Editorial on the pathetic Weakness of Democrats
Google Beta User
not. It's the habit of bringing a table knife to a gun-fight.
The Unbearable Weakness of Democratic Being
A Rasmussen poll now has the Republican Party as more trusted on the
health care issue than Democrats. That's insanity. The Republicans
have killed all efforts at health care reform before, they're killing
it as we speak and they almost exclusively represent the interests of
the private insurance companies who want to continue to jack up our
rates (private insurance premiums have gone up 119% in the last ten
years).
So, how are they winning? Because the Democrats brought a scalpel to a
gun fight. The Republicans have attacked and attacked and attacked.
Meanwhile, what has been the Democratic response? They're reaching out
in a spirit of bipartisanship. Why?
Someone says they're going to bite your head off and will almost all
vote against you, what is your purpose in continuing to reach out to
them? They say they will under no circumstances vote for real health
care reform with a public option, which you have said many times
before is essential. They are in essence saying the only way they
would vote for your bill is if they were positive it sucked. So, why
do the Democrats continue to help the Republicans in killing this
thing?
It is the unbearable weakness of Democratic being. They cannot find it
in their hearts to strongly argue for their own position. To be fair,
in this case, the weakness is mainly Obama's. The White House has
clearly indicated this weekend that they have already given up on the
public option -- and they're still begging the Republicans to work
with them. Frankly, it's pathetic.
This continual and monumental weakness has a price. When the other
side makes its case and you don't -- you lose. The Republicans never
hesitate to make their case, even if they have to lie, cheat and
scaremonger to do it. While the Democrats are scared of their own
shadow. Obama is playing patty-cakes out there in his town halls. When
is the last time he threw a real punch?
Grassley says Obama wants to kill your grandmother. And what's the
price for this hideous slander? Obama promises he'll continue to reach
out to him. Why? Are you looking for advice on how to kill grandma?
The guy just spit in your face. What are you going to do about it?
This isn't a matter of being pointlessly tough so we can feel good.
We're losing the debate! It's because our leaders refuse to make the
case. The other side might be vicious liars, but at least they have
some lions who are willing to fight. Who do we have? Obama and his
team of weaklings?
Now, I see why they didn't ask Howard Dean to be part of this
administration. It's because he doesn't fit in. He's a fighter. He
believes in real health care reform and is willing to fight for it.
Just compare Dean's appearances on television and Sebelius's. It's a
joke. When is the last time you saw her make a forceful and convincing
case for the public option, or for that matter any part of the reform
proposal?
It looks like they didn't ask Dean on board because they never
believed they were going to do the public option in the first place.
They didn't want a guy in there who was a believer. They got bucklers
because they wanted bucklers.
A friend of mine just asked me why we don't hold this issue up for a
vote with the public. I said we did; it was called the 2008 election.
We gave the Democrats the White House, an overwhelming majority in the
House and a filibuster-proof Senate. How much clearer did we have to
be?
The problem is that the party we voted for isn't the party we got. At
some point there has to be a price for not ever delivering on your
promises, and worse yet, not really trying very hard. If Obama
continues to bring the weak sauce, there has to come a point when we
begin to wonder why we elected him as well.
American Raven
"Google Beta User" <wany...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6428793-80bc-4e57...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
The Democrats don't need any Republican votes. They have a 60 seat
super-majority in the Senate and a large majority in the House. Barry O.
could easily tell Pelosi and Reid to make all the Democrats vote for any
bill and it would pass without a single Republican vote.
It's funny how this "Journalist" fails to mention that little fact. I guess
blaming other people is Barry O's M.O.
Google Beta User
wrote:
> The Democrats don't need any Republican votes. They have a 60 seat
> super-majority in the Senate and a large majority in the House. Barry O.
> could easily tell Pelosi and Reid to make all the Democrats vote for any
> bill and it would pass without a single Republican vote.
>
> It's funny how this "Journalist" fails to mention that little fact.
? That's the articles entire point.
shiite
This falls under the category of "Duh." The hope and change kool aid
was mostly sugar. Rational minds shouldn't be wandering what went
wrong. They should be wandering what in the hell made them believe
that someone with ZERO policy experience could make an effective
President. Trading experience for touchy-feely/1st African-American/
hope and change has a predictable result. This is it. Pining for
Howard Dean is a clear indicator that the writer still doesn't get it.
"So, why do the Democrats continue to help the Republicans in killing
this thing? It is the unbearable weakness of Democratic being. They
cannot find it in their hearts to strongly argue for their own
position."
