Election Results: The most On-Topic off topic discussion for 99ers.

Incumbents are finally getting what they deserve.

Election RESULTS: Arlen Specter Loses To Joe Sestak, Rand Paul Wins
"It's an anti-Washington, anti-establishment year. And candidates with ties to either better beware."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/19/election-results-arlen-sp_n_581240.html


After being dropped like a lead balloon, 99ers owe allegiance to no one!!!

The Blue Dog Coalition joined with Republicans to end benefits for 99ers,- in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Blue Dogs are moderate-to-conservative democrats.
http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html

IMO-
Basically Blue Dogs are nothing more than a self-serving political identity to aquire more seats in congress by virtue of an otherwise republican politician. The Blue Dog Coalition and the Republican Party are one in the same entity.

Many voters vote along party lines. Citizens registered as democrats more likely vote for the democrat politician.
The Blue Dog (a democrat) is nothing more than a republican. When registered democrat citizens vote for their Blue Dog "democrat" candidate they are actually voting for a republican.

99ers don't want to get rid of Liberal Democrats. They want to get rid of the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats. The lack of "political will" to add additional weeks of benefits for 99ers is because there are too many Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats working on Capitol Hill. Only you can change that when you vote.

Learn to identify Blue Dog candidates.
The Blue Dog Coalition: 15 Years of Leadership
(IMO- written by a republican wanting you to vote for this type of democrat. A win-win for republicans.)
http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/10%20Years%20of%20Leadership.html

VOTE RESPONSIBLY!!!

Hi UIF-

One thing you may want to consider, is that the only reason that the Dems have a majority in the House and the Senate is that they ran these Conservative leaning candidates in what were formerly held Republican districts (a Nancy Pelosi liberal candidate wouldnt of won those districts otherwise). A sucessful strategy to win the Congress for the dems orchestrated by now Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in 2006.

Also I learned via the Health Care bill episode, that in practice , once elected, there are no Conservative Democrats. Even very right leaning Democrats like Bart Stupack (D-Mich) and Sen Evan Bayh (Sen D-Indiana) caved against their principals and voted for the Health Care reform bill. Also remember, no matter how conservative these guys portray themselves at election time, in day to day matters like a filibuster or Supreme Court nominations they always vote with their Party (the stimulus package is another example of a major program that wouldnt have happened without them). Even Joe Liberman [I-Conn] (who the Dems went out of their way to poop on when he endorsed John McCain in 2008) votes with the Dems 99% of the time.

One thing we are facing here, is that a critical mass of the electorate has had it with deficit spending (after TARP, the stimulus package,the Health Care bill and what many perceive as endless extensions of unemployment) and they are making their voice heard with their elected officials.

The Democratic party has proven with things like the Health Care bill that they can put a gun to the head of their members and make them vote in unison on just about anything they put their mind to. (Having a majority no matter what end of the political spectrum they come from) enables them to do that. If the leadership wanted a tier 5 we would have it. The leadership wants to end "dont ask, dont tell" in the military , guess what; its in the bill that just passed the House. (I suspect this is because they have some significant donors who are gay, but in any event they found a way to make it happen)

Be careful what you wish for, you boot out the blue dogs and you wont have a party majority anymore. (Welcome to majority party status)

If I was a betting man, Id bet you wont have to worry about it after November, because there will be a lot less Democrats around (in the House anyway) of any stripe.

Hang in there

Hi sc4ram,

You make alot of good points for "your" dem majority.
The fact still remains,- 99ers are getting nowhere with the present congress.
I don't care about any other issue at this point, except the survival of 99ers in this society.
Economists are saying deficit is a mid-to-long term issue, doesn't need to be dealt with now.
Dealing with deficit now will only force the country into another, deeper recession. Blue Dogs and Republicans refuse to hear it or stand for common sense.

This country needs leaders who can show the way to prosperity again. Not incumbants worrying about the next election, manipulatiing Unemployment Rates by forcing people off unemployment benefits every couple of months to make numbers look better, keeping 99ers from getting benefits to keep reported unemployment rate down.

It's a numbers game to them,- a perceived numbers game. Has nothing to do with reality.
There isn't a 99er in this country that doesn't understand what's really going on, unless they've been hiding there head in the sand for 3 years.

Our only hope TODAY is a Liberal Democrat and any other type of LIBERAL politician.
Definately not a Republican.
Definately not a Blue Dog Democrat.

THE DEFICIT CAN WAIT!!!

I wish you the best of luck, but I have to say its not my majority, other than the previous 4 Tiers of EUC/EB i dont have much use for them (btw, Prez Bush signed 2 of them into law) .

Unfortuantely the one-issue candidates have gone the way of the Coinage of Silver, Return to the Gold Standard, and Prohibition advocates.

