Unless We Have Our Own Demands, We Are All Blue Dogs

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 14:00


Do the Blue Dogs really only have 52 members? By my estimation, it is more like 250.

Via FDL, Carolyn Maloney sums up the progressive mentality that has made Blue Dogs, conservodems, and Arlen Specter the overlords of us all. Or, perhaps more accurately, the mentality that has made us all into Blue Dogs:

To NYCEVE, Jane and the blogging community fighting to make sure health care reform includes a public option: (...)

In terms of how we achieve universal health care, I believe the best way is a single-payer health care system and I've long been a co-sponsor of that legislation. But, if single payer isn't on the table, then we must give all Americans the option of enrolling in a public health insurance plan and I will fight to make sure the public option is included in any health care reform bill.(...)

So, while I agree health care reform must have the public option and I will fight for it; I also believe health care reform is too important to maintain the status quo and, even though I won't like a bill that doesn't include the public option, if that happens, the principle of getting people health care who don't currently have it must come before any one particular method to achieve it.

Shorter Maloney: I will vote for any health care reform bill, no matter how watered down. I will give in on single-payer. I will given in on the public option. I will give in to every demand made by every conservative Democrat, and vote for whatever our Blue Dog overlords tell us to vote for in the end.

Structurally speaking, this mentality effectively makes Carolyn Maloney a member of the Blue Dogs. She will eagerly pass whatever legislation is approved of by the Blue Dog caucus, while making no counter-demands on the Blue Dogs of her own.

In the same way, most Democrats became Collin Peterson when we voted for his cap and trade bill back in June.

And most Democrats became Arlen Specter when we voted for his stimulus bill back in February:

"The agreement we reached was the best one we could under the circumstances. We were able to cut out $100 billion from the package and include 35% in tax relief in the overall bill. My preference would have been John McCain's proposal, which I voted for, to have the stimulus package of $421 billion in tax cuts alone. I voted for the Reagan tax cuts back in 1981 and that would be the best course, but in a legislative body you don't have exactly your own choice.

As I wrote earlier today, the legislation that is passed under a Democratic trifecta is viewed nationally as progressive, whether or not it actually is progressive. If progressives are willing to vote for whatever legislation is approved of by the Blue Dogs, and the conservodems, and Arlen Specter, then effectively all Democrats become Blue Dogs, conservodems and Arlen Specter.

Progressive Democrats are on the hook for policies that, because we make no bargaining demands of our own, are ultimately determined and decided by conservative Democrats. If we want to change that, then we need to keep building the progressive block. Without a progressive block, then we are just all a bunch of Blue Dogs.
Chris Bowers :: Unless We Have Our Own Demands, We Are All Blue Dogs

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Unless We Have Our Own Demands, We Are All Blue Dogs | 66 comments
Funny how the "Blue Dog" Gillibrand... (4.00 / 5)
...is willing to fight for the public option, but her primary opponent... the supposedly more "liberal" one... is not!

Let's hope that other members of the progressive caucus are more willing to take a stand... only half of them took a stand last time, so this announcement is not the end of the world... let's just hope the "woe's me" attitude doesn't spread...

I mean the blue dogs certainly don't have any reservations... why should we?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Exactly (4.00 / 8)
Perhaps that point should be made to Maloney more directly. "No support from progressives in 2010 unless she demands a public option."
[ Parent ]
I agree that progressive should have (4.00 / 6)
non-negotiable demands...

The reason Maloney can say this is that she believes (correctly, by all signs, including on this blog) is that no matter what, she'll get the support of progressives in a race against Gillibrand. On the other hand, if progressives were committed to supporting progressive candidates like Jonathan Tasini, as opposed to Blue Dog enablers like Maloney, she'd have to think twice before taking such a position.

Yes, Maloney should make demands. And so should we.

So you would vote (0.00 / 0)
against a bill that covered say, 97% on the grounds that it does not have a public option, knowing that it is unlikely that real health insurance reform would then pass until 2011 at the earliest?

