Best Thing - Blue Dogs Turn Rethuglican
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/08/blue-dogs-insurance/
If the Blue Dogs had any sense of honesty, or political courage, they would run as rethuglicans.
This would be a good thing. To begin with as economically ignorant as they are they are saner then the average rethuglican and their presence might help to bring the R's back from the precipice of complete loony tunes and back into the real world.
There would be more honesty in politics if these people weren't flying a false flag as D's.
D's supporters wouldn't be so frustrated that the money and effort expended for the D's wasn't wasted on such quisling's.
Of course this means that Rahm would lose all his friends and be stuck with those progressives that he has shown such distaste for.
If the Blue Dogs had any sense of honesty, or political courage, they would run as rethuglicans.
This would be a good thing. To begin with as economically ignorant as they are they are saner then the average rethuglican and their presence might help to bring the R's back from the precipice of complete loony tunes and back into the real world.
There would be more honesty in politics if these people weren't flying a false flag as D's.
D's supporters wouldn't be so frustrated that the money and effort expended for the D's wasn't wasted on such quisling's.
Of course this means that Rahm would lose all his friends and be stuck with those progressives that he has shown such distaste for.
Advertisement
I know some will disagree, but I object to posts of this type, because they are characterized exclusively by insults and by an absence of evidence to document their accusations.
I would also request TPMers to refrain from using the term Rethuglicans, but rather refer to them by the name Republicans. We all have a right to be called by the name we choose for ourselves.
Why do I make these points? Mainly because I'm results-oriented, and vitriol of this type turns off open-minded readers who might otherwise be receptive to the same general viewpoints if they were presented in a civil manner and supported by factual data. Being civil does not require suppressing strongly held views, but rather expressing them wisely rather than recklessly.
I realize that some will argue that these posts are a form of emotional venting, and I suppose that's legitimate, but the posts are also read by outsiders. Given the crucial importance of achieving effective healthcare reform, for example, I believe that any opportunity forfeited to convince outsiders of the need for the proposed reforms is a blow to our hopes for achieving them.
August 8, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll add that if rational had posted an active link, the post would have had greater impact, but even the linked site is mainly accusatory when it comes to motives, honesty, treachery, and wisdom. In any case, here it is:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/08/blue-dogs-insurance/
August 8, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
A further point. In the coming weeks, it's likely I may be part of a small group discussing healthcare reform with one of the Blue Dogs - one very knowledgeable about health economics.
I'm struggling to decide what points I might be able to make that would be useful in influencing him favorably. I can't lecture him about healthcare reform legislation, because he is already thoroughly familiar with the proposed bill, HR 3200. If anyone has suggestions for either comments or questions I might express, I would be grateful. My goal will not be to insult him into adopting my position, but to convince him to consider important elements of reform that might inspire him to be supportive of a strong reform bill that is still in the process of modification.
August 8, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Further more, Blue Dogs are not a homogeneous group.
August 8, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fear card might get some attention. It's something he can sell to the frightened constituents. 47 million without insurance means 47 million who do not seek treatment until their condition is grave. How many wil be infected before they get to a doctor? How will good insurance [I know. Good insurance is a lot like unicorns and Santa Claus] prevent anyone from contracting what he's spreading? Of course their are the economic implications of a deteriorating population, these 47 million, who would be more productive if they could maintain their health.
August 9, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We all have a right to be called by the name we choose for ourselves."
I'll agree with that - but you may want to keep reminding any Republicans you may know on that issue.
For example:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/18/steele-reignites-socialist-conflict-with-rnc/
Note that clearer heads eventually prevailed, but the fact that it was even seriously considered speaks volumes about the state of discourse.
Or even the party's leaders, who persist in calling the opposition "the Democrat party":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)
August 8, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, I agree, and I've always been annoyed by the "Democrat" label. I consider it childish of the Republicans to engage in those silly games, but I don't think it helps them much.
Calling Republicans "Rethuglicans" is a little different in that it is an unsolicited insult rather than merely a nickname. In my view, it demeans the person who uses the term more than the intended target. It does not lend credibility to other points that person is trying to make. but probably detracts from them instead.
August 8, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of points.
First the accurate naming of the rethuglicans. With the R's Congressional leadership encouraging the disruption of the town halls through the use of thuggish behavior it is accurate and justified.
