Coalition of Moderate 'Blue Dog' Dems Shrinking Fast

Fox News ^ | 8/19/11

[Libloather]

Coalition of Moderate 'Blue Dog' Dems Shrinking Fast
Associated Press
Published August 19, 2011

WASHINGTON -- The Blue Dogs may be losing their bark. Despite polls showing a desire for more compromise in Washington, the political climate for moderate to conservative Democrats in the House has continued to deteriorate.

The 2010 election dropped the number of so-called Blue Dogs from 54 to 25. And the shrinking continues.

Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas will not seek re-election next year. Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma also plans to retire. Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana has opted to run for the Senate. Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina is reportedly being considered for the athletic director job at the University of Tennessee.

Other House members, such as Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah, face the prospect of running in less friendly congressional districts after their states complete redistricting. Rep. Jane Harman of California resigned earlier this year to run a think tank.

The early departures and the potential for more are feeding Republican hopes that they will win more of the country's swing districts in next year's elections and maintain their majority in the House. That also raises questions about whether the Blue Dogs as a group are in an extended decline as moderates from both parties disappear from Capitol Hill.

"The parties are becoming more polarized and that's unfortunate," Boren said. "The success of our political system weighs in the balance depending upon how many moderates, how many problem-solving pragmatists are going to be elected."

[ballplayer]

As odd as it Might seem I have wanted to see the Comming election Framed as a Choice Between Communism and Tradional American Values,and It is Obama who is setting it up just that way! The Republicans are stopping all his wonderful Programs and Giveaways,The Pied Piper wales. This Just shows that they are Convinced the Jealousy,envy and Greed,the Lowest Human Traits that Democrats have Exploited for decades is at the Tipping point and with all the Misery they have created with Unemployment,housing and the Collapse of the dollar,people are going to again vote based on HATE of the Rich as opposed to George W Bush. They May be Right

[ballplayer]

You sound Like Me,All this Garbage about Coming together to have a Discussion and Offer Ideas and all that crap,sounds Great but at the End of the day,a DECISION has to be Made and One side is going to Lose,that is why you have a Constitution,ALL policies are Based On THAT,Not Facists and Communist Liberal Panty Waists. If you dont like it then you work to ammend it you dont Ignore it

[cotton1706]

Well, the bloom is off the rose. Moderate democrats are nothing of the kind. They’re handmaidens to the leftists. Harry Reid was considered a “conservative” democrat. In reality, he was doing what he needed to do to obtain more and more power, and now he shows himself to be what he is, a dictatorial, militant leftist.

I’m glad these wolves in the fold are folding. Give me an outright liberal any day. At least you know what you’re getting. And as they’re policies become more and more crazy, they’re easier to be thrown out of office.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I just ordered a used copy for $2.

Good!

FYI, Brian Lamb interviewed the author on C-Span, and asked him if he voted for FDR. He replied that he had been too young, but that he had voted for Harry Truman in '48. And would consider doing so again.

IOW, the author isn't a conservative, even tho the book is very revealing - damning, to my way of thinking - about FDR and his administration.

[loveliberty2]

To paraphrase an old automobile commercial, what are left are "'not your father's' 'blue dog' democrats." Many of the seniors who grew up with their fathers' idea of Democratic philosophy believed themselves to be something entirely different than the Party which dominates today. They did not subscribe to European "socialist" ideology.

Many, even now, may not have paid close attention to the manner in which their father's Party has been "transformed" into what is euphemistically called a "progressive" philosophy, when, in fact, it fits another description entirely.

Winston Churchill, in 1908, in a speech entitled, "Liberalism and Socialism," laid out, with amazing clarity, the distinctions between the two and the dangers to liberty of the latter.

To so-called Independents and remaining "blue dogs" a reading of this speech might shock some into reality in understanding what is happening to individual liberty and the liberty of this Republic.

Another source for such analytical definitions of the two philosophies can be found in the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:

I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

[Darkwolf377]

Of course there was politics going on during WW2—that wasn’t my point. My point was that the Voices of Reason at the time were calling anyone who wasn’t 100% for kicking Nazi butt an “America Firster” and a fascist or dictator-coddler. The mushy middle and the left weren’t wringing their hands saying, “Oh, we must compromise!” like they are now.

[Darkwolf377]

That’s it, exactly—I think my way is right, and that guy thinks his way is right. But somehow magically combining both ways doesn’t create this harmonious perfection—it creates a big mess, and more chaos, like what we have now. If my way is tried—fully, as planned—we can see if it works, and if it doesn’t we discard it and try the other guy’s way.

What we are seeing in this country now is what comes from this stupid “A little of what I want, a little of what you want.” You end up with a system that is half-fish and half-fowl.

If I wanted to have pizza for lunch, and someone else wanted pancakes, and a third person wanted cottage cheese, but we could only make one, we would each make our cases, and then one of those three choices would be selected. The result wouldn’t please everyone, but it would be acceptable, and it would work. This ‘compromise’ stuff as described in this article would result in adisgusting mush none of us would like...but it would be a ‘compromise’ so the jellyfish in this country would grin and say “Now everyone got what they wanted!’

That’s what this bizarre idea of ‘compromise’ is about—not finding the way that really works, but not letting anyone have to face that their way SUCKS and SHOULD be rejected.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Of course there was politics going on during WW2—that wasn’t my point. My point was that the Voices of Reason at the time were calling anyone who wasn’t 100% for kicking Nazi butt an “America Firster” and a fascist or dictator-coddler. The mushy middle and the left weren’t wringing their hands saying, “Oh, we must compromise!” like they are now.

Before Pearl Harbor, polling on entering WWII ran 80:20 against. After Pearl Harbor, FDR tried to get the people who had agreed with their Congressman before PH that we shouldn't get in it, and agreed with that same Congressman after PH that we had to fight, to vote against their congressman because he hadn't been on FDR's side before PH. It didn't work.

I had a card from my uncle who fought under Patton on the occasion of VE day, saying, "Your uncle is finished fighting. We licked the Jerries."

I don't think he was the only one in the ETO who thought they were finished with war. Absent the A-bomb, the Army would have expected them to fight Japan - and I suspect there would have been mutiny if they tried to make them do it. I do know that my uncle said later, "If they want to get me to fight again, I know where I can go that they'll never find me."