. Many of those Democrats were Blue Dogs, DLCers, moderates, and liberals.

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that I'm getting history wrong. I know exactly what happened.

Bottom line: the 50 State Strategy gave us a majority. That's the good news. The bad news is that it also brought us all kinds of Democrats, Blue Dogs included. That is a fact, not fallacy. And it doesn't mean that Dean doesn't deserve credit or that I don't like him. I love him. He's just not the liberal that most liberals think he is.

You are telling the truth. It is others here who are trying to rewrite history to make excuses for Dean and put all the blame on Rahm.

Recruiting Blue Dogs to run in otherwise red districts was the brainchild of both Dean and Emanuel in spite of them ultimately knocking heads. Their efforts and Dean's 50-state strategy culminated in a supermajority. That's the good news. The bad news is that many of them vote like Republicans. It's a hell of a trade-off.

But if you hold the majority, you hold the committees and clout. The bluedogs let us hold them and get things done.

to break filibusters and then vote however they wish on the actual bill. Then Democrats would be cooking with gas.

I think we better err on the side of caution in this case.

Voters dont want to see Democrats fight Republicans, they want to see Republicans fight Democrats.

I thought that the election just made that clear.

of dems in congress. There's only so many seats they had to win in New England so they had to look south and west. It's easier to get one of the red staters to run under a dem banner than try to change the population's opinion. It's just common sense. We just suck at messaging that's why we lose.

Democrats are Winning Democrats and Losing Democrats. It is easy as can be to see who retained their seats, which regions and districts have strong, organized Democratic voters and also to see who lost seats they had previously won, and which districts simply did not rise to the challenge presented to them.
It is not just about the candidate, it really about the voters they are able to attract. Or unable to attract. Winners and losers.
Every Democrat on my ballot won. Same for my home State. So, whatever kind of dog you had in this race, fact is some dogs won, Winner Dog Democrats, and others lost, Loser Dog Democrats. The Loser Dog Democrats seem to have a voting base that does not mind wandering off to the actual Republicans when the Loser Dog candidate gets complacent.
I like to back Winner Dog Democrats. Those of us who sent Democrats to Congress this cycle have provided the President with the only sort of support that matters, we gave him votes in Congress. All the rhetoric and labeling and the quests for blame to cast will not provide President Obama with a single vote, will not support him in the one way that he most needs support. Loser Dogs failed him, by losing.
Winners and losers, this is politics, not a puppy mill or a painter's pallett. Colors and animals, unicorns and fanstastically colored doggies! Winners and losers.

Recession surrounds us, the pubs goal of Waterloo caused such obstruction as the congress has ever seen. The mouthy teabaggers overran town hall meetings and the pubs put out blatant lies about health care and the finance reforms...and the conservatives ate those lies like candy. We lost the house.

The message wasn't loud enough, the bluedogs ran from their votes, and they are now history. Either way, Dean and Emanuel produced winning elections. I like them both and didn't start this thread to tear either of them down. They did their jobs.

If the pony-wishing Liberlas had let the big tent members act EVEN MORE like conservatives once they were in office, and LESS like hippy Liberals, we would have even more victories.

Dean understood the 50 state stategy meant that we would have to let the Republicans and conservatives control and frame the debate in every instance. What part of this did the Liberals miss?

Dean knew and approved of the strategy where the President would not fight conservative DEMS into supporting a PO, for instance.

IT IS DEAN's fault that elected Democrats in office catered to conservative & Republican voters instead of the people who got them elected.

What was Dean thinking when he told elected Democtrats to vote like conservatives? Why didnt he listen to us centrists?

Thanks for this post- we need to convince all those powerful Liberals that this is really their fault.

I'm one of those liberals, so I'm not seeing much in that message. The US political scale tipped right this election, next time it may tip left again.

And he also told them to oppose the various DEM groups who helped get them elected.

If only he and the Liberals had listened to us centrists more. We tried to tell you guys that he was a Liberal nut.

I'm no centrist, so whatever 'us' you're referring to is out of my realm.

Howard Dean was my pick in the 2004 election, and when he withdrew it took me a long time to find my next choice, which was John Kerry. I'm not going to beat up on either of them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=516772&mesg_id=516772

I knew I could dig it up somewhere.

Dean said nothing of the sort. Is this a call out of another thread?

That is why it is all his fault.

Dean's 50 state strategy was obviously a trojan horse to get elected Democrats to oppose their own base on major issues. If only he had listened to the DLCers who warned him of his folly.

I need some sleep.

It certainly was not us centrists. We are much smarter than that crazy guy who screams and does liberal stuff.

We must stop this far left revisionism that fails to blame Dean for all the awful things he made us do.

I will say that I like your image of Obama with his back turned to the Liberal base-very effective!

Sid

And they supported Progressives over Blue Dogs WHEN THEY COULD.

They, for instance would not have supported BLANCHE LINCOLN
in a primary.


The difference between DFA and the DSCC and the DCCC is DFA
will try and recruit and run progressives wherever there is
a seat, if there are no progressives, we support the Democrat,
such as they are. DSCC and DCCC will target and destroy
Progressive candidates so they can run a Blue Dog or a New Dem
in their stead. If they see a viable seat, they will DESTROY
a Progressive to force us to vote for their hand picked Corpo's.

Here we go again- with the far lefts trying to revise history.

Please pass me some of what you are smoking.

n/t

I'm HAPPIER being an triangulating pragmatist!

Forget about PROGRESS!

:party:

Free your mind, and centrism will follow.

Enough with the silly "values" and "facts"- GROWN UP politics is about saying you agree with whatever cable-news consuming conservative swing voters say they want this time.

THIS WILL lead us to victory, someday. I'll be here to say "I told you so."

Sorry, no "ponies"- just RESULTS. POPULAR, results for WINNERS.

REMEMBER

Emanuel is a steaming pile of dog shit while Dean is a god among men. With apologies to the dog

He should have never forced all of those centrist democrats to oppose their own base and to fight against the PO.

That was HIS idea. He was the architecht behind DEM opposition to the PO.

We need to be attacking Dean for turning centrist DEMS against the base, not the pro PO centrists like Rahm who tried to stop him.

It's Dean's fault that elected Democrats opposed the PO and sided with conservatives.

Any other take is just more revisionism from the farlefts of DU.

I don't remember Dean opposing the Public Option. Do you have links to prove that?

Then go and read the comments- No no-not the far left commnets- but the clear eyed, grown up, centrists ones.

The failed election was Dean's fault. He forced all those Blue Dogs to oppose the DEM base. It was his plan all along for them to oppose the PO and anything that the base wanted.

If this was not his plan, then it is still his fault for being too stupid to know that elected DEMS would somehow be forced to oppose the DEM agenda.

Rahm tried to STOP him from doing this. But NOOOOOOOOO- the far left had to bitch and moan, so Rahm just stepped aside and let Dean have his way. We let the baby have his bottle, and now we are ALL paying for it. So sad, no pony for you. Thank Dean.

I will NOT let far lefts come here with their revisionist history. The fact that Blue Dogs & DLCers opposed the DEM base was something that Dean planned.

You accused Dean of opposing the Public option. Either produce links that prove this or admit that you made it up.