As I wrote here earlier, Obama is assuming that most progressives will in the end vote for something that increases access.  Unless we can explain how voting against that is the right think to do, everyone will believe we are just bluffing.

I haven't seen a serious attempt to explain why that is the right think to do.  

[ Parent ]
I'm a single payer advocate (0.00 / 0)
I think that's the only system that makes sense. I couldn't support a plan that doesn't move us closer to that end.

In fact, it's not clear that even a good plan wouldn't stack the deck against the PO, thereby undermining the single-payer cause, which is why I haven't been active in pushing for the public option. I'm doubtful that even the best plan being considered will be effective.

Is that case politically salable? Maybe not, which is why it's best that Dems pass a bill with a strong PO, so that they don't have to vote against health care reform.  

[ Parent ]
You didn't (0.00 / 0)
really answer the question.  
[ Parent ]
Don't assume you have already won the argument (0.00 / 0)
The problem I see with some of the advocacy on this point is the assumption that we have already won the argument on the effectiveness of a public option. So, naturally, advocates assume that any squishiness on the public option must be because of cowardice or simply selling out the the insurance companies.

The reality is that not everyone is as convinced as you are that the public option (let alone single-payer) is the way to go. Insisting that those who are on the fence commit their political futures to a policy that they haven't bought into yet is bad strategy. It is nearly guaranteed to force them to choose against you (because that is where the institutional momentum is).

[ Parent ]
no public option, no bill (4.00 / 1)
... and here's why.  It's not good enough to "cover" people.

My brother died at 18 of a heart defect.  My father was, supposedly, insured, but the insurance company managed to avoid paying for his last few months of bills.  Pre-existing condition.

A bill without a public option will force us to keep paying those bastards.

[ Parent ]
I agree. David. (4.00 / 1)
Neither Maloney nor Gillibrand seems to be the way to go.  Tasini is a better Dem.
[ Parent ]
really dumb move (4.00 / 9)
Not every health care bill would be an improvement on the status quo. What comes out of the Senate Finance Committee could easily be worse than the status quo.

Maloney's comments would be stupid coming from any member of Congress, but especially so from someone who plans a primary challenge to a sitting Democratic senator.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Even if it would be an improvement on the status quo (4.00 / 3)
We need politicians stubborn enough to reject a bill for not being enough of an improvement, even though that means some people who would have been helped will suffer.

Maloney is expressing the typical weak Democrat sentiment of not being able to stomach collateral damage in a fight.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
So let's hear ideas for how we can organize a progressive bloc. (4.00 / 1)
I am sick of reading whining posts by people who've neither the ideas or the will to do what it takes to actively oppose the right-wingers in Congress, be they Democrat or Republican.  If someone suggests a third party as a means of bringing Democrats back to the left, the idea is attacked and dismissed.  If we complain about not having a clear platform, why aren't we generating one, up to which all progressive politicians will be held for scrutiny?  Where are the ideas?

Mr. Bowers, I admire what you do here, but we already know the problem and the solution.  What we need now are the will, the strategy, and the tactics for getting that solution.  What do you propose?


putting massive pressure on progressive legislators (4.00 / 2)
(in part by writing blog posts about legislators who want progressive support in primaries), in order to get them to threaten the bill's passage if a public option isn't included.  seems clear to me.  

a lot clearer than the prospects and process of forming a third party.    

[ Parent ]
Chris's point that we all become blue dogs (4.00 / 1)
when we define our policies by what others demand.

The Americans demand coverage, paid for affordably by the American people, based on the need for healthcare, not the ability to pay.

That is the thing congress was elected to do, that Obama was elected to do, and the Republicans were defeated for opposing, among other policies.

Democrats do that or lose whatever gains they have, what ever honor they have. Attempts to pass legislation that does not do that, but can for days or weeks or months merely appear to do that is a recipe for the destruction of the Democratic Party in exchange for nothing. Blue dogs will be cast out of office just as surely as any other democrat if there is no reform, or if the reform is in name only.

