Glenn Greenwald: Time To Kick The Blue Dog Dems Out

In American politics, exceedingly few positions generate overwhelming agreement across the ideological spectrum. Even propositions that ought to be uncontroversial -- such as whether there is scientific evidence for evolution or whether Saddam Hussein personally planned the 9/11 attacks -- produce sizable portions of the citizenry lined up on each side. One notable exception to this rule is the issue of whether the current U.S. Congress is doing a poor job. That question produces a remarkable consensus that is close to unanimous.

...

If simply voting for more Democrats will achieve nothing in the way of meaningful change, what, if anything, will? At minimum, two steps are required to begin to influence Democratic leaders to change course: 1) Impose a real political price that they must pay when they capitulate to -- or actively embrace -- the right's agenda and ignore the political values of their base, and 2) decrease the power and influence of the conservative "Blue Dog" contingent within the Democratic caucus, who have proved excessively willing to accommodate the excesses of the Bush administration, by selecting their members for defeat and removing them from office. And that means running progressive challengers against them in primaries, or targeting them with critical ads, even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress.

Read the whole story

Comments

[Mogamboguru]

"Birds of a feather flock together" - and should go into tailspin together, too.

"Off with their heads!" - I say.

Have you ever noticed the sweet implications which come with the word "PURGE"...?

[syllepsis]

That people are citing Pelosi as their favorite Blue Dog proves how far off the mark Greenwald is.
She is many things, and very few of them good, as far as I'm concerned- but she is assuredly no Blue Dog.
As a matter of fact, when prototypical Blue Dog Heath Schuler ran for the House, the Repubs tried to link him with her as the archetype of the non-Blue Dog, liberal's liberal!
That is why discussion won't get far here- Greenwald really botched this subject.
What is needed are better politicians, not fewer Blue Dogs. Unfortunately, purging a party of its liars and racketeers- or racketeers' victims' is an exercise in futility. Just start over, and work your way up, with a new party, if you think the old one is rotten.

[biglover]

Excellent post - sylllepsis. I totally agree. I appreciate the passionate cries here but they are mostly foolish and way off the mark.

[UnbiasView]

Correct, if Pelosi takes another step left . . . she would fall into the Pacific Ocean. That is the reason she is such a terrible leader. Anyone that cannot accept that not everyone agrees with them is going to be a terrible leader.

[Bettysdad]

If you think Pel osi is about to get wet, you truly are a wingnut.

Since the "far left" are Communists, what Communist positions does Pe losi espouse.

Look up "Communism" before you answer and make even more of a fool of yourself.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Greenw@ld was critical of Pelosl, but did not call her a blue dog. He mentioned Hoyer and Emanuel. Hoyer was not her choice for #2, but she's still very weak. I agree that both (ha!) parties are hopelessly corrupt, but they write the rules to exclude any others.

[JDJase]

"even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress."

I think it would be risking a lot more than A seat.

Try over a quarter of dems in congress.

So okay, you run a liberal against a blue dog in the primary in a conservative district. The Republican then wins the seat. The Dems lose control of congress. So now that every dem in congress is a liberal, how does the change come in? Bein as they're not in control, they can't do ANYTHING.

This is not a liberal country. Anyone who denies that the one and only reason that Dems have a chance this year, and in 2006, is solely because of the current hatred of Republicans. That doesnt mean Americans have become Liberals.

[derekc06]

spot on assessment right here.... this most certainly is not a liberal country

unfortunately

[biglover]

But getting more liberal every day.

[msmaggie]

Well actually I think the pendulum is swinging back to where more and more Americans are identifying with liberals.

That said, you are completely right. The problem in the notion that "we" should kick out the blue dogs blithely ignores the fact that it's not "we", it's the voters of individual states and districts, who we can only assume agree with the blue dog politics. How vainglorious of an idea: "we" are going to set these people straight. Good luck with that.

[Beninn]

It's the word "liberal" and not the deed that they've been brainwashed about. When it comes to the actual liberal policies and programs, they like them just fine. Polls that phrase the question using the word "liberal' are skewed and useless. Polls that lay out a liberal solution to their problems get overwhelming positive responses from most people.