I think many of the voters see the deficit in terms of the recent default of Greece, and think that our Country may be close behind. These people are putting a lot of pressure on their Congressional representatives (btw who dont help themselves by saying at every opportunity that they will increase taxes on somebody) .

The poor way the media has reported this has contributed to lack of voter empathy for a Tier 5. When Ive told employed people that I have claimed 99 weeks of benefits, most of them are amazed and immediately respond with something like "im supporting you too?". The media reports all of these interem extensions of funding for existing Tiers as if they were new Tiers so that many people who read about it come up to me and say wrongly "saw that you got another extension".
I usually take the time to explain the process to them, by the time im finished Ive exceeded their attention span. This is the attitude of the majority of voters and the Congress is reacting as such.

Also keep in mind Madam Pelosi isnt a blue dog and she isnt advocating a Tier 5 either. I think the only hope is if the Dems do loose the Congress in the fall they pull a "i dont give a damn" and pass a Tier V between November and January like they did in 2008.

Good Luck !

sc4ram,

I agree if dems see they're going the way of the dinosaur,- in the fall they may pull a "i dont give a damn" and pass a Tier V.

Pelosi told us 99ers, some time ago, there was no political will to help us. I didn't say kill the messenger and I didn't say she wasn't on our side. Except for healthcare, she kept unemployment, jobs and the economy in the forefront. She warned us of our impending battle,- political will. She can't force the Blue Dogs and Republican'ts to vote in our favor. The rest is up to us. We need to eliminate the obstacles at every election opportunity.

Good points all. But I would argue that it wasn't primarily Rahm Emanuel's doing. The greater kudos in increasing Dem registration and voting go to Howard Dean and his 50-state strategy, and the Dem leadership knows that, even if they only admit it grudgingly. With Emanuel's strategy you end up with Republicans in Dem clothing and a temporary edge, with Dean's more far-reaching tactics you end up with more progressive and smart elected officials, and that's why Dean and Rahm hate each other, but I'm on Dean's side and wish Rahm would just go away.

It may surprise some, but I consider myself an extreme "deficit hawk." The national debt threatens to completely ruin this country before the end of my life, and I was hoping I wouldn't see that. But the difference in my "hawking" is that I don't want to cut things that are good for the country like unemployment benefits and job creation efforts, but I do want to cut the gratuitous pork spending AND totally unnecessary waste, especially in the military and in Medicare fraud that has been going almost unmentioned for decade after decade. There are a lot of other "bring home the bacon" earmarks that also deserve shame, though they really amount to millions, not billions for the most part.

Those who argue that waste wouldn't account for much of the deficit aren't looking at the right things. I wouldn't even have to argue for ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to find almost countless billions that our government spends year after year on over 400 overseas military bases--for what? To defend France? We spend billions that the Pentagon doesn't even WANT--witness the endless pork barrel spending projects on outdated, unneeded planes and equipment--and this is often when our actual troops suffer because they can't always get what they need! And pul-eeeze don't anyone say, well this provides jobs. The amount spent on jobs vs. what these programs waste on corporate profits for CEOS would be better spent more wisely on jobs that actually contribute something to the long term investment in the country, like infrastructure, sustainable agriculture, green jobs, education, you name it.

I posted this on Open Congress the other day, I'll just repeat here:
_______
FINALLY--someone in Congress has the cojones to bring up unneeded military bases and the enormous waste in our military spending as one of the biggest culprits in our deficit spending!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/lawmakers-call-for-cuts-i_n_592686.html

And you can add Alan Grayson of Florida to that list; his separate effort to equate Pentagon waste with the total taxation of everyone under $35,000 per year is contained in his bill to bring attention to those numbers.
_______

This country can't continue to pretend we will be the world's biggest superpower forever and that we will put our imperial habits before the welfare of our citizens. (Didn't we learn anything at all from ancient Greece and Rome?) We are not only risking bankrupting our middle class, both economically and emotionally, but we are even risking our own country's defenses by bleeding economically from the center. The money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, whatever anyone thinks of the need (I'm as afraid of the Taliban getting their hooks into Pakistan's nukes as anyone) is actually a small part of our gigantic and perpetual spending on the military systems. As those Congressmen are pointing out, they are not questioning money spent on DEFENSE, they are questioning money spent by Congress for the Pentagon's established budget. The total facade of maintaining hundreds of overseas bases and defending the entire planet cannot be kept up in perpetuity; we just don't have enough money OR credit to do that.

There, I guess I consider this my patriotic Memorial Day post.

Thank you nancym for taking the time to bring forth some of the many things that are wrong in this country.

I'd like to add that it's more than likely that it's the career politicians that are 'bought and paid for' by too many bankers, wall-streeters and CEOs, and they are the ones politicians feel they are indebted to for their political careers.