To paraphrase Harry Truman when the Russian Ambassador complained about the way Harry was speaking about the Russians behavior in Poland "Stop behaving that way and I will stop talking to you that way"
Todays Blue Dogs are todays Dixiecrats of 1948 through the 70's who used their position in the Democratic party to thwart, obstruct and pervert the Civil Rights, Labor and Health Care agenda of the post war D's. It was only when LBJ got sick of their sabotage of the Democratic party and they took their Southern Strategy and the Conservative Community Councils over to the Rethuglican party that the D's were free to pursue an agenda to improve the lot of the American people.
It is notable that the Blue Dogs rarely draw serious rethuglican opponents for the same reason that the whacko right doesn't primary Michelle Bachman, Boehner or the other wingnuts running the rethuglican asylum, why bother when you already have your guy in office. If they were honest and ran as the R they really were then the D's could mount a challenge against them.
As long as the Blue dogs fly a false flag and work as a fifth column for the rethuglicans they should be called on their misbehavior and their lack of honesty should be pointed out.
August 8, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue Dogs are not Dixiecrats, to say they are merely shows your lack of knowledge on either subject.
August 9, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Blue Dogs like the Dixiecrats are using their position in the D's party to obstruct, delay and stop a key part of the D's agenda.
They, liker the dixiecrats, adopt and legitimize the oppositions framing of debates.
So Why aren't they todays parellel of the Dixiecrats?
August 9, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You continue with the same blather, perhaps you should do some research.
August 9, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather then make blanket assertations about my supposed ignorance you would care to addressthe issues.
Blue Dogs like Dixiecrats are obstructing the D's agenda. Between 1948 and the 1970's they used their insiderer status to torpedo Civil Rights and Health Care improvements.
Today the Blue Dogs are using their insider status to obstruct the D's agenda on Health Care and Environmental issues just to name a few.
The Dixiecrats like the Blue Dogs come from primarily poorly educated, rural areas steeped in traditions of bigotry and ignorance.
The Dixiecrats, like the Blue Dogs, weremilitaristic.
The Dixiecrats, like the Blue Dogs, do not support unions.
The Dixiecrats, like the Blue Dogs, would rather sacrifice the country then to take an honest look at the results of their blind faith in God, Gusn and money.
So Please explain How are they different?
August 9, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are all opinions that have no substantiation in facts.
August 9, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the Dixie crats didn't obstruct Civil Rights?
Or
The Blue Dogs aren't obstructing Health Care? ( even while they brag about doing so)
August 9, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
APPLES AND ORANGES
August 9, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is Undercutting their parties agenda is Apples and Oranges?
August 9, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather than continue this do some reading, you are historically, geographically, politically and socially incorrect in your analogy.
August 9, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot semantically.
August 9, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy way to argue ignore facts and simply assert you are correct and others are ignorant and wrong.
Dishonest, misleading but I am sure it is satisfy's one ego by claiming special knowledge unknown by mere mortlas
Oh by the way the Blue Dogs like the dixiecrats are largest contigent are from the cradle of treason and the border states.
(20 out of 51) This Doesn't include Oklahoma or other reactionary areas.
Indiana, which was infamous for the greatest KKK membership outside of the traitor states, is heavily represented.
That bastion of open mindedness Mormon Utah is solidly represented and the vast majority are from rural areas under served by education ( and it shows) and over whelmed by cults.( i.e Baptist's, Mormon's, Evangelico's etc)
Rural, Southern, Bible belt sounds like a Dixiecrat. Ole Strom would have been right comfortable with these folks.
August 9, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
More drivel, with your broad brush you've managed to denigrate a large amount of the populace in the USA. Rather than accuse so many American's blindly, do your homework.
August 9, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
here's a starter for you;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUnWHQzHGWU
this is one of the kkk members you alluded to, he held an uneventful and informative town hall here in bloomington.
August 9, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should read before you comment.
I did not callanyone a KKK member I just pointed out the constituencies of that Ind. had the largest KKK membership outside the traitor states of the South. ( sorry South =Treason is redundant)
Having a conservative, even prejudiced, electorate willlead to a representative that is well to the right of the main stream, or reason.
Sorry if you feelpointing out the obvious is insulting to people but the truth is that the Blue Dogs by and large represent rethuglican districts. They like the rethuglicans are based in the south and rural areas.
the south does not value general education and it is reflected in the ignorance of its populace.