A line in the sand, for real reform as defined above, prevents the destruction of the Democratic Party, meets the demanded, justified and economically necessary needs of the American people and oes a long way to fulfilling the stated fears of the Republican Party that if passed real health reform would guarantees Democratic Party rule for a generation.

NOT drawing a line in the sand is suicide, and btw honourable.

The progressive block needs to understand, as Chris so correctly states "Progressive Democrats are on the hook" now, and should be, and must act as if not only their own seats, not only progressive politics are on the hook, but the democratic party and the future of good governance is on the hook.

In fact, if America cannot, after this many decades do what it has promised, do what it has voted for and do what now is demanded, faith in democracy itself is threatened.

I wrote in other places, this is Normandy Beach important, I do no think that goes too far.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
well, it depends (4.00 / 2)
I really want single payer, but I'll accept a strong public option, because I think that the public choice will beat the private choice so badly that private health insurance (at least for essential care) will wither away.

So yes to compromise as long as the compromise still accomplishes the goal, and no to any compromise that does not.

[ Parent ]
History repeating itself (4.00 / 3)
Just a reminder, we have taken this path before.  This is a story I've mentioned before by Yglesias found a better quote and source than I.  Nixon almost passed major health reform but...

Despite the heated politics of Watergate, national health-care legislation was proceeding in Congress thanks to a compromise brokered by a young Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy, a Nixon nemesis.

But then, according to a 1974 political almanac published by Congressional Quarterly, the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers lobbied successfully to kill the plan. Unions hoped to get a better deal after the next elections.

30 years later the liberals of the time look awfully stupid.

Tough negotiating is important, I fully understand that.  But you must take what progress you can get.  Most every progressive policy has been expanded an improved over time.  It is much easier to pass something less then perfect and improve it than to throw the whole thing away and hope for better luck in future endeavors.

I agree, but, you throw away your leverage.... (4.00 / 3)
...when you say you will vote for anything... the blue dogs certainly aren't afraid to assert their power, why should we?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
The problem (0.00 / 0)
is that I think everyone knows we are bluffing.

You only have leverage if people believe we will vote against it in the end.

[ Parent ]
I agree with both these comments (0.00 / 0)
Which is why this is such a hard issue for me.  You need to have a real threat to get what you want, but at the end of the day we need to pass what we can.  Those goals are contradictory but that is the reality.

The correct solution is obvious, push to the absolute limit you can then stop.  The problem is it is very hard to know were the real line is until you have crossed it.

[ Parent ]
We do not need to pass what we can! (4.00 / 1)
Democrats all NEED to pass a bill. Progressives will not pass a Bill that all democrats need, merely to keep Democrats making bad laws. Stand strong or get rolled.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
up or down (0.00 / 0)
So if you were given the ability to vote up or down on a bill that only required community ratings and denied insurance companies the right to charge more or refuse coverage to those with prior conditions, you would vote down?

That is just insane.

Do you honestly think the liberals 30 years ago made the right call?  Do you think you are better off today because of that?

[ Parent ]
I would kill the bill (0.00 / 0)
I urge the killing of the bill.

I demand that congressional progressives promise to kill that bill.

I demand that progressives draw a line in the sand.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
30 years ago (0.00 / 0)
So you think the liberals of 30 years ago made the right call killing health care reform?

Fascinating.

[ Parent ]
NO I believe we have the guts the timing the leadership the organizing and the demand to pass the right bill now. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
You are convinced (0.00 / 0)
Therefore everyone else should do exactly what you think they should do even if THEY aren't convinced.

Screw em. Do what I want or you are evil.

[ Parent ]
Ok if thats what you think I am saying I am willing to libve with that. (4.00 / 1)
We have a spine and demand real reform, or we don't.

That's what I AM saying. You may translate that as you wish.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Why do (4.00 / 1)
"we need to pass what we can"?

A bill that makes health care worse or that spends a trillion bucks and doesn't make it better or that improves it for half the country and makes it worse for the other half or that pisses off millions with mandates would be both a substantive and political disaster.  