The people who vote for blue dogs are either corrupt and benefit from their 'dog', or they're ignorant and easily spun. They wise up fast when they're hungry, and not enjoying the spoils.

We are in for very hard times within the next year. What is coming is going to make the Great Depression look like a tea party, and Americans aren't going to be placated by Limbaugh and hate-radio, about "liberals" and "nanny state". They're going to demand their government respond to their needs, as they should. There are things the government, and only the government, can do that individuals and private business can't.

[terragazelle60]

They are Representatives of their district, if their district does not like what they are doing they will vote them out...that is the game. My senator is Vitter (blahhhhkkkk) I would not vote for him if I was on fire and he had the water...But there you are, he won.

[Bettysdad]

Every poll over the last 40 years shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans support Liberal policies and programs, UNTIL they're told they're liberal.

The Dems biggest mistake for 2 generations is in not telling America with great pride what liberals have accomplished over the past 125 years. The Republicans have not done a single thing in all that time to improve the lives of the average person.

To paraphrase that chemical industry commercial:

Without Liberals, life itself would not be possible.

[PumaAnn]

I agree with your perspective. I do think we fail to discuss the actual achievements. We are entirely too "personality" driven.

It's honestly not Obama's ENTIRE fault that it's turned into an American Idol election that leaves a lot of people who vote on substance wanting an alternative. It is the nature to frame everything around a personality.

[optech007]

Members of Congress are supposed to vote the way they think their constituents want to vote, or vote for what will best benefit their contituents. That is why they're called representatives. They should not be voting on what is going to best help either themselves or their party politically.

It's like 0bama and the FISA bill. When he voted for it, people commented and even justified his vote by saying if he voted against it, the Republicans would hammer him for it. But as a US Senator, he is not supposed to cast votes in the Senate on what is going to best help him get elected, he supposed to vote on what will best help the people of Illinois.

[cdub1991]

Actually, that last part isn't really true when it comes to the Senate. The founding fathers always intended that the Senate would be composed of "elder statesmen" who would look at issues more deeply that the House. That's why they have six year terms--to decrease the short term pressure from the public and its effects on their deliberations.

[optech007]

Actually, historically Senators were elected by state legislatures. They were originally supposed to vote in what was the best interest of the state. The founders saw this as another level of checks and balances, between the state and federal govts. You're right in that their longer terms were so they did not get much pressure from the people. However, the 17th amendment, which allowed the direct election of Senators by the people, changed all that. Now Senators have to pander like all other politicians and they usually vote on what they think makes them look best in order to win votes.

[syllepsis]

I suggest that what we need here are Progressives like Robert La Follette:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette%2C_Sr.

[syllepsis]

http://www.fightingbob.com/about.cfm

Sorry, wikipedia s*ks.

[PumaAnn]

That's why the notion that we MUST have a Dem in the White House is ringing false to a lot of the public.

Why? The Dems aren't united by any shakes. There's not even much goodwill. It's divided into factions.

Look how the Unity Rally really went. Booing ensued.

LOL*

The faux-progressive call for the heads of any Dem who disputes their very specific political agenda. Frankly, after FISA, I'm surprised O survived.

It's like the right-wing fundamentalists took over the agenda of the Republicans for years.

Welcome to the new Democratic Party, which resembles the other guys a lot more than it resembles the old Democratic Party.

brave new world......with the message to "Kick Him Out."

BTW......I love it that Pelosi is being called a blue dawg. What a trip! What an absolute perfect example of what I'm saying.

[syllepsis]

Greenwald is disingenuous when he tries to excuse the failures of the Dems to Blue Dogs.
He is trying to find a simple answer to a complex problem, which is the general failure of the Dems themselves to provide us with actual representation.
Don't blame the Blue Dogs. Blame the Dems.

[PumaAnn]

I do. Actually, I blame poor leadership. I think the party is in shambles, trying to pretend it's prepared to take the reins.

I'm sure not seeing it.

And O? I can't figure out which way he's going to dart from day-to-day. Makes my head spin.

The Dems look like a dysfunctional family to me, so I think the notion of kicking anyone out is rather funny. That's just how dysfunctional families act.

