In 2008, the Blue Dogs’ kennel was overflowing. Three years later, their number is less than half what it was then. They came to power as part of Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy, and although, I support a 50 state strategy, I think we need to rethink the manner in which we implement that strategy.
News that Rep.
Jim CostaDennis Cardoza is retiring is particularly good news for those of us who want to see the end of the pernicious influence of the biggest band of self-defeating Democrats in Congress—the Blue Dogs.In 2008, they numbered 54 members, and bragged that they were turning away Democrats clammoring to join their caucus. After 2010, they were 25—a silver lining to an otherwise bleak year. It turned out that pretending to be Republicans and undermining their party was not a path to self-preservation. Indeed, the Blue Dogs accounted for half of the party’s House losses that year. Yet they didn’t really learn their lesson, and have continued to undermine President Barack Obama and the Democrats.
But their caucus continues to be decimated—this time by retirements. Already, Reps. Dan Boren and Mike Ross, both in the Blue Dog leadership, have announced their retirements from Congress. Good riddance. With Costa’s announcement, that brings them down to 22.
Rep. Joe Donnelly will be running for Senate in Indiana, so that’s 21. Georgia’s John Barrow is being targeted by Republicans drawing up new congressional districts, and likely faces a tough slog back to the House. Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire will be forced by Republican map drawers into the same district as either Dem Rep. Mark Critz or Mark Doyle, giving us a chance to get rid of yet another Blue Dog.
In Utah, map drawers targeted Rep. Jim Matheson, slicing his current district into parts of three new ones and making them all more Republican (from 59 percent GOP to 65 percent). He is deciding whether to run in one of those three districts, or to run for Senate or governor. North Carolina’s two Blue Dogs—Heath Shuler and and Mike McIntyre—have been drawn into brutal districts.
It doesn’t take much effort to see a Blue Dog caucus well under 20 members, and that’s including half-assed Blue-Dog-In-Name-Only members like Reps. Loretta Sanchez, Adam Schiff, David Scott, and Gabby Giffords who generally vote the right way, without the theatrics and rhetoric that undermine the party… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Daily Kos>
The theory behind the 50 state strategy was to challenge Republicans everywhere, not just in districts where Democrats have an even chance or better. I agree with that. The Democrats became the “big tent” party that would welcome moderate candidates in more conservative areas. In practice, however, most of the so-called moderates turned out to be hard-core conservatives, with no party loyalty, that goose-step with the Republicans on virtually every vote.
We should keep the 50 state strategy, but instead of supporting Blue Dogs with GOP fleas, we should support real Democrats. If Blue Dogs refuse to vote with the party on key issues, they should face primary challenges and receive no support from the party. Give voters in all 50 states the opportunity to choose a real Democrat. If they then elect a Republican, that will be their punishment, and at least we won’t have a representative that gives the party a bad name.
19 Responses to “Are Blue Dogs Going Extinct?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I really like the paintings by Rodrigue, though (even though I have one Blue Dog by the artist who claims to be the originator, Dr. Bob – http://www.drbobart.net/animals/bluedog.htm). And to return to the subject, sometimes I think some “blue dogs” just speak that way to keep particular constituents happy, like Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, who has so many employed by oil refineries in her state
Thanks Rob. I like them.
I look forward to their extinction. I hope they are replaced by true progressives.
As do I Patty.
I hope the Blue Dogs, teabaggers, and conservative Republicans ALL disappear together! Then, and only then, will we get sanity back in politics.
Agree 100%
What Phyllis said!!
I don’t share your view, but it is possible that that is based on an error in my understanding. My understanding is that the Speakers of the House and the Senate yield tremendous power. They decide what comes up for a vote, and when. They make committee assignments, including chairman assignments.
In my understanding, the single most important vote a Congressman makes is for the Speaker, a vote that potentially can make almost everything else he aspires to do possible or impossible. If you share your Speaker’s politics, you have a chance of getting meaningful committee assignments, and get listened to when it makes a difference. If not, your activities may effectively comprise political theater.
While a Speaker needs to be responsive to those in his caucus, within those limits he has great power. Had the Tea-Party-raided Republicans followed a “Big Tent” policy, their control over the Congress now may well be absolute. This may be one of the few times that their uncompromising ethic has worked against them.
I would be thankful to any informed person who can disabuse me of my understanding. Thank you.
Paul, I used to have the same view that you do, but in practice, it proved to be a disaster. When Pelosi appointed Blue Dogs to committees, that effectively gave Republicans extra votes on those committees. This was especially problematic with “bipartisan” commissions with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. One Blue Dog gives Republicans control. In 2008, the Blue Dogs did not support Pelosi as speaker. They voted for Hoyer, a less progressive Democrat.
They could not keep support at home, which is why so many are gone. Most of the Democrats in Blue Dog districts stayed home out of frustration. This gave Republicans incredible gains in state houses and state legislatures. Electing the Blue Dogs in 2008 was a Pyrrhic victory.
That said, if the final choice in an election is between a DINO and a Republican, hold your nose and vote for the DINO, but the party should not spend its limited resources on enemies.
I certainly am not so well versed as either Tom or Paul Frank when it comes to the politics of Congress, but I agree that these blues are very purple indeed, and are mainly paid off with a constituency of 1%’ers – hence their betrayal to their party – I agree with you Paul that they do have a lot at stake to go against the Speaker – but Mr Reid is not necessarily all that “innocent” himself – he supports his President, which he must do – but both O and Reid are not so far from the “whores” of the right- they’re well-to-do and have pockets well lined with the “silver” of Wall St. – that any regulations have been enacted is amazing in that respect IMHO! I would be only too happy to see these dogs go – don’t let the door — by by!
Lee, I disagree on Obama.
Just as “tan man” cannot control the Tea Party members of Congress, so Obama could not control the “blue dogs.”
I see both problems as a lack of leadership to control their caucuses.
Tom, you’re mixing apples and oranges here. it is Pelosi’s job to manage House Democrats, not Obama’s.
Understood, but the idea that Obama (leader of the Democratic party) should not take criticism for not leading the Democrats, is lost on me. If Pelosi cannot line up the votes, Obama should. If LBJ left all those Democratic votes needed to pass his agenda up to the speaker, he never would have passed 1/2 of what he did. Yes, the President needs to get personally involved making calls to all Democrats.
I think he should make trips to blue dog districts, just as he has recently to Republican districts to stir up pressure on them from home.
It should have been a wake-up call to the DNC that the real ass-losers in 2010 were the “Blue Dick” dems, NOT the liberals.
Unfortunately, I don’t see much evidence that the lessons took hold.
Unfortunately, I don’t either. That’s why I’m calling for change.
All this time I thought Blue Dogs were the blue haired ladies at the church who were just a titch long in the tooth! Hrumph! I guess I was wrong!
Baby Obstructionists for the most part, eh? Well maybe it’s time for the Democrats to take a page from the Republican play book — you sign a pledge that you will support the 99% with your votes and that if you vote more than twice with the Republicans, you’re toast with the Democratic party.
Good thing their numbers are dwindling!
Lynn, I dislike the idea of pledges. There is only one pledge they need, the oath of office, which Republicans and Blue Dogs ignore.