[ Parent ]
worse (0.00 / 0)
If health care were made worse or not good enough to justify the price, I would agree.  Obviously, the final decision would be based on the final bill in all of its details.  How the bill is paid for matters as well.  

But so far I haven't seen a bill that will make things worse.  I've heard people claim that a lot, but even the worst bill out of the Senate I thought was okay in a vacuum, without comparing it to others.

[ Parent ]
IT IS NOT A BLUFF. (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
On this I agree (4.00 / 1)
It's bad tactics to give away how you will vote in hypothetical situations.
[ Parent ]
It's not clear (4.00 / 1)
that every "universal" health care bill would be progress.

I'm all for passing a bill that is then improved over time--evolves into single payer, that is--but if the public option isn't in it or is poorly constructed, the reform package could take us farther away from that end.

I'm willing to be persuaded than something is better than nothing but at this point I'm unpersuaded.

[ Parent ]
options (0.00 / 0)
We don't need single payer for healthcare to be better than we have now.

The public option is actually more important politically then it is from a practical standpoint.  The public option will be visible, making it clear that progressives did something.  The stuff that matters the most will be far less obvious.

What matters most are things like

* community ratings so you cannot be dropped or denied due to prior conditions,

* large negotiation pools sounds like a public option, but is actually different.  A public option without a large pool is not so great while large pools without the public option will cut costs

I put a more complete list under quickhits a week or two ago that I can't find.  I agree that a robust public option is very important, but so is a lot of stuff in even the worst bills.  

[ Parent ]
That's your opinion (4.00 / 3)
(actually it's Ezra Klein's)

My wife's been doing on a film in hospitals. Everyone--administrators, nurses, doctors--thinks we need a single payer system and scoff at the plans being considered in Congress.

The system is insane. A strong public option is, in fact, crucial because it's a window that might lead to single player. Without it the regime of the insurance companies remains intact.

[ Parent ]
Yes and yes (0.00 / 0)
Yes that is my opinion partially based on Ezra's.  But this single-payer or nothing is just insane in my opinion.  I love the pressure to help define what is really the left wing opinion, so I appreciate that much, but to kill all else?  Dumb dumb.

Supposedly France has the best health care in the world based on most measures, and they still have private insurance in the mix, so I'm not even sure you are correct on the ideal.  (France also has single-payer for minimal coverage and I am in favor of single-payer, so we may agree on this or not, it isn't clear to me.  But if you want private insurance completely kicked out of the system, I think we disagree.)

[ Parent ]
Great. Now convince the unsure that you are right. (0.00 / 0)
Don't presume that, just because someone hasn't signed onto the public option, it's because they don't agree that the current system is stupid or that they are weak or that they have sold out.

Just because you are convinced doesn't mean every one else is.

[ Parent ]
Missing the goal for the means (0.00 / 0)
We all want the same goal: affordable, effective, universal, now.

Many are convinced that single payer or, barring that, a public option, are essential for that. These are the means.

Not everyone is convinced of that yet. When you assume that the means are required in order to meet the goal it is easy to conclude that those who are unsure on the means are unsure on the goal.

That is insulting (unnecessarily so).

This is the mistake I see many making when they cry "Give me Public Option or Give me Death!"

They might just get it.

[ Parent ]
A really great comment (4.00 / 1)
Is the public option worth having millions of people go without access for years?

I can't see how that is moral unless there is a practical explanation that shows why a bill without a public option would actually be worse than the current system.

[ Parent ]
Yes. With a trigger? With out public option? KILL THE BILL! (4.00 / 3)
[ Parent ]
I don't get it (4.00 / 1)
how do we build a progressive block if people like Maloney are in?  Are you saying we need more Maloneys?
The progressive caucus is about 80 people... (4.00 / 1)
We are only really counting on half of them to stand with us...

I also think that if a bunch of New Yorkers call Maloney and let her know how much they appreciate her Senate opponent Gillibrand's strong stand on the public option, that Maloney will change her mind pretty quickly and join the bloc....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Good advice (4.00 / 3)
If people call Maloney saying, "I like what Gillibrand is saying" she will listen.