Again, "Duh." It is difficult to manufacture passion for a position
that hasn't been taken.
Jon Enslin
saying something along the lines of "Why don't *we* exercise power
like the Democrats do!!!"
It seems to me that majorities govern "not to lose," instead of to
implement the agenda they ran on in the first place.
Jon
Con Reeder
> So, how are they winning? Because the Democrats brought a scalpel to a
> gun fight. The Republicans have attacked and attacked and attacked.
> Meanwhile, what has been the Democratic response? They're reaching out
> in a spirit of bipartisanship. Why?
Because you fight to keep your money harder than you fight to get at
other people's money?
If Obama and the Democrats had not forced through the bailout and
Porkulus bill to pay off the constituencies that elected them, then they
might have had the political capital to do health care. But they handed
out the largest pork-fest in history all while mouthing the usual
platitudes about "fighting earmarks".
Then they pushed through the Waxman-Markey baloney. What a boner.
Anything left of their political capital -- gone with the wind
power. Anyone with half a brain -- and that apparently doesn't
include most Democrats -- knows that Waxman-Markey is a literally
worse than useless bill. And Democratic leadership squandered a
huge number of favors and a lot of credibility getting that pathetic
excuse for a bill passed in the house.
Now the nation is a trillion dollars poorer, knows it is a trillion
dollars poorer, and also knows that Obama and the democrats were lying
about "change". "Cash for Clunkers", the "green energy grants", and
other debacles, stunningly mismanaged by the Obama administration,
show that nothing has changed in Washington. "Do what I say not what
I do" chips away at confidence in the ruling party.
Congress knows there is going to be a bloodbath in 2010 as all
of this comes home to roost. For the Democrats, it is not a
united front -- it is now every man for himself.
Bottom line is that Obama's a rookie, and he has been playing like
a rookie.
--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison
xyzzy
Actually Bush's GOP majority aggressively pursued their agenda and
basically said FU to anyone who didn't agree. One reason the Dems are
so weak here is that they are trying please people they can never
please.
I think that's basically the GOP played to win by one vote, while the
Dems want to be broadly popular. IOW, Republicans are better at
calibrating exactly how much political capital they can afford to
spend and stay in power, while Democrats try to hoard all of it.
lein
But what is the Dems agenda? They gained control by putting up
conservative candidates in many districts. Did they really think
they would suddenly become far left supporters of Pelosi and Obama?
lein
> Comment: The point is not wether you agree with their position or
> not. It's the habit of bringing a table knife to a gun-fight.
>
> The Unbearable Weakness of Democratic Being
>
> A Rasmussen poll now has the Republican Party as more trusted on the
> health care issue than Democrats. That's insanity.
No, not really, the public clearly didn't want this 1000 page
legislation rammed through in three weeks as the Democrats originally
planned (remember, Obama wanted this before the August recess, as did
Pelosi and Reid). To me, that was insane.
People aren't stupid, they know it was nothing more than a game to get
it in before people realize what is in it, and given the earlier
antics of this congress/administration, it is well founded.
StephenJ
> On Aug 18, 9:47 am, Jon Enslin <jens...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > What's funny about this is that just a few years ago, Republicans were
> > saying something along the lines of "Why don't *we* exercise power
> > like the Democrats do!!!"
>
> > It seems to me that majorities govern "not to lose," instead of to
> > implement the agenda they ran on in the first place.
>
> > Jon
>
> Actually Bush's GOP majority aggressively pursued their agenda and
> basically said FU to anyone who didn't agree. One reason the Dems are
> so weak here is that they are trying please people they can never
> please.
the democrats have been losing on health care because for over year,
obama hammered home the claim that he had a plan that would cover
virtually all Americans AND simultaneously lower HC costs. When the
COB came out with that report in mid-june saying the Obama plan would
not cover anywhere near americans and would add $1 trillion to the
deficit, the wheels fell off, and so far the dems haven't been able to
put them back on.
Cyclone Ranger
> I think that's basically the GOP played to win by one vote, while the
> Dems want to be broadly popular. IOW, Republicans are better at
> calibrating exactly how much political capital they can afford to
> spend and stay in power, while Democrats try to hoard all of it.
GWB said as much the day after he was relected in 2004. “I have
earned some political capital and I intend to use it.”
Lord Gow333, hired thug of the insurance industry!
