The myth of the "conservative" democrat in Congress

Not Wright for America ^ | 7/18/08 | Tim Brugger

[Gypsy Man]

Reid Wilson of Real Clear Politics had a column yesterday, "Dems finding success in the center" about how democrats have been having success winning House seats by recruiting "conservative" democrat candidates, and they were following the model again in 2008. While it is true that the democrat party has had success in executing this tactic, this success is due more to their ability to fool the public about these candidates than anything else.

Wilson mentioned a few members such as John Barrow of Georgia and Heath Shuler of North Carolina (perhaps better known in the South for his college football prowess than political prowess--I can remember watching him play when I was in college, as pictured above).

No question these people are better than Nancy Pelosi, but in the grand scheme of things in Congress, they're not much better.

In the first instance, they support Nancy Pelosi for House speaker, including backing on all procedural matters, which is almost always a party line vote. This can be important.

But there is also a little known trick that these allegedly moderate democrats play. They agree with Pelosi to vote with her if she needs her vote, but are free to vote the conservative way if their vote is not necessary. In other words, if their vote is irrelevant, they can vote like a Republican, but when it matters, they are liberal democrats.

This was on display last year with that controversial vote on an agriculture pork barrel bill. The Republicans were on the verge of passing an amendment barring illegal immigrants from receiving taxpayer benefits, in this instance food stamps. So at the last minute, four supposedly moderate democrats swithced their vote to support Pelosi and taxpayer funded benefits for illegal immigrants. The amendment was defeated 214-214.

This system serves Pelosi well. It produces enough instances in which the democrat can vote against Pelosi so that he can claim back in his district that he is an independent or blue dog democrat. But when the chips are really down, the congressman is nothing but a Nancy Pelosi clone.

So Mr. Wilson is right--expect to see more of this in 2008, because it doesn't cost the liberal democrat leadership a thing. But voters in these swing districts ought to know what they are really getting when the pull the lever for people like Shuler and Barrow.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

The concept of a conservative democratic died in the early 1960’s. Once the hippies, marxists, and liberals hijacked the party its been a trainwreck ever since.

[mosesdapoet]

I track the “blue dogs” in my website http://www.theusmat.com/ The question I put is this. Are they conservatives or “Emmanuel’s Sirens” luring voters away from the true course into the rocks? The coaltion was put together by an IL (3rd) congressman (Ron Emanuel) during the Clinton administration and has continued on through the current /00-08 election cycle.

[Impy]

Damn right. They are leftists who lie to get elected and usually vote lock step with their queen.

[kittymyrib]

Chet Edwards (D-TX) campaigns as a “conservative” in his district, which includes Ft. Hood and Texas A&M, but voted FOR Nancy Pelosi’s surrender time-table bills every time they came up. So he is not even “conservative” enough to go against the party when they don’t need his vote.
Good ol’ boy Chet needs to get voted out in Nov.

[Dick Vomer]

[battleax]

Damn right. They are leftists who lie to get elected and usually vote lock step with their queen.

You can count Carne D-Pa as another nancy puppet who is fooling the constituents.

[Gypsy Man]

Exactly. At least Pelosiy is an honest left-wing nut job, but Edwards has been fooling the voters in places like Waco, TX for years! I think he even favors partial birth abortion, which puts him to the left of Obama even, at least according to Obama’s latest comments on the subject.

www.notwrightforamerica.com Check out that website, it’s great!