[geobushono]

http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Cybersecurity_expert_raises_allegations_of_2004_0717.html

Robert Wexler for Speaker............

http://www.cindyforcongress.org

[OtayPanky]

Oh, Ann.

Unlike the author of this post, you don't actually have any actual principled position behind your rhetoric.

You're just frosted because your gal didn't win. So now you want to see Obama lose.

The smartest thing you could do would be to step away from the keyboard for a bit, and actually weigh the arguments for and against supporting Obama rationally - without the cloudiness of your own anger.

Granted, that's hard to do sometimes. But it's the essence of responsible citizenship.

I am NOT a registered democrat - and I daresay I have as much of an emotional issue with this party of wretched cowards and compromisers as you do. But I'd be a fool to let my emotions drive my voting behavior, wouldn't I?

For example: as much as you love Hillary, I despise her. But had she become the nominee, I would have voted for her - because the country simply can't stand another four years of republican rule.

See what I'm talking about here? Think it over.

[PumaAnn]

You read emotions where there are none. Not angry here.

*checking in with my inner puma here*

Nah*......disappointment is even gone, replaced by optimism that 2012 will be here soon.

Seriously, I don't mean to be flippant, but I've lost far more than I've ever won in this business of backing candidates.

And I'm speaking on principles. I'm just not going to go into those here on this blog. That's silly thinking.

Nobody here would be remotely interested. I have other blogs where I can share those thoughts.

[nippersdad]

I'm not clear why you expect "faux Progressives" to uncritically support "Dems" who are reliable votes for the most extreme views of right wing ideologues. There is a word for those in today's politics; Republicans. Why should we support Republicans when we have a totally different value set? In a two Party system there are supposed to be two Parties. I would have thought that so obvious that discussion of the topic would be moot.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

yeah you get it, thank you.

I don't know why these people just don't say "we have one party and that's all we need" because essentially that's their message.

[Americanium]

I agree with your sentiments 100%. The Democratic Party as it is currently structured is built for losing. Every section wants to be the big cheese. No organization survives with each arm wanting to lead.
Democrats, sad to say ,enjoy losing. The sad part is they don't know they do.

[PumaAnn]

It's Obama's job to lead now. He's got his work cut out for him!

[JohnFromCensornati]

And their favorite losing strategy is the RepubliCon Lite Strategy.

[donaldw6]

You're not a Democrat at all, Ann. You're a NeoCon tr0//.

[DesertLight]

What happened to the O brings everyone together kind of theory? What happened to the Kumbaya atmosphere when he got the nom.

[loria]

Did this come from his campaign? No, I didn't think so.

[ErnestineBass]

We're cleaning our own house, DL...I suggest you do the same.

Our Representatives ain't representing.

[Jess27]

My blue dog rep is representing and voting progressively. I am proud of my rep Steve Israel and I would not vote for a new dem over him. Some of the blue dogs are not so progressive, but don't make the mistake of lumping them all in as being the same. The whole mission of the Blue Dogs is to not fund something we don't know how to pay for, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[DesertLight]

I hope you haven't interpreted from my comments that all is well over here in paradise, especially with the candidate that was (not I) nominated.

I concede the point. There is much clean up to do here. First, getting rid of the Charlatans would be a good start. It appears as though they are being smoked out one by one.

[JRandomPoster]

I'd be checking on today's beam in your eye. Today it's Ted "Will Legislate for Fun and profit" Stevens.

[UnbiasView]

So why may I ask is it not good to have people with all different thoughts and beliefs across your party and across your government?

The debate on issues is what makes this country great. The times where we get into the most trouble is when one side or the other controls everything, too much power ends up very bad in most cases.

[JohnFromCensornati]

I'm sure that is what you think now that the GOP is getting the boot.
You're not fooling anybody.

[UnbiasView]

WTF are you talking about? I don't want every Republican to vote down party lines or have the same thoughts either.

All that does is cause gridlock and a 9% approval rating.

This country works when we take the best input and solutions from every side.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

"So why may I ask is it not good to have people with all different thoughts and beliefs across your party and across your government?"

nothing wrong with different thoughts and beliefs. but there is something wrong with calling yourself a democrat when you consistently vote against democratic party ideals and in support of the republican agenda.