If you call demanding, "Public Option or Death" she will dismiss you as a crank.

[ Parent ]
I think he's saying what he's been saying all along. (4.00 / 1)
We need a strong progressive bloc in Congress.  Mr. Bowers' problem is that he has yet to effectively articulate how we are to arrive at the obvious solution.  How do we purge the Democratic Party of the blue dogs when progressives - real ones - are continually shut out of the system and third parties are denounced as being destructive (when they're obviously not)?

Check out my entry today for an updated platform, and by all means, please feel free to offer your own ideas for how we may expand or improve upon it.


[ Parent ]
Third parties (4.00 / 2)
How exactly are third parties obviously not destructive? What contributions to progressive outcomes have third parties made in any reasonably recent timeframe?
[ Parent ]
They help reshape political dynamics. (0.00 / 0)
The progressive Party of 1912 caused a more or less permanent realignment in the makeup of the Republican and Democratic Parties.  After the progressive wing of the GOP broke off to follow Theodore Roosevelt, Republicans became firmly beholden to large business interests, while Democrats absorbed progressives and shifted left.  Similarly, Perot's third-party candidacy led Republicans to move even farther to the political right in embracing their most virulent anti-government, pro-business, and theocratic extremists.  So it's not as if third parties can't and haven't had a significant impact upon political dynamics.  A strong third party, with a realistic set of goals and a solid plan for achieving them, can have the effect of moving Democrats back to the left.


[ Parent ]
Bad examples (0.00 / 0)
I won't even address the Ross Perot mention, since that was a billionaire basically astroturfing a campaign that was virtually irrelevant in a matter of years.

Apparently a recent timeframe includes the last 100 years? Not exactly. The Progressive Party is hardly relevant to moving conservative Democrats. Political parties today are completely different, the public mood is completely different, and our methods of social, political and economic organization are completely different.  That doesn't even mention the fact that the American political landscape has undergone huge changes in that time and to use the example of the Progressive Party hardly fits a viable strategy for achieving progressive aims today, especially when there's so much at stake at the federal level.

What were the costs of splitting the progressive vote (such as it was) in 1912 vs. splitting it in 2010 or 2012? As distasteful as we find the Blue Dogs and Republicans, there is still a huge gap between the Republican and Democratic Parties, and a viable third party can only exist where the two major parties are both perceived as and actually are virtually the same and not much in terms of outcomes is at stake in the election (a la Nader 2000). If this isn't the case (as it obviously wasn't in 2000) we risk a good chance at moderate progress and the certainty of aggressive regression/i> by Republicans on the marginal chances for radical progress.  

[ Parent ]
Why bad? (4.00 / 1)
They do serve as examples of how viable third parties influence the two major ones.  Yes, these time frames include the past one hundred years.  It seems to me like you're using any dismissal you can think of, regardless of how weak it is, to disparage the notion that we should build a genuinely progressive movement around a third party.  Without such an organization, how do you propose to influence the Democrats, who know they don't need to change as long as they can continue relying on the electorate to vote for them or their counterparts in the GOP?


[ Parent ]
I don't think purging Blue Dogs is the answer (4.00 / 2)
For one, they represent some legitimate sentiment of voters within the Democratic Party.

The problem is finding progressives with spine who can interact properly with Blue Dogs.  We're better off replacing Maloney with a better progressive than with replacing a Blue Dog with another Maloney.

Primary and third party challenges and whatever should be levied at the nominal progressives with the weakest wills, not at the Blue Dogs.  I would start by looking at roll call votes to certain amendments on Waxman-Markey and health care and target those Democrats that vote the wrong way too often who are the most liberal rather than the most conservative according to Progressive Punch.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
This is very confused. You might have a point but as it stands I could not disagree more. (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
What part is confusing? (0.00 / 0)
If the Congressional Progressive Caucus holds firm on the public option, it might be partly because Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey provide better progressive leadership than past co-chairs like Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich.  I'm suggesting that part of the problem is not just that we need better Democrats, but that we also need more competent progressives with a progressive bloc.  Focusing on that might be more beneficial than trying to purge Blue Dogs and has a much higher chance of success.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
We dont need 'even better' Dems we need better dems. (0.00 / 0)
But I understand your point better about better leadership in the progressive bloc and agree.