We can't expect to keep voting for the same type of people and arrive at a different outcome.
Isn't that something like the definition of insanity?

Has anyone ever done a study on how many laws in the last 20 or 30 years could be put in the category of anti-common sense?

Blue Dogs and Republican'ts must go.

Many thoughtful points Nancy, but I'll have to add my .02 on some of them. Im no fan of Rahm (rahmbo) but in '06 as a Congressman himself he was the Dems appointee to lead their effort to capture the majority in that year's House elections. The effort was successful and he is widely credited for it. (by lefty notables such as Rep Maxine Waters who crticized all of the blue-dogs that it yielded) . [If they hadnt won a majority in 06 he would of certainly been assigned the blame] If the Deaniacs dont like Mr. Emanuel , then they should take it up with the Messiah in the White House that appointed him Chef of Staff.

Im still confused on how no matter what color dog they are, when the leadership tells them to vote for something (Health Care, Stimulus, Cap and Trade, lefty court judges etc, they do it. Yet folks like the Deaniacs wont take success for a answer. Im confused, but as Mark Twain once said, "I belong to no organized political party, Im a Democrat".

The deficit and the debt are certainly troubling issues. Wacking the Defense Dept (DOD) isnt going to fix it. Given the majority of my career was involved working with and around DOD programs, Id be the first to acknowlege that there is much waste and abuse within the DOD budget. (Though I doubt it could hold a candle to the Dept of Energy, Education or HUD). Its a political football. Everybody wants to cut it as long as it doesnt impact their district. The DOD Secretary (Bob Gates) is trying to do a good job on this. He has drawn a line in the sand over a new engine for the F-35 jet and has committed the administration to veto any defense authorization bill that contains this boondoggle (Gates contends that the present engine enables this fighter jet to be the fastest in the world, a new engine is therefore not needed) . But our friends in the House just passed a bill ending "dont-ask-dont-tell" and included the F-35 new engine appropriation in the bill (a hell of a way to run a war time defense bill) . This is a small amount of money but illustrates what a mess it is.

The big money is in the future outlays for Social Security and Medicare, (and these idiots just added a new entitlement with the latest Health Care bill) . The last administration had a plan for Social Security (that didnt even impact people over 50 and was quite benign) and they were shouted down from the roof tops with responses from people like Sen Schumer saying 'SS is in great shape, we wont have to worry about it for years'

You can argue the validity of the Iraq war, we are told by our Prez we are on the way out. This Prez ran on ramping up in Afganistan, and the people voted for him anyway. Given the plot to kill 3000 Americans, a attempt to de-capitate our government and shut down the NY Stock exchange was hatched in Afganistan, I shudder to think what would happen upon a immeadiate withdrawl of US and NATO forces and have the country sink into a failed State where the law of the fish camp prevails. (A situation taylor made for a terrorist group to take over) . BTW, we were told during the election that this was the "good" war and our NATO allies are supporting us there. What happened to that retoric?

Dwight Eisehnower and Harry Truman insisted that there be a American troop presence in Europe after WWII. The reasons are many but include that historically there had been a major confilct on that continent in virtually every century since the Roman Empire. The US initially took Geo Washington's advice and avoided forgien entanglements. This became impossible in the age of aircraft carerers, ICB missiles and submarines. World Wars I and II proved that if there is a major war in Europe , US will become involved either willingly or unwillingly. (Which is why a reluctant Bill Clinton signed on to US action in Bosnia during the 90s, because that situation left to fester without US leadership would of eventually made much of Europe unstable presenting a additional set of problems that would not be in the interest of the US. Another reason is a secure Europe is a good customer. (My former biz consisted of ~ 20 percent in Euro sales). We have a global economy, Europe has about 1/3 of the world's manufacturing capacity. when they have trouble (ie Greece) , the rest of the world (inc the worlds largest economy the US) is affected.

There may be a argument for less of a military presence in Europe but no presence would be to repeat the mistakes of the early 20th century there.

The answer here is grow the economy and cut spending. Appoint someone of credibility (like Gen Powel for example) to take a scaple to the DOD budget (not a ax) and do something similiar to the other departments (Instead of the current trend to expand them and hire more govt workers with pensions that we taxpayers have to support into perpituity) . Remove the uncertanity and extend the current tax rates for 10 years and draw some investment into the country, it has worked every time its tried. We certainly are not heading that way.

sc4ram wrote:...Im no fan of Rahm (rahmbo) but in '06 as a Congressman himself he was the Dems appointee to lead their effort to capture the majority in that year's House elections. The effort was successful and he is widely credited for it. (by lefty notables such as Rep Maxine Waters who crticized all of the blue-dogs that it yielded) . [If they hadnt won a majority in 06 he would of certainly been assigned the blame] If the Deaniacs dont like Mr. Emanuel , then they should take it up with the Messiah in the White House that appointed him Chef of Staff.