Much as I dislike Bill Maher on this issue I do agree with him that, sadly, there are broad swathes of ignorance, prejudice and narrow mindedness in this country and most of those areas are represented by Rethuglicans and their Blue Dog brethern.
August 9, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your refusal to do any research, in regards to YOUR blog, indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant of the issues in YOUR blog. This makes you a troll by definition.
August 10, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned, you can feel free to post whatever you feel is appropriate and in whatever terms you care to frame your argument Rational.
August 8, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, but I am also puzzled with the outsized number of rec's compared to the mediocre interest in this blog. What is going on? I mean, 5 comments before mine, and 3 from the same person, but 46 rec's?
August 8, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta admit I to am curious.
Appreciative
But curious.
August 9, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect it's related to the other 'anomalies' we've seen in the recommends the past couple of days. The 'angry mob' is kind of like Hedwig's angry inch: Frustrated by its impotency in its ability to contribute meaningfully to the healthcare debate, it resorts to cyber-terrorism of it's opponent's websites.
August 9, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh well, miguelito, I tried to perform a service for TPM, but as the saying goes, "No good deed goes unpunished."
You're smarter than that, miguelito. You know that no-one was telling anyone else what he or she is or isn't free to do, and so I interpret your comment as simply a manifestation of annoyance. That's fine. Others can read what we each wrote and judge for themselves what is best for the causes we generally all agree on.
Now, if you will compose yourself for a moment, you can help me. As I suggested before, I would welcome suggestions as to how to interact with one of the Blue Dogs in an upcoming conference. Few here know more about the healthcare issue than you, so if you can come up with something useful, I will be grateful.
August 8, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Fred, I commented more as a show of support for rational than a reaction to your grandmotherly attempts to restrain his framing and language of those arguments, and nice turn of phrase, "Now, if you will compose yourself for a moment..". LOL. I suppose compared to your 'sober' analysis and wording, we're all out of control from your perspective.
I have no idea how you should interact with your Blue Dog compatriot. I might start by establishing a bit of comity, by stating that I too will not support a healthcare reform bill that's allowed to pay medicare rates, as it will just be a windfall for the insurers by providing a captive audience for them, while nothing to reduce our healthcare costs.
I would then establish whether their resistance to a strong public option is ideological, (fear of socialism), or based on some specific part(s) of the proposed reform. If it's the second, address them as best you can with what knowledge you have. If it's ideology that's fueling the resistance, I would try to convey the salient points of Kenneth Arrow's paper, which explains why market forces in healthcare are incapable of acting as they would in a 'normal' market to provide the 'best product' for the best price. If they're not capable of understanding that, I'd walk away.
August 9, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Miguelito -
Thanks for your suggestions. I like your idea of determining a basis for his reservations about a strong public option (I won't say objections because I don't know he is opposed). If it's ideological, that might be unchangeable, but it's more likely a combination of policy pragmatism and political pragmatism (his district is on the consesrvative side).
I'm not sure what the format will be like, but at this point, I would be inclined to influence him at least in part by questions rather than assertions. For example, I might ask him, "Many citizens, particularly seniors, are frightened of change based on what they've heard about the reform bill. What do you believe is the strongest argument that would resonate with them personally as to why the reforms are something that they desperately need?" Obviously, a question like that has an assertion built into it, but I would hope our Congressman would be stimulated to start thinking about what's good in the legislation rather than what's wrong with it.
What do you think?
Sincerely,
Grandma
August 9, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck!
August 9, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My statement should read:
August 9, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, I think you get annoying responses because you want to shape TPM into a policy-wonk arena. That does have its place here. But it isn't the only thing going on.
And you're dismissive and a bit prissy--think about that "compose yourself" comment that was a response to a very mild comment.
I would advise you to think about tying your policy positions to the politician's survival. Believe me, politicians think about their survival and their legacy. If the demographics in your BlueDog's district show that his voters would benefit from the legislation, point that out. You have to tie your policy to his voters and none of us can do that for you without more information on who the person is.
Now, I join with Rational on telling you that I will use my time and my money to defeat any Democrat in Congress who ends up not supporting the goals of healthcare which this GD party has supported since Truman. That may not meet with your standards, but I have to tell you that I don't buy into your particular standards since I also believe this prissy attitude is what has allowed the Republicans to come damned close to destroying the values that I want to be predominate in my country.
