Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

by dataguy, Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:08:59 PM EDT

The Bush Dogs, also known as the Blue Dogs, are the impediment against the Democrats exercizing the will of the American People, as indicated on Nov. 6, 2006. The Bush Dogs must be brought to heel, and taught to sit on command. They are wild dogs now, but not for long.

The only way to teach these bad dogs to behave and act like Democratic Hounds lies in the primary challenge. We need a primary challenge for each and every Bush Dog, and we need to let them know what the cost of "bad-doggy-hood" is.

MoveOn is running a campaign to do this. Go to

http://pol.moveon.org/primary07

to get info and participate.

Since I have been banned from DKos, I can't post this there, but if you, Gentle Reader, wish to do so, I would have no objection.

Tags: Bush Dogs, Democratic Caucus, primary challenge (all tags)

Comments

24 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

DKos bans people? For what?

by BlueThunder 2007-09-06 01:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

Posting opinions in opposition to the gay marriage mafia, the illegal immigrant mafia and the impeachment mafia.

by dataguy 2007-09-06 02:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

Gay marriage mafia? Geeze. Who needs equality for everyone, right?

by Quinton 2007-09-06 03:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

Here in Colorado we have the Salazar Bros..
The Kid might be elected in 2008 (not with our money)
But Ken Salazar will lose in the Primary in 2010
(although his buddies Joe L. and Alberto G will campaign for him)

by DenverD 2007-09-06 01:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Your comment makes no sense

Ken S is not a friend of Alberto, and it is silly to say that he is. Ken is a conservative Dem, and this is appropriate for some votes. NOT for Iraq votes, however. Iraq votes DEMAND party discipline.

by dataguy 2007-09-06 02:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

This is stupid. Not every race is like Connecticut. We can't safely primary everyone we don't like.

Running primary challenges against conservative Democrats who represent Republican-leaning districts is only going to put our majority in jeopardy. Blue Dogs are the only type of Democrats who can win in those parts of the country.

It's not worth it.

by Namtrix 2007-09-06 02:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

I disagree

This is not a losing idea. We need to put these folks on notice. Party discipline is very important. If you are a democrat, you vote with the party on important things. The Repukeliscum did this well, and it worked for them for a long time.

Party discipline means that for important votes, you vote the way the Party instructs. If you don't have that, you don't have a party, just a loose coalition.

So, I don't agre with you. This is a matter (voting to stand down in Iraq in particular) which is hugely popular, which can be used to brand the Repukeliscum as pro-endless war, and which is a winner for the Dems. How can we convince the Bush Dogs if there is no consequence for bad-doggy-ness?

by dataguy 2007-09-06 02:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I disagree

It took us 16 years to beat Charles Taylor and the party ran progressive after progressive every two years came up short. Finally they tried something different ran a pro-life,pro-gun, anti-illeagal immigration, anti-gay marriage, Democrats who by the way was the best high school football player to come out of here, and won the seat. The problem would be if the progressive movement dared to run against him in the primary the party people would not be too friendly to the progressive movement now you may not care but alot of others do.

by swl1966 2007-09-06 03:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

This has nothing to do with progressivity

This has to do with calling in markers. Mr. Shuler is a Democrat. For many things, he votes to represent his district. On some votes, it must be made clear that this is a PARTY-LINE vote. His vote has upheld the Bush view on Iraq over and over.

What good does it do to have a Democrat who does not vote like a Democrat? When I see Nancy with the gavel, sure that's a warm-n-fuzzy moment, but if that's all we get for our majority, fuck that mangy Bush Doggy shit, thank you very much. A majority requires MAJORITY ACTION, occassionally.

by dataguy 2007-09-07 06:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This has nothing to do with progressivity

Taylor, represented if you will call it that, the district for 16 years, during that time the district lost manufacturing jobs quicker than most US districts and Taylor did little either to stop the job flow or to help the folks back home. Shuler has really done a great job with the service part of the job something Taylor never cared that much for. Yes we some votes he has to be loyal to, it is called free-trade votes if were to disappear in the middle of a trade vote, ala Taylor then yes he would have to go, but as long has his votes are right on those issues he gets a pass on the secondary issues.

by THE MODERATE 2007-09-07 06:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This has nothing to do with progressivity

Agreed. For most votes, you vote with your district. For key votes, the whip count is the key. The Repukeliscum did this well. They counted votes very tightly, gave marginal district reps a pass to vote the district instead of the party, and passed key legislation with 2 vote cushions. I don't know why the Dems have not figgered this out.

by dataguy 2007-09-07 07:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I disagree

Dems must vote with their party on important things; Republicans must vote with theirs on important things. Where's a poor moderate to go these days?