Im still confused on how no matter what color dog they are, when the leadership tells them to vote for something (Health Care, Stimulus, Cap and Trade, lefty court judges etc, they do it. Yet folks like the Deaniacs wont take success for a answer. Im confused, but as Mark Twain once said, "I belong to no organized political party, Im a Democrat"...

I'll raise your .02 and then .02 more--

We all know that members of Congress spend an inordinate amount of time congratulating each other about all kinds of things. It's a time-honored tradition which, in better times could be seen as quaint and endearing. But during emergencies like Katrina that habit is usually viewed as completely out of place. Same goes for this current economic emergency. So take what some Dems say publicly with a grain of salt when it comes to congratulatory speeches. Naturally they're going to congratulate him, they won. But who's strategy did the Republicans admit they needed to emulate right after that?--Dean's 50-state.

Rahm's assignment for the DCCC came after Dean had already started to implement the 50-state strategy a year and a half before the election. Before that time those two represented two very different styles and attitudes in politics. The biggest difference before 2006 was Dean's opposition to the invasion of Iraq, while Rahm was a hawk on that. It's a incredible irony that "Rahmbo" is the one who's known as a bit of a loose cannon, but it was Dean that the media did that intentional distortion of their video that left him with the "scream" branding.

To understand this tension in the Democratic Party you have to understand that Dean rose up because of not only opposition to the invasion of Iraq (and there aren't too many left who think Rahm was the one who was right on that one!), but also to the essentially top-down way that political parties were, and still are, run. Dean's campaign was the first to utilize the Internet to gain widespread and truly grassroots support--no matter what Obama's youngsters might claim--and also building on techniques of "feet on the ground" and "door-to-door" local support and candidate recruitment that Wellstone had started having success with on a local level. In fact, the Republicans had been using that strategy for decades, except it was mainly through church groups and local lodges and the like.

The Democratic Leadership Council, the more moderate and hawkish Dem leaders at that time, was seen as the bastion of established politicians who had risen up and gotten fat under Clinton's administration. The Dean people weren't against Clinton necessarily, just those who appeared to be taking their power positions too seriously and had become disconnected from those who had elected them. (Sound familiar?) Dean was essentially a fairly conservative Dem but his thoughtful opposition to the war brought him a landslide of unexpected supporters, who found that they agreed with almost everything else he talked about.

Dean gradually learned that he was bound for more than a brief run for President where he could express his views, but rather would be a catalyst for change within the party itself. To understand Dean's people, the continuing members of Democracy for America, the organization that emerged out of all that, you have to understand that organizations distinct mission. The purpose of DFA, which had originally been Dean for America, is very specifically to get smart, progressive, independent-minded, generally socially liberal but fiscally conservative (like Dean) candidates to run and to help them win elections. Since the established Democratic Party is the only viable option, considering the Republican Party is 180 degrees from what most of that organization supports, they try to get good candidates elected through the Dem party.

So when you hear a Dean supporter criticize any Dem, it's because their purpose is to reform the Democratic Party from within, not carry on same top-down governing that has been the norm for just about all of the 20th century. In a way, the spirit of the Deaniacs is similar to the grassroots appeal of the Tea Party, except that most Dean people wouldn't be caught dead with that group.

As for the DOD, no one said cut all military bases or scratch the entire DOD budget. A scalpel is probably the best tool, as you say. But the numbers really tell it all. For that I refer anyone who hasn't seen it to the famous Oreo demonstration:
http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/

This was made way before the current recession and before the bank bailouts, so we all know how much more serious the situation is now. But the numbers ratio is about the same, though I should point out that the Iraq and Afghanistan budgets I don't believe are even included in the Oreos, since those have been OFF-BUDGET for years now, adding what, a trillion or so more? These ratios are astonishing, and are a very big deal when it hits home just how damaging it is to be as out of balance as a country that we continue them out of habits acquired when there still was a Soviet Union.

Thanks Nancy-

Thats more inside dope on the Democratic Party than I have ever heard before.

Going back to my "what color dog" observation , didnt Gov Dean advocate killing the Health Care reform bill effort until the 11th hour last year then flipped threw his support behind it? Sounds like a odd position to execute party reform from......... (especially from a Doctor who theoretically understands the health insurance environment)

sc4ram wrote:Thanks Nancy-

Thats more inside dope on the Democratic Party than I have ever heard before.