August 9, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, cube, I've been called hypocritical, arrogant, and now prissy, but I'm none of those. What I'm doing, or at least trying to do, is something I haven't seen elsewhere on TPM, and that is feed back some input into TPM on how I feel we are performing.
Everyone is familiar with the concept of telling "truth to power". That's popular here, when the power is the government or some big interest group on the outside, or when it's spokespersons for those interests. But TPM has its own power center of entrenched mindsets, whose mantras of denuncioation are repeatedly sounded, along with mutual congratulations that typify multiple individuals saying the same thing.
I often share the views of that group, but I also perceive that when those individuals express themselves in intemperate or even rabid fashion, they are not living up to their potential, and thereby forfeiting opportunities to make a difference on issues that matter. In making that point, I'm telling truth to power, and it's resented.
The resentment doesn't trouble me. I will respect specific suggestions for self improvement, but not claims I should stop candidly doing the truth to power bit. I will continue with it for several reasons. First, I'm not sure anyone else here is doing it, and it needs to be done. Second, I've noticed some success already, although those who have moderated their forms of expression often don't acknowledge they are doing anything differently, and don't refer to my urgings. Even in this thread, there's a hint of that. Rational's post was... well irrational, but his later defense of it was more moderate. Will he continue that way? I don't know, but others have, and that's why I'll keep on.
Finally, despite the fact we all agree that influencing policy is not the only reason for posting here, I'll take the position that it should be an important reason, particularly for those who post or comment on policy. I've only been here a few months, but already I've been fortunate enough to find several of my posts linked to on the Google news page listing blogs on controversial issues. I believe one reason for this is that I write in a way that won't immediately be dismissed by outsiders because it's short on facts and long on angry denunciations.
As long as I see many smart peoople here expressing themselves in ways that won't be taken seriously, I'll keep on asking them to do better, rather than remaining silent while they let themselves and the rest of us down.
August 9, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I wouldn't say "prissy," but since your stated point is effectiveness, I feel compelled to point out that many of your comments seem to me very condescending, which is not an effective way to get people to see your side of things. You seem to think that everyone is just being "touchy" when they respond to you in a less than enthusiastic way. When so many people are getting "the wrong impression of you" maybe a little self-reflection is in order.
It seems to me that the way to give constructive criticism is by saying how whatever is being said, affects you, rather than coming on as the wise teacher. When I see the word, "rethuglian," I am more likely to be dismissive of the comment, and if I were a republican I would definitely dismiss it as just insulting. That said, I totally get the reason for using it. So I agree with your conclusion, but I don't think you made any headway with your comments. Also, sometimes, even if you disagree with the way someone said something, the better part of valor is to just let that go if they had a great point to make.
I guess having brought up 3 teenagers has taught me to let a lot go.
August 9, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, CVille. You make some good points, and you not only make them, but also illustrate them with the reasoned tone of your comment. In general, you may be better equipped by personality to deal with some of these things than I am, although I noticed that your very appropriate negative reaction to Ellen's suggestion elsewhere to abolish health insurance was pretty strong.
I think I can always find ways to refine my approaches, but if you review my very first comment in this post, you'll see that it took pains to state that it was just one person's opinion, and that it was very temperate in tone. Even if my approach provokes some annoyance, I'm guessing, based on experience, that some of the annoyed individuals as well as onlookers will be influenced by it in a favorable direction.
Maybe yes, maybe no. In any case, can we make a deal? I'll be as tactful from now on as you were in your comment above. In return, will you join me in regularly reminding others that they can be more persuasive in their writing if they eschew the inflammatory, accusatory rhetoric, express their strong feelings in more restrained terms, and let the facts speak for themselves?
Since you would do this well, and since TPM might be the better for it, I hope you'll agree.
August 9, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guilty as charged about Ellen. She and I go way back, and I don't claim to be the voice of reason at all times; I often get so blinded that I spout off and my pals have to tell me to reign it in. With the comments here I had some distance and so I was able to be a little more objective as a "Wise mother of 3 Latinos" (although I'm not one myself!) Ha Ha! Glad you appreciated the feedback.
Sometimes we all have to step back and remember whose team we're on and that we all have a pretty ambitious goal in mind. My problem with all this is that I can't get over my personal notion that people who don't want universal health care and a public option are really selfish, and honestly DON'T care about our country. When I saw Mitch McConnell gloating that "They're winning!" I have to wonder exactly what they think they're winning? More money for their cronies is my take on it, and I can't seem to shake it. I don't have respect for that attitude or the people who have it, and so it is hard to sound like the voice of reason when disputing them.