But we need more better dems first. If there were 125 better dems I'd be comfortable letting them work out their leadership, with 20 progressive dems who gets to lead might be something we would think about, but it so far removed from what we can do its counter productive.

I no longer disagree with you vehemently.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Which leads to which? (0.00 / 0)
I think that getting better progressive leadership that we can rally around will help increase the number of better Dems.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Yeah better leadership I support it. (0.00 / 0)
But I support electing as many as we can, and let them have fun trying to choose leadership of the caucus.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
The blue dogs are purging progressives. (4.00 / 2)
And it's working.  The Democratic Party is now much farther to the right than it was even during Clinton's presidency.  As it stands, if we don't force a change from outside the party, progressives will probably be shut out and marginalized completely within five years.  This is our last, best chance to do something to change that.  If we don't give Democrats the very real likelihood that they will lose our votes and support, they will continue taking us for granted.  This goes equally for weak liberals and right-wingers within the Democratic Party.


[ Parent ]
1992 or 1994? (0.00 / 0)
The Democratic Party is now much farther to the right than it was even during Clinton's presidency.

This certainly is not true when Clinton was first elected.  At that time Southern Democrats still roamed the national stage.  After the 1994 wave they were largely swept out and replaced with Republican, an act that left the remaining Democrats more to the left.

Today we have large Democratic majorities, which tends to push both parties to the right even though the overall center moves to the left.  So you might be correct, even though I'm not entirely convinced.

[ Parent ]
I second Mark (0.00 / 0)
The Democratic Party is much more progressive in 2008 than 1992. Between a situation where Mississippi is represented by James Stennis and New York by Al D'Amato vs. one where Mississippi is represented by Roger Wicker and New York by Chuck Schumer, I'll take the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
[ Parent ]
Give me some hard examples. (4.00 / 1)
What has the Democratic Party done in the past three years that is even remotely progressive?  Seriously, you're grasping at straws.  Right now, there isn't even a nickel's worth of difference between that party and the Republicans.


[ Parent ]
One more thing. (4.00 / 2)
How do you define interacting properly with blue dogs?  These are not people one can reason with.  They hold the left in utter contempt and will use any means at their disposal - up to and including joining with Republicans against the left-wing of their own party - to get what they want.  How do you propose to interact "properly" with them?  Define "proper."


[ Parent ]
Everyone has a price (0.00 / 0)
Everyone responds to carrots and sticks in their own way. We've just been feeding the Blue Dog trough with way too many carrots for way too long. Why not try smashing the trough over their heads? That sounds like interacting properly to me, or give them something else they want.
[ Parent ]
What's the price? (4.00 / 1)
Seems to me we've been giving the right-wing of the Democratic Party nothing but carrots and not even bringing out the stick.  Your approach isn't working.  Define proper.  What strategy do you have for convincing right-wing Democrats to back the left-wing against their buddies in the GOP?


[ Parent ]
I leave that open to interpretation (2.00 / 2)
I'm leaving as an option on the table the idea of just walking up to Blue Dogs like Collin Peterson or Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and outright sucker-punching them in the face on the floor of the House.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
So you can't define "proper." (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for proving my point that there is no dealing with the blue dogs.


[ Parent ]
Kill Bill (4.00 / 1)
In other words... (0.00 / 0)
Carolyn Maloney is "effectively" a blue dog?

Didn't we knock back that kind of argument when wing nuts tried to portray anti-war forces as "effectively pro-Saddam?"

It appears that we have a "no trigger" public option Bill! (4.00 / 1)
It has many other things too, looks good for now. I fear the 'negotiations to water down this bill, which is already the compromise Bill, hold steady all.

Spine, now more than ever.

Link to the story about the Tri Committee Bill

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

Unless We Have Our Own Demands, We Are All Blue Dogs | 66 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox