Let's Give Our Brains the Boot: Progressive War on Blue Dog Dems

C.T.

The Progressive/Emotional/Reactionary/Socialist wing of the Democratic party is up to there mnd numbing revolutionary practices again. This time they are trying to eat some of their own, the Blue Dog Dems or the Conservative side of the Democratic party. This recent attack is brought to you by Glenn Greenwald, a writer for the Salon, in his article, "Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot."

If you are not familiar with the Blue Dogs, here is a little history, via Wikipedia.

"Blue Dog Democrat" is playfully derived from the original term Yellow Dog Democrat. It was former Texas Democrat Rep. Pete Geren who said that the members had been "choked blue" by those "extreme" Democrats, from the left. Thus, he is credited for coining the term Blue Dog Democrat.

The term is also a reference to the "Blue Dog" paintings of Cajun artist George Rodrigue of Lafayette, Louisiana. The original members of the coalition would regularly meet in the offices of Louisiana representatives Billy Tauzin and Jimmy Hayes, both of whom had Rodrigue's paintings on their walls (and both of whom later switched to the Republican Party). [1]

Here is what their stances tend to be.

Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs tend to be conservatives, but have more divergent positions on social issues than the DLC. Reflecting the group's Southern roots, many are strong supporters of gun rights and receive high ratings from the National Rifle Association, some have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups. As a caucus, however, the group has never agreed on or taken a position on these issues, and many members favor more socially liberal positions. [1]

Mr. Greenwald starts his analysis of why he figures the Progressive led Congress is such an abysmal failure. Of course it tends to be along party lines, but that is expected.

The Congress of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi has been every bit as passive, impotent and complicit as the Congress of Bill Frist and Denny Hastert was. Worse, in contrast to the Frist/Hastert-led Congress, which at least had the excuse that it enabled a wartime president from its own party while he enjoyed high approval ratings, the Reid/Pelosi Congress has capitulated to every presidential whim despite an "opposition party" president who is now one of the most unpopular in modern American history.

If, after spending two years accommodating one extremist policy after the next favored by the right, congressional Democrats become further entrenched in their power by winning even more seats, what would one expect them to do other than conclude that this approach works and therefore continue to pursue it? [2]

Then he goes straight for the jugular of the Blue Dogs, not even taking a breath to point out why they are the ones "capitulating" to the "extremist policies" of the right. I was utterly amazed at how quickly the Progressives want to offer up a sacrificial lamb, or should I say dog.

Here is "Che" Greenwald's answer to the problem.

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. [2]

The shear idiocy of some of these Progressive elitists is astounding. They can never simply admit when they are wrong or their policies have failed. Comrade Greenwald is a fine example of his movement's inability to accept they are a social experiment that has failed and need to place blame on those in their party who are more balanced in their approaches to politics.

This seemingly strange phenomena can only be tied to the rise of Obama as the Progressive boy king. Now, they feel empowered and validated so it is time to march on and purge the party of those right leaning Dems. As usual when someone does not act like they do or has another viewpoint there is a call for their head. This is always preceded by Progressive feet stamping and whining, much like you see with a 5 year old. The political immaturity they display is jaw dropping at times.

From a partisan aspect, I hope this rebellion continues and the Progressives wage war on their more conservative counterparts. Election time is always perfect to spur party fractioning, sarcasm intended. Not only could this be a resurrection of the 80's Reagan Democrats, also it could cause Obama to lose the general election. Think about those who you vote to lead, you just might get people like these taking your country down the proverbial toilet.

C.T.

[1] Blue Dog Coalition
[2] Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot

P.S. Something of interest, if you happen to go to the link for the particular Salon article look at the end of it and what it says. Thought Progressives had nothing but love in their hearts for everyone?