For eight years they described any disagreement with the administration's policy as something close to treason. Now they are accusing Obama of wanting to euthanize people, Eric Cantor goes to Israel and criticizes our country's current policies, and they are inciting people to violence by stoking the belief that Obama is a Kenyan citizen bent on destroying the US! What is there to respect? Where is the common ground?
August 9, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make me think and that makes you an interesting read so keep up the good work.
August 9, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...how I feel we are performing." More than a few of us don't see our comments as performance art but as expressions of our opinions in a forum that allows the previously silenced to be heard.
"Truth to power"? As far as I can tell, you have decided who has the entrenched mindsets and are therefore powerful and then sit in judgment as to whether or not any of those folks are living up to their potential. And exactly who elected you as TPM judge, Fred? No one. Instead, you have apparently decided to have folks edit their voices instead of speaking out freely. You'll have to think about your own reasons for that. You're merely excusing your judgmental tendencies with the "truth to power" argument in this context.
"I'm not sure anyone else here is doing it, and it needs to be done." Well, bully for you. Ask TPM if you can be Cafe monitor if this so needs to be done.
"I've noticed some success already" Yeah, sure.
"I've only been here a few months, but already I've been fortunate enough to find several of my posts linked to on the Google news page listing blogs on controversial issues. I believe one reason for this is that I write in a way that won't immediately be dismissed by outsiders because it's short on facts and long on angry denunciations." Well, again, bully for you. But the rest of us don't have your motivations to be noticed and so don't care whether or not we meet the standards you are trying to impose.
"...rather than remaining silent while they let themselves and the rest of us down." Again, you're being judgmental and prissy. Sends a private message if this continues to drive you.
I can appreciate your "policy" posts, Fred. But this was certainly not a policy post and you stepped right in and wanted to change rational's voice and therefore his/her freedom of speech and expression. If you want to "improve" Rational then do so privately so the rest of us don't have to suffer through lengthy diatribes on your judgments and standards. My advice is to keep to policy and stay away from stylistic issues.
My two cents.....
August 9, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're entitled to your opinion, but I have seen evidence my pushing is helping to influence some individuals. Others are determined not to change, and that is their prerogative.
August 9, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, shut up Fred!
The cafe was great before you showed up, and if you leave, it'll still be great.
Plenty of angry blogs make it onto to google. You want to stick with the same ineffective policies that got us here. That's your prerogative, but you aren't necessarily right, and there's lots of ways to reach people. If things are changing it isn't because of passionless podunks like you. It's in spite of milquetoast nanny pronouncements from people like you.
Good grief!
August 9, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Rational operates on the assumption that all elected officials become elected because of their desire to implement a fixed set of ideological beliefs.
If you take this thought to its logical conclusion, it means that every elected official is really a party activist who is better than average in schmoozing the electorate into voting for him/her.
I think this is ideological partisanship in its most extreme form. It boils down to devising ways to seize power in the current climate so that X or Y becomes official policy.
But what about those who become elected without being chained to a particular ideology? What about those who actually believe in reflecting the will of their constituents, especially in conservative districts?
Believe in being a "representative" of the people, not a representative of a party?
August 9, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I do not believe that "all elected officials become elected because of their desire to implement a fixed set of ideological beliefs."
Some are elected as a trusted representative individual who are honored in spite of their views. ( Sen. Norris- Neb. only man to vote against WW I and WW II, Ev Dirksen-Ill and others)
Some are promoted and subsequently elected as tools of special interests.
Many, too many, run and are elected in their pursuit of Power and ego staisfaction with no real agenda other then self aggrandization ( i.e. Lierman and Spectre) To them issues are only viewed in the context of how they will personally affect their power and position.
I place the Blue Dogs in the latter two classes who are oppurtunistic rather then principled and driven by self interest rather then by public interest.
They, like ther R brethern, capitalize on fear, ignorance and prejudice create controversy rather then to calm, educate and promote the common good.
So no I do believe that all candinates are driven by a "fixed set of ideological beliefs" but I do believe that for sake of truth in Packaging they should run with the party that more closely stands where they do. In the case of the Blue Dogs that is with the R's.
August 9, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink