Polimom’s put a lot of energy here into bashing and lashing the fringes of our partisan mudpit, but I’ve also been trying to find some viable alternatives.
So it happened that, while researching Shane Sklar (who is running against Ron Paul in my district), I came across the interesting note that he plans to align with the Blue Dog Democrats.
In a district like mine, a Blue Dog is a fascinating challenger, particularly given that Ron Paul is a pure-as-the-driven-snow Libertarian marketed as a Republican. Paul’s position papers are always interesting, but because he’s an ideological purist, he’s been utterly ineffective as a Representative.
What I’ve read about the Blue Dogs thus far indicates that they tend to be more socially conservative than I am, but spot on, fiscally. (Polimom trends toward socially moderate and fiscally conservative). It also seems that they’re firmly committed to working for bi-partisan solutions — something I strongly support.
So tell me — what do you think about the Blue Dogs?
Blue Dog Coalition Website
The Heritage Foundation: The Blue Dog Democrats’ Budget Process Proposal: An Emerging Bipartisan Consensus (Feb 2005)
Wikipedia – Blue Dog Democrats
MyDD: Congressional Loyalty Scorecards, Part Four: Blue Dog Democrats (Apr 2005)
Bob Geiger: Time for Blue Dog Democrats in House to Disband (Nov 2005)
The Blue Dogs
Leave a Reply
Read Next
Five years ago, with the images of the planes hitting the twin towers looping on all available media, I was overcome with a need to touch AC. I had to see and hold that five-year-old innocent whose world, and future, …
Sure enough, the minute I say I’m going to be offline for a few days, something happens. This, though, is a really big “something”: SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally …
Considering I’ve just been having a related discussion in the comments, I found this post from Ed Morrissey timely. In three different appearances over the last two days, David Axelrod, Susan Rice, and Claire McCaskill all offered competing visions of …
I haven’t read Barack Obama’s first book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance*, but according to this morning’s Washington Post, it’s an illuminating tome that exposes (among other things) that Obama was once young! And that …
Their website, aside from asking for $$, doesn’t say much. Wiki (not known for its complete accuracy) says they are mostly anti-abortion and voted for the new bankruptcy law (which is deeply flawed in that the protection is mostly for the credit industry, not for human beings, while not requiring the credit industry to take any responsibility for preying on people’s greed and stupidity). As such, they sound pretty much like moderate Republicans. (Are there some Red Dog Republicans out there?)
I believe Congress should enact laws restricting dogs to the colors black and white. This would clarify everything and leave no difficult shades of gray, brown or yeller. Blue dogs, indeed. Next thing we will see is Pink Zebra Communists and their “A Brighton Bag in Every Worker’s Closet” platform.
Jeesh… sounds like a group that was pretty well known in Texas prior to the 1980’s, called the “Democrats.” Other names included “Dixiecrats” (to play up the Southern heritage of the group.) I didn’t know that conservative Democrats were still organized – somehow, I don’t think they will amount to much if the Dems take control of the House (meaning that the Party leadership will make sure that they are kept out of leadership positions.)
~EdT.
Hysterical comment, Smukke. Thanks, as ever, for the laughs.
EdT — I agree with your assessment of them as an organized group. If the Democrats take the House, they’re likely to lean VERY heavily on anyone trying to bridge the gaps.
What piqued my interest about them was that Sklar’s stated desire to align w/ them (the Blue Dogs) seems to indicate a cooperative approach, rather than divisive… We need that badly in Congress right now. I’ve not looked fully “under the hood” at his other positions yet, but the willingness for bi-partisanship caught my eye.
The Democrats also have the DLC (and the “New Democrats”) — also trending toward bi-partisanship — or at least they were at one time. A New Dem, though, while closer to me overall in ideology, would probably not be able to mount an effective challenge in my district, which is (ahem…) pretty conservative.
“If the Democrats take the House, they’re likely to lean VERY heavily on anyone trying to bridge the gaps.”
Sorry, I don’t see it that way – I expect that the Party leadership will effectively freeze out ANYONE – Republican, Independent, Democrat – who doesn’t subscribe to their ideology. This is consistent with how the Dems ruled the House/Senate in the past, and I don’t see any indication that as a party they are going to change their ways.
The only way the BDDs are going to be any sort of force is if the GOP retains control of the House, but that their margin of victory is narrowed, at which point the BDDs will be needed in order to build a working coalition.
~EdT.
Hmmm… I must not have expressed myself clearly.
I expect that the Party leadership will effectively freeze out ANYONE – Republican, Independent, Democrat – who doesn’t subscribe to their ideology.
Internal to the Dems, at least, I would see freezing anybody out who doesn’t subscribe as leaning heavily.
I think we’re actually agreeing, but perhaps there’s a nuance I’m missing…?
Ed, I agree with you. That’s the way the Dems did it before when they were in power. One thing that would be different IF the Repbs lose the power, they’ll be one the sending end of a lot of nasty tactics they never used before but the Dems use repeatedly while out of power. The Dems re-defined the term Loyal Opposition.
My political views tend to be conservative to moderate, definitely fiscal conservative, and socially more liberal. I have lived in Iowa, Missourri, Minnesota, Massachusettes and Houston and found the best governments to be the ones where neither party had a large or persistent majority.
While I don’t agree with all the stances of the Blue Dogs, I do think having a few more in Congress would be a good thing. They could help to take the rough edges off of both parties. If they represented a quarter or more of the Democrats in The House, they be large enough to not blocked out.
I have long believed that the United States is poorly served by having only two parties. We believe in a free market economy which is based on many producers and distains near monopolies. Why not the same for political parties? Nothing would marginalize the far right or far left more than having to compete with other more moderate parties.
In other words, Blue Dog Democrats are good. It would be better if they could pick up a few moderate or moderately conservative Republicans and form a moderate block of swing voters that the Democrats and Republicans would need to negotiate with, as it seems from reading these comments, Republicans and Democrats have lost the ability to work together to accomplish anything.