Going back to my "what color dog" observation , didnt Gov Dean advocate killing the Health Care reform bill effort until the 11th hour last year then flipped threw his support behind it? Sounds like a odd position to execute party reform from......... (especially from a Doctor who theoretically understands the health insurance environment)

Since you and I are 180 degrees apart on the whole health insurance issue (though I think we do agree on a number of specifics), it might be hard to understand what was going on with Dean and his organization on that issue. He, and I, were convinced that health care reform without a public option was not going to save sufficient money and was just going to perpetuate a totally broken system in which health insurance companies totally rule over doctors recommendations for your health care. I know you don't believe me on this, but if you actually had to use your plan more frequently and for serious health issues, you would find that this is so, to your detriment. There are exceptions, otherwise those companies couldn't manage to even stay in business, but doctors and patients who experience many aspects of the health care system, unless they are either financially or politically powerful, will eventually come to this realization, that a publicly traded corporation does not put people's health first, in fact sometimes those requirements are diametrically opposed to their bottom line. (There's no opposition to free trade among the service providers, just the unnecessary and contradictory profit margin of the middle men insurers who know absolutely nothing about medicine--so that "argument" about "government takeover" and "socialized medicine" is so far off the track that it's laughable to me.)

So Dean and DFA campaigned tirelessly for a public option of some kind, running up against a bulwark of resistance in Congress not only from Republicans, but from Senators generally considered liberal. By the time the Senate Finance Committee managed to have hearings and essentially blocked all testimony about a public option, it was clear that Dean was up against the same Congressional establishment that he encountered back in 2004, maybe just different faces, but they now had even more lobbyist money.

Since, contrary to the talking points of the opponents of health care reform, in the beginning a majority of Americans actually polled in favor of a public option (before it was media-blitzed into a dirty word), I assume Dean thought there was a good chance of bringing real grassroots opinion to the fore and getting some movement in Congress. But the Tea Partyers managed to shout louder and bullied more Congressmen over the summer break. The fact that even more of those town halls had constituents supporting reform was of no interest to the media. The colorful and rude and NEW Tea Party made for hot news to them.

By the time the whole lengthy debate in Congress was winding down, Dean made last ditch efforts to try to get support in Congress for what was essentially a popular reform, but by that time the other issues with the bank bailouts, etc., etc., were drowning out any rational thought about it all, and Congress was weary and I think had now "vested interest" in what they had come up with. I call something vested interest when you spend a lot of time and/or money on something, anything, and you don't want to admit to yourself it was a waste and you really should either chuck it our or start over. And starting over wasn't even a viable option at that point, considering all the other pressing matters that couldn't even move an inch in Congress, whether there was a health care debate or not, as we have seen these last few months.

So Dean knew the bill was hardly the best, but he also knew how bad the health care delivery system is, and how it is getting worse by the day. So having no change at all is simply not an option. I think the decision to accept the current bill was grudging and his group had to hold their noses and the best hope was that it was a catalyst for further change as the years go on.

You and I don't agree on a lot of this, I know that. To me what I see missing is the understanding that it's not all about your individual health care, which, even if nothing had passed in Congress, was going to eventually become untenable with the combination of rising fees and reduced coverage, not necessarily spelled out in your policy! Our health care system has to work for everyone, or else it will never work for each individual, except of course for a top 5% or so who can fly wherever they want for a doctor. And beyond that the direction it was going before anyone started the legislative process was so hideous that the entire country would be bankrupt before my life is over due to expanding costs. Do you really wish that on this country?

Sooooooo Nancy-

Thanks for breaking this down, let me see if summarize your thesis:

o Gov Dean & Company wrestled the party away from the Clinton-ites

Makes sense because somebody did. Im not a Hill-Bill fan but they are generally heald up as a successful admin. (the only 2 term dem to have no opposition for his renomination since FDR) Why would the party want them attenuated? BTW that super-delagate deal is odd, no matter who the grass roots of the party chooses they can over-ride, hell of a way to run a rail road. The DLC deal enabled the Clintons to protray the Dems as more than a bunch of 60s radicals and won over the middle of the road voters. (dont understand why its perceived as bad)

o Nobody likes Rham but they wont say so to his face:

Makes sense too, probably due to he likes to angrily confront people while naked in the shower. (this guy is given a lot of power for sombody who is despised)

o Cut Defense in lieu of more social programs

Im afraid this one isnt practicle, we just passed a new entitlement with health care, I dont think the electorate will tolerate any more. Even if all of the DOD was cut it wouldnt solve the debt issues. There are a lot of additional departments that deserve budget scrutiny as well. Not to mention the entitlements , the SS and Med taxes are collected on budget (not lock boxed) , yet the liabilities pile up in the out years. That is where the meat is.