[DesertLight]

But is was a proud moment to be called a '"blue dog" Dem0 in the 06 election. Now you want to boot them?

[nippersdad]

A discussion of ideas is precisely what is not taking place in the present Congress due to the governing coalition of actual Republicans and Blue Dog Republicans. If we actually had an opposition Party with a voice in Congress, we might not have had the endless series of capitulations that have characterized the 110th Congress and a nominee who is increasingly comfortable with running on right wing themes.

[UnbiasView]

False, a discussion of ideas takes into account both sides of the aisle which is not taking place right now because Reid & Pelosi are terrible leaders.

If you want to come out with the "my way or the highway" approach which is being done on both sides you get nothing.

The answer is not to boot anyone with opposition to every idea you have but to consider everyone's opinions . . . THIS ISN'T RUSSIA.

Sorry to say, not every liberal idea is always a good one just like every conservative idea is not a good idea.

[Eoin45]

"So why may I ask is it not good to have people with all different thoughts and beliefs across your party and across your government?" It's fine within the boundaries of your party's core beliefs. As a Democrat, should I welcome with open arms a Ku Klux Klan member? How about an Aryan Nation sympathizer? Someone rabidly anti-choice? An evangelical religious zealot who'd like to remake the U.S. as a theocracy? Those are just off the top of my head. How about you Unbias? Would you welcome married gay couples? How about pro-drug hippies? You know as well as I do that a party without philosophical limits is no party at all. Fine, keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

[Beninn]

There really is no debate on issues. There's spin, on issues that mean gross profits for Big Business and the rich, but there's no debate on what kind of life that means for everyone else.

If you knew that anti-abortion legislation, privatization of everything from roads to prisons, the deregulation of everything from airplane inspection, food safety and environmental safeguards, was all part of a bigger picture for fast, massive wealth for a relative few by unhealthy growth & development of the land, would you support either of these parties? If this growth and development meant suburban sprawl, requiring citizens to drive hours to work, would you be for it? If growth and development means a polluted environment that makes you sick and shortens your life, would you support it? Would you support stockholders' rights to make a profit at the expense of the health of the citizens?

Wouldn't you like to see candidates debate that, instead of who cares more for troops who are in a country to steal resources for the richest elites, polluting the environment, and supporting a way of life that's killing us all?

[bmora]

This poll result only points out that the American people are schizophrenic (almost, literally). When those same folks are asked to rate their respective members of Congress, the results are surprisingly good irrespective of party. So, while I agree this Congress has done little to impress me or do anything to bring about substantive change, I doubt that things are as bad as the poll suggests. Whether deserved or not, this perception is largely driven by the Corporate Media’s depiction of all members of Congress. If we are all fighting with one another over whose party sucks the most, we cannot organize and affect change. This keeps the powerful powerful.

I hate fence sitters just as much as the next chap, but this goes nowhere fast with one caveat. Liebermann needs the boot after the election.

[jupitor]

Finally some one with some intelligence and brains! Thanks bmora, tell them!

[loria]

You are right about Liebermann. He shoud go caucus with the Republicans where he belongs.

Liberal dems (and I am one of them) have to realize that some areas of the country are just plain hostile to democrats. The people will elect a dem if they see them centrist. That is just the way it is. The Blue Dog dems are a part of the party. They have constituents to answer to. I hate to hear this type of talk when we have an election to win.

[syllepsis]

Joe Lieberman is a "social liberal" but a man who has no place in any self-respecting, reform-minded party.
Conversely, social conservatives who understand that the system is broken and needs serious repair are a viable part of reform.
We can't just say it is "Blue Dogs," because the term, meaning Dems who represent conservative districts, is absurd when the forst names that people cite are Pelosi and Feinstein.
We need some redefinitions. I also don't like 'purges,' as some have described them. I would rather start over, at a time when BOTH parties are languishing on the dog food shelf.

[Ladyrantsalot]

Get real. Think back to the Great Society programs: Medicare, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, etc. --all passed by a Democratic congress, a Congress that was Democratic only because the most retrograde people in America back then, Southern Democrats, gave Dems a solid majority. Today, Dems only control the Senate because Joe Lieberman allows them to. Glenn Greenwald is like a Democratic Karl Rove, enforcing a party line that only one wing of the party believes in. This sort of thinking destroyed the Republican party. A huge Democratic majority WILL enable us to get some progressive legislation across because, like the 1960s and 1970s, persistent, monumental, Republican defeats will enable moderate Republicans to defy the Karl Roves of their party, and provide the votes necessary for better health, environmental, and foreign policy legislation. This is what used to happen before a rigid, conservative ideological line prevented moderate Republicans from ever crossing the aisle and voting for liberal Democratic legislation. Don't repeat the same mistakes Karl Rove made.

[gotalife]

Unity.

Disband both parties and make the corporate lobby illegal instead.

Change.

[DesertLight]

Now that is a start for change I could believe in.

[w&cheneysuck]

Ahh, if only!

[olivia]

Good post. Obama refusing lobbyist money is at least a start.

Getting rid of PACs is the best we could do.

[goethean]

Remember when the Republicans started running right-wing candidates to take out the moderate Republicans, and significantly weakened their party as a result?

Tell how Glenn's suggestion is any different than that.

I know: "the difference is, we're right and they're wrong!"

That is simple-headed partisanship. Glenn has proven that he dosn't understand why Obama is winning, or why Obama is smarter and, in a word, better than Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

[scottmhall]

Reality Check.

Blue Dog Democrats represent congressional districts that are often overwhelmingly Republican. In 2006, Blue Dog candidates such as Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth were elected in conservative-leaning districts, ending years of Republican dominance in these districts.

Currently there are 47 members of this coalition, purging these representatives would be a drastic loss for the majority status of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. They overwhelmingly vote with the majority on crucial procedural votes which can make or break important legislation.

Would you rather have a Republican representing those districts that would vote against your interests 90-95% of the time…or a moderate who supports the majority 70-95% of the time?

[DesertLight]

Well spoken.

This leads people like me to believe that there was an agenda all along in the 06 election. That agenda was gain control at any cost, Speaker and Majority Leader and now when the ratings are worse than W, it's demonize and blame the blue dogs..... Brilliant.

Not a good day for Dems.

[JohnFromCensornati]

I see you read the post.
Who cares if they support the majority 70-95% (???) of the time if nothing comes of it?

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

"Would you rather have a Republican representing those districts that would vote against your interests 90-95% of the time�or a moderate who supports the majority 70-95% of the time?"

they already vote like republicans, so just lose the illusion and put the r after their names.

[UnbiasView]

You think that the USA loves liberals from coast to coast like San Fran does . . . that isn't true and if you think there is going to be a massive lib coming from every state you are moving back to the utopian view that makes you complain in the first place about how everything isn't just like you want it.

[Titonwan]

Can't you read? When there was a majority of rethugs in Congress, they could NOT get FISA passed! IT PASSED with a Democratic Congress. Are you that dim? Wow.

[repearwo]

"scottmhall" is certainly not dim.

Can you spell C O A L I T I O N. Democracy does not mean you get your way. It mean the majority gets their way with 10 exceptions. So if your ideas do not match the ideas of 50+% of your fellow citizens, you are out of luck.

Glenn knows that, or should.

The quickest way to lose an election that one should win is to start fighting yourself rather than the other party.

Glen and his partner in political misjudgment, Jane Hansher, may think they will help Obama loose so Hillary can run in 2012. It is all a fantasy. With what is coming our way for the next 4 years it will be a wonder if we still have country to be President of, regardless who is President. Most people in the US are just no prepared to do without for any period of time. They will take the easy way out everytime like they did on 911.

If you are a Democrat, get rid of other Democrats at your own risk.

[PKSSK]

As always, Mr. Greenwald speaks the truth of the problems with the Democratic party. We need democrats who stand together with the integrity and character necessary to change the country for the better of all it's citizens, not just a few. The GOP was successful at building a party consensus, although it lacked the character and integrity to do it for the benefit of all people, that solely benefited themselves and the wealthy few who financially enhanced thier pockets, like the oil, finance and media industry. We need to get rid of the blue dog DLC members who prove to continually take the party down the wrong path.