"Cyclone Ranger" <damon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c14bd77b-4676-4fde...@r24g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 8:52 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that's basically the GOP played to win by one vote, while the
> Dems want to be broadly popular. IOW, Republicans are better at
> calibrating exactly how much political capital they can afford to
> spend and stay in power, while Democrats try to hoard all of it.
GWB said as much the day after he was relected in 2004. �I have
earned some political capital and I intend to use it.�
~~~~
He was also the master of asking for 150%, letting the Dems scream and
whine, and then "bargaining down" to the 100% that he wanted in the first
place. He got what he wanted much of the time but it looked like a Dem
victory.
LG (read a book on it)
--
"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible." - George
W.Bush
Cyclone Ranger
industry!" <lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Cyclone Ranger" <damonhy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c14bd77b-4676-4fde...@r24g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 8:52 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that's basically the GOP played to win by one vote, while the
> > Dems want to be broadly popular. IOW, Republicans are better at
> > calibrating exactly how much political capital they can afford to
> > spend and stay in power, while Democrats try to hoard all of it.
>
> earned some political capital and I intend to use it.”
>
> ~~~~
> He was also the master of asking for 150%, letting the Dems scream and
> whine, and then "bargaining down" to the 100% that he wanted in the first
> place. He got what he wanted much of the time but it looked like a Dem
> victory.
>
> LG (read a book on it)
> --
> "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible." - George
> W.Bush
I know, I know. Learned that from Clinton, and GWB never claimed to
be a conservative.
shiite
> On 2009-08-18, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Congress knows there is going to be a bloodbath in 2010 as all
> of this comes home to roost. For the Democrats, it is not a
> united front -- it is now every man for himself.
He're's hoping that Bbama gets "Clintoned," and that we get GOP
majorities in both chambers. Gridlock looks really good right now.
lein
One exception - the Dems could block legislation, today, the Rs can't
even add fruit cocktail to the Senate lunch menu.
Guy Namechanger
On Aug 18, 10:27 am, "Lord Gow333, hired thug of the insurance
industry!" <lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Cyclone Ranger" <damonhy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c14bd77b-4676-4fde...@r24g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 8:52 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that's basically the GOP played to win by one vote, while the
> > Dems want to be broadly popular. IOW, Republicans are better at
> > calibrating exactly how much political capital they can afford to
> > spend and stay in power, while Democrats try to hoard all of it.
>
> GWB said as much the day after he was relected in 2004. �I have
> earned some political capital and I intend to use it.�
>
> ~~~~
> He was also the master of asking for 150%, letting the Dems scream and
> whine, and then "bargaining down" to the 100% that he wanted in the first
> place. He got what he wanted much of the time but it looked like a Dem
> victory.
>
> LG (read a book on it)
>
++++++++++++
I know, I know. Learned that from Clinton, and GWB never claimed to
be a conservative.
+++++++++++++
hush, kook.
Wonko the Sane
and/or the loonier factions of the majority party tend to hijack the
bandwagon.
Doug
Con Reeder
> On Aug 18, 9:48�am, Con Reeder <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-08-18, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Congress knows there is going to be a bloodbath in 2010 as all
>> of this comes home to roost. For the Democrats, it is not a
>> united front -- it is now every man for himself.
>
> He're's hoping that Bbama gets "Clintoned," and that we get GOP
> majorities in both chambers. Gridlock looks really good right now.
Clinton was all for cutting the size of government and did a great job
of working toward that, along with the Republican congress.
Alas, Obama looks like he is all for *expansion* of the government. And
from the looks of the types of programs he has run so far -- "Cash for
Clunkers" and "Green Energy Grants" -- the goverment looks to be
reaching for new heights of inefficiency.
I was hoping Obama would surprise me and come in and do a cool,
competent job. My hopes have very definitely been dashed.
--
There comes a time when you should stop expecting other people to make
a big deal about your birthday. That time is age 12. -- Dave Barry
Wonko the Sane
>
> > What's funny about this is that just a few years ago, Republicans were
> > saying something along the lines of "Why don't *we* exercise power
> > like the Democrats do!!!"
>
> > It seems to me that majorities govern "not to lose," instead of to
> > implement the agenda they ran on in the first place.
>
> > Jon
>
> Actually Bush's GOP majority aggressively pursued their agenda and
> basically said FU to anyone who didn't agree.
That sounds pretty much like the current democrat playbook, except
Bush was less arrogant about it.
Doug
Anthony Summers
> That sounds pretty much like the current democrat playbook, except
> Bush was less arrogant about it.