o Gov Dean supported the Health Care bill because it was better than no bill

This is where I think we might be entering Koolaide-ville. As you know I followed the Health Care issue closely. Gov Dean is a paid contributor to CNBC and made numerous appearences. As you mentioned he advocated the public option (so did Rep Weiner and other notables) . When the pub option was dropped Gov Dean critiisized the bill as "enrichment of insurance companies". At the 11th hour after they lost the Mass Senate seat and they were dealing with reconciliation, the Gov decided that enrichment of insurance companies wasnt a problem and endorsed the bill. To me this supports my argument that no matter what color dog these people are they will vote the way their leadership tells them to at the end of the day . If the Gov is leading some reform movement this was not his finest hour. It seems obvious to me that they got behind this bill because the President couldnt withstand a legislative defeat (he is too big to fail) so therefore ANY bill (no matter what is says or who it helps or doesnt help) is better than no bill. You yourself have said this health care bill doesnt help you, and if you dont have insurance now, you will be getting a bil for some in a few years when it becomes manditory that you have some. Not to mention that this is a new entitlement on top of the other liabilities stated above. [I think I can find the CNBC videos that show the Govs evolution on this if you are interested ] This takes me back to my point that all of the dogs vote with the leadership 99% of the time, so why would you fire them?

I would have to counter your premise on Health Ins (again), Ive never had a claim rejected and neither have any of my friends or relitives (some with serious illness) , and if I ever did I can sue for breach of contract. One thing we dont have a shortage of is lawers. If the government comission (panel) decides I dont get treatment under a public plan I cant sue the government in contrast, I just have to suffer. This bill doesnt address your objections to insurance companies anyway. You seem to be taking the resulting bill awfully well in that respect.

I think you distort some of what I've said, or perhaps I didn't phrase some things clearly enough, so just a few comments below---

o Gov Dean & Company wrestled the party away from the Clinton-ites

Makes sense because somebody did. Im not a Hill-Bill fan but they are generally heald up as a successful admin. (the only 2 term dem to have no opposition for his renomination since FDR) Why would the party want them attenuated?

Dean never wrestled the Party away from the Clintons; as I pointed out already, most of Dean's supporters liked Clinton, they just didn't like the resulting corporate control that seemed to be the direction the notables of the Party were headed in. And Dean lost, remember, so it's not as if Dean led the entire party establishment. But they recognized that he controlled an enormous and loyal and money-raising constituency, so they gave him the chairmanship. But there was always an uneasy truce between the factions.

BTW that super-delagate deal is odd, no matter who the grass roots of the party chooses they can over-ride, hell of a way to run a rail road. The DLC deal enabled the Clintons to protray the Dems as more than a bunch of 60s radicals and won over the middle of the road voters. (dont understand why its perceived as bad)

May seem odd, but the super-delegates can't over-rule the rest of the delegates in total, they are just added delegates who add to the overall voting. As for "60s radicals," there are no more 60s radicals, that was 50 years ago; any reference to them is just outdated.

o Nobody likes Rham but they wont say so to his face:

Makes sense too, probably due to he likes to angrily confront people while naked in the shower. (this guy is given a lot of power for sombody who is despised)

I don't think he's generally despised really, just sort of irritating to some, and represents that sort of resentment between the "top-down" and the grassroots movements in the Party.

o Cut Defense in lieu of more social programs

Im afraid this one isnt practicle, we just passed a new entitlement with health care, I dont think the electorate will tolerate any more. Even if all of the DOD was cut it wouldnt solve the debt issues. There are a lot of additional departments that deserve budget scrutiny as well. Not to mention the entitlements , the SS and Med taxes are collected on budget (not lock boxed) , yet the liabilities pile up in the out years. That is where the meat is.

Sorry, the meat IS in the DOD, but I agree there are lots of other depts that need lots of scrutiny. About the military spending, here's some food for thought:

If you don't like the "Oreos" comparison I linked earlier, try the Federal Pie Chart: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Or if you aren't convinced that those two are not slanted, try this more independent analysis by this noted economist:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=5827


o Gov Dean supported the Health Care bill because it was better than no bill

This is where I think we might be entering Koolaide-ville. As you know I followed the Health Care issue closely. Gov Dean is a paid contributor to CNBC and made numerous appearences. As you mentioned he advocated the public option (so did Rep Weiner and other notables) . When the pub option was dropped Gov Dean critiisized the bill as "enrichment of insurance companies". At the 11th hour after they lost the Mass Senate seat and they were dealing with reconciliation, the Gov decided that enrichment of insurance companies wasnt a problem and endorsed the bill.

This is where you are really twisting my comments. And even events. You may not be aware that I followed Dean and the health care debate closely also, but just chose not to comment on your statements here because I thought it was pointless; there has to be some common ground on an issue to make for a fruitful debate. I've commented here on Dean because it was really about the political history, but of course you brought up health care. I doubt you'll find a Congressman who votes on any large bill who simply decides that a particular provision is "no longer a problem," but rather a big bill is always a compromise, sometimes a gigantic compromise.