Primary challenges can be useful, but I do think it's over the top to say they're needed for every single blue dog.

by Nathan Empsall 2007-09-06 10:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

The primary challenge is a threat

We need something to compell action.

by dataguy 2007-09-07 06:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

we have to do it. We have to do something or they will continue to think they can take democrats for granted while catering to the republican vote. I've had enough.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-06 05:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

They live in mostly Republican districts! They have to cater to the Republican vote on some issues because their constiuents are conservatives.

Would you rather have a conservative Democrat that votes with us 50+% of the time or a Republican who votes with us 0% of the time?

by Namtrix 2007-09-06 06:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

The republicans are to the left of them on many issues. They have been caught behind the curve. And their district is NOT completely republican. In most places it is very close and the reason they are there is because some determined democrats got busy and elected them. Now they think they can take the democrats for granted.
Well guess what, I live in district 10 in Pa. The republicans will vote for a republican, if not this time, then the next and Chris is going to find himself with a lot of activist democrats who don't give a shit if he loses. Sorry about that. But there is only so much back stabbing you can tolerate. If the democrats are going to have a majority anyway, WTF do I care if my congress person is among them? He is mostly in office because republicans were ashamed of Don Sherwood. We'll see how long that lasts.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-06 06:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

I'm sorry, but to suggest that the Blue Dogs are to the left of most Republicans is simply irrational and the activists who don't understand that are just going to cost us seats. I don't like many of the Blue Dogs, but I'm willing to accept that they are an important part of our Democratic Coalition.

Besides, I thought we were the big tent party?

by Namtrix 2007-09-06 06:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

What is the point of a majority?

If we do not get a vote to enforce a Democratic Party objective, why try to get a majority?

A majority requires, occasionally, that the objectives of the Party be held OVER the objectives of the individual. Not for all votes, not for all persons, and only occasionally. But there must be votes which actually enforce AND DEFINE the Democratic brand.

by dataguy 2007-09-07 06:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

now if we can only get elected democrats to agree

on what is the democratic brand...

by bored now 2007-09-08 03:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

Surely you activists will give a shit if he's the difference between a Speaker Pelosi and a Speaker Boehner one day. "If the democrats are going to have a majority anyway" is never a sure bet. 13 months ago, we were still hoping for an 8 seat gain, not a 15 seat gain. You never know what things will look like 6 months ahead, and the '10 election looms as well. I'd like the power of incumbency whenever we can get it during the midterms of a Democratic president, since the President's party usually loses seats in a midterm.

by Nathan Empsall 2007-09-06 10:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

Can I point, you worthless idiot, that the Blue Dogs ALSO represent the American people?

by Kujan 2007-09-06 03:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

no they really don't. The American people elected them to stop bush. The represent bush and the 28 percent of lunatic Americans who still believe in him and his idiotic war. In case you haven't noticed the American people are fed up. Congress has the lowest approval rating ever. And don't go around calling people worthless idiots.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-06 05:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Primary challenges for the Bush Dogs

You can't really make a blanket statement like "the American people elected them to stop bush." It depends on the district. And besides, "stop Bush" can mean anything. It can mean get out of Iraq now, it can mean get out in two years, or it can mean stay in but with a different strategy. It can mean push forward on Iraq but change on disaster response and corporate whoring. And in some districts, it was more about corruption than it was Bush. Do remember that Mark Foley sealed the deal.

And yeah... calling you a "worthless idiot" was why I'm not giving the previous comment mojo.

by Nathan Empsall 2007-09-06 10:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

The Moron set checks in

What the fuck is the point that you are addressing in your incoherent, rude and clueless comment? If your comment was not rude and directionless, it would have no value whatsoever.

by dataguy 2007-09-07 02:48AM | 0 recs