To me this supports my argument that no matter what color dog these people are they will vote the way their leadership tells them to at the end of the day . If the Gov is leading some reform movement this was not his finest hour. It seems obvious to me that they got behind this bill because the President couldnt withstand a legislative defeat (he is too big to fail) so therefore ANY bill (no matter what is says or who it helps or doesnt help) is better than no bill. ... This takes me back to my point that all of the dogs vote with the leadership 99% of the time, so why would you fire them?

To say that all the people supporting Dean agreed with his official and reluctant support of the flawed bill is to have no notion of what Dean's movement is all about, and I'm sure many of them would find it amusing, especially since none of them are in Congress, and neither is Dean. They are all in a sense "progressive lobbyists." In grassroots efforts, you try to get what you can get, and it is always a slow and incremental process, just like the 50-state strategy that was designed to build candidates and supporters over time. There were many things in the bill that are of great value, in spite of the many things that aren't. To characterize the bill as ANY bill is black and white thinking.

As for the "99%," maybe you're thinking of Republicans? I think most Democrats wish that their members voted with the majority more than they do!


I would have to counter your premise on Health Ins (again), Ive never had a claim rejected and neither have any of my friends or relitives (some with serious illness) , and if I ever did I can sue for breach of contract. One thing we dont have a shortage of is lawers. If the government comission (panel) decides I dont get treatment under a public plan I cant sue the government in contrast, I just have to suffer. This bill doesnt address your objections to insurance companies anyway. You seem to be taking the resulting bill awfully well in that respect.[/quote]

To base your assumptions on a sampling of a few of your friends is pretty unscientific, given the wealth of information and data out there that proves the gross inequities of the system. You admitted yourself that you rarely use your plan! And any idea you have of suing your insurance company, all I can say is good luck with that! You'd be dead by the time it could make its way through the courts!

If I were to judge the system by what I and my friends have gone through (which I don't completely, rather by what studies show of the availability of health care for all Americans), I would have to report that I have known several very close friends who DIED because they couldn't get health care, or couldn't get it in time. And assuming I am taking it "awfully well" is making an assumption about me without knowing me well. I became pretty embittered about the whole Congressional process months ago, yet I know if nothing is done at all, nothing will change and that is completely disastrous, not just for me.

So while you complain that you may lose your particular plan that you like, I've been bounced from plan to plan over the years because of changes made by my employers every year or so, bounced from doctor to doctor because of that, and right at this moment I have absolutely no access to health care whatsoever, not even the charity plan that I was able to get for a limited time. So while you argue about how unjust it is that you might have to change plans, or pay a bit more, there are millions just like me who actually have medical needs that will rarely get help or will get help only intermittently or at great cost. I don't think you really have much of a standing on this issue compared to all of those people.

These kinds of arguments over aspects of social issues remind me of the old cigarette smoker's argument, that he or she had a right to "freedom" to pollute the air, no matter how much others were harmed. I view keeping a medical system that treats only a select percentage of citizens to the detriment of those without access as a similar way of thinking, and we will never agree on this, so we might as well call a sort of truce on this board and simply agree to agree on other issues, but not this one.

So I'm done with this issue, I will not debate it further for the reasons already given. Why should I raise my blood pressure over something so upsetting when I can't even see a doctor about it!

Good opinions all Nancy-

I guess I just dont understand, everything the leadership has pushed for they have gotton, the Prez shrewdly got Sen Specter to flip to give him the 60 votes he needed in the Senate last year and he kept Sen Lieberman on board by not punishing him for endorsing McCain. This gave them the most power of any administration since LBJ. They got Stimulus, Health Care, their Supreme Court Judge, multiple unemployment extensions. , credit card reform, and they will probably get Financial reform this year. Most of that wouldnt of been possible without the so called "blue dogs". If you fire them, Im not sure what you'll have left to work with. But that is my mental block not yours. I'll leave it there........

Great discussions here. Allow me to sum up a little.

Thanks to Blue Dogs and Republican'ts - we got health INSURANCE reform, not health care reform.
Thanks to Blue Dogs and Republican'ts - 99ers got insufficient unemployment benefits.
Thanks to Blue Dogs and Republican'ts - there are no real jobs to show for their jobs bill.
Thanks to Blue Dogs and Republican'ts - we get a whole lot of too little too late.
Thanks to Blue Dogs and Republican'ts - there's a new social class of the educated poor.
Thanks to Blue Dogs and Republican'ts - only a few percent of homes were actually spared from foreclosure.
Thanks to Blue Dogs and Republican'ts - corporate CEO's run the country.
Thanks to Blue Dogs and Republican'ts - hard working people are not too big to fail.
Thanks to Blue Dogs and Republican'ts - there will always be institutions that are too big to fail.
Thanks to Blue Dogs and Republican'ts - there will be no real financial reform.
Thanks to Blue Dogs and Republican'ts - there will be more families living in cars and tents next year.

Thanks to Blue Dogs this country will never turn left when it needs to turn left, nor will it turn right when it needs to turn right.
Sometimes easy decisions need to be made to go left, right, up, down, forward or backward- no different than flying a helicopter.
You can't get to where you need to go just hovering in one place (the centrist's view).

Blue Dogs and Republican'ts need to leave Capitol Hill so this country can get on with the business of being the good old U.S. of A .

VOTE RESPONSIBLY !!!

Doesnt the President bear any responsibility for any of these "failures"? Or is he too big fail too?

sc4ram wrote:Doesnt the President bear any responsibility for any of these "failures"? Or is he too big fail too?

He's at least too big to fail until 2012. Besides, he's always said he'ld sign any bill for unemployment benefits placed on his desk. Also, as I said before in an ealier post, I don't much care about any other issues except the ones concerning 99ers.

Cash in our pockets, a roof over our heads, a job and a vehicle to get to that job. Lots of 99ers already out here without anything.

According to all of the ganster movies I ever saw, a fish always rots from the top. Being a former Chicago street organizer should be about as non-blue-dog as you can get. (simply throwing those bills to the Congress and sigining anything that comes out the other end isnt what the job description entails) . Promising Rep Sestek (D-PA) a high level govt job if he will stand down in a primary against Sen Specter (there is a blue dog for you that actually was a Republican) isnt in the reform playbook that Ive seen. [Maybe he is reading the Corporate CEO playbook] Unless there is some secret plan to get ACORN to amplify vote counts, there is going to be a lot less of what ever color dog they are come November.

Unfortuantely, the world we live in is more than one (issue) dimensional.

I didnt drill into all of the links that Nancy posted on Defense spending, from what I looked at I wouldnt dispute what they say the totals are for the Defense Dept (although Ben (Oreo) is a little dated with DOD @ $400B, its higher than that now. I dont think you can go thru the other government depts and selectively pull out items and call them military (as the next link did) . But as I said before, there are many things that can be intellegently cut from the DOD as well as the other numerous departments in the government and that should be done. (although it wont fix the problem)

Where I would offer contrary view is that this discretionary spending is not where the meat is, its the entitlements. There is a lot of good info here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Federal-Spending-by-the-Numbers-2010

If you scroll down about 1/8th of the page to the graph titled: "Social Security and Medicare are crowding out other Spending". It shows these programs are and will be the biggest chunk of the budget. The supporting charts make it clear that spending is and has been growing out of control all over.

enjoy

Good article on the F-35 extra engine dilema currently before Congress, trimming this dept wont fix the problem but its a good place to start.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-myword-aircraft-engine-060310-20100602,0,3668613.story

Here is one "blue-dog" (with help from her bubba brother) that will live to bark again.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100609/ap_on_el_se/us_lincoln_how_she_won_3

I'm not suprised a low 7.8% unemployment rate state such as Arkansas would vote Blue Dog or Republican't.
It wasn't an easy win for her over a liberal challenger.
I don't think Blue Dogs and Republican'ts have chance in higher unemployment rate states.

http://arkansasnews.com/2010/05/21/state-unemployment-rate-remains-at-7-8-percent/

Who knows what kind of inside party baseball took place here (especially with fmr Prez Clinton involved) . But my take would be that that Arkansas is a center-right state generally politically. Its a right-to-work state and it is Corporate home to Wal-Mart. McCain womped Obama in this state in 2008. Its not a microcasm of the county but generally the country between the coasts is politically center-right to begin with.

Somebody like Sen Bill Nelson in Fla for example, could withstand a primary challange from the left (all things being constant) even though Florida is a high unemployment state.

I just thought I'ld post the list of the House of Rep. Blue Dog Coalition.
http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html


Blue Dog Leadership Team

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
Rep. Jim Matheson (UT-02), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip

Blue Dog Members

Altmire, Jason (PA-04)
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)
Baca, Joe (CA-43)
Barrow, John (GA-12)
Berry, Marion (AR-01)
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)
Bright, Bobby (AL-02)
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)
Carney, Christopher (PA-10)
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)
Childers, Travis (MS-01)
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)
Costa, Jim (CA-20)
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03)
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD)
Hill, Baron (IN-09)
Holden, Tim (PA-17)
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
Markey, Betsy (CO-04)
Marshall, Jim (GA-08)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)
Michaud, Mike (ME-02)
Minnick, Walt (ID-01)
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)
Murphy, Scott (NY-20)
Nye, Glenn (VA-02)
Peterson, Collin (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND)
Ross, Mike (AR-04)
Salazar, John (CO-03)
Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)
Schiff, Adam (CA-29)
Schrader, Kurt (OR-05)
Scott, David (GA-13)
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)
Space, Zack (OH-18)
Tanner, John (TN-08)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)
Wilson, Charles (OH-06)