*LOL*!!!!!!!!!! ($1 Jaros)
Are you serious with this garbage, Douglas?
Bush was arrogant enough about his agenda that he brazenly invaded a
sovreign nation who'd done nothing to us (recently) because he wanted to
do so... without justification and overriding the protests of much of
the rest of the world in the process. His arrogance and hubris got
4,000+ American Soldiers killed. 'Bush was less arrogant'. Get real.
--
A. Summers || summerstorm0007-->at<--yahoo.com
Edward M. Kennedy
> What's funny about this is that just a few years ago, Republicans were
> saying something along the lines of "Why don't *we* exercise power
> like the Democrats do!!!"
>
> It seems to me that majorities govern "not to lose," instead of to
> implement the agenda they ran on in the first place.
<
<and/or the loonier factions of the majority party tend to hijack the
<bandwagon.
Somebody update Homeland Security! CODE RED!!!
--Tedward
xyzzy
I don't think so, if that was happening with the Democrats Obama would
be cramming single payer and repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, just to
name two, through. I agree with the analogy that he is governing "not
to lose" which involves screwing his lunatic fringe which will come
back to bite him when he needs people to stuff those envelopes and
ring those doorbells.
Edward M. Kennedy
"xyzzy" <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > What's funny about this is that just a few years ago, Republicans were
> > saying something along the lines of "Why don't *we* exercise power
> > like the Democrats do!!!"
>
> > It seems to me that majorities govern "not to lose," instead of to
> > implement the agenda they ran on in the first place.
>
> and/or the loonier factions of the majority party tend to hijack the
> bandwagon.
<
<I don't think so, if that was happening with the Democrats Obama would
<be cramming single payer and repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, just to
<name two, through. I agree with the analogy that he is governing "not
<to lose" which involves screwing his lunatic fringe which will come
<back to bite him when he needs people to stuff those envelopes and
<ring those doorbells.
Oh won't you staaaayaayaaay
Just a little bit longer
--Tedward
xyzzy
Apparently he at least learned something from his father, who earned
lots of political capital and then dribbled it away.
Google Beta User
> Actually Bush's GOP majority aggressively pursued their agenda and
> basically said FU to anyone who didn't agree. One reason the Dems are
> so weak here is that they are trying please people they can never
> please.
Isn't the latest that the GOP is pretty much saying they'll bazooka
"co-ops" too?
Wonko the Sane
wrote:
You've learned your talking points well, grasshopper. Now tell me
when Bush ever handed a finished bill to the dimmercraps, said how do
you like it and called that bipartisanship.
Doug
Anthony Summers
> > Bush was arrogant enough about his agenda that he brazenly invaded a
> > sovreign nation who'd done nothing to us (recently) because he wanted to
> > do so... without justification and overriding the protests of much of
> > the rest of the world in the process. His arrogance and hubris got
> > 4,000+ American Soldiers killed. 'Bush was less arrogant'. Get real.
> >
>
> You've learned your talking points well, grasshopper.
You dare to try that 'talking point' BS with me of all people in
relation to the above topic. We're done here. Say hi to the troll.
clundst
> Comment: The point is not wether you agree with their position or
> not. It's the habit of bringing a table knife to a gun-fight.
>
> The Unbearable Weakness of Democratic Being
>
>
> So, how are they winning? Because the Democrats brought a scalpel to a
> gun fight. The Republicans have attacked and attacked and attacked.
> Meanwhile, what has been the Democratic response? They're reaching out
> in a spirit of bipartisanship. Why?
I was going to read the whole thing, then I got here. Ask the Blue
Dogs how kind and gentle the democrats are being about things.
Bipartisanship? Please.
I hope you didn't make any good points later on....
Carl Lundstedt
UNL
Jaybyrd
> Comment: The point is not wether you agree with their position or
> not. It's the habit of bringing a table knife to a gun-fight.
>
> The Unbearable Weakness of Democratic Being
>
> have killed all efforts at health care reform before, they're killing
> it as we speak and they almost exclusively represent the interests of
> the private insurance companies who want to continue to jack up our
> rates (private insurance premiums have gone up 119% in the last ten
> years).
>
> gun fight. The Republicans have attacked and attacked and attacked.
> Meanwhile, what has been the Democratic response? They're reaching out
> in a spirit of bipartisanship. Why?
>
Much of the issue is that when you are the opposition party of any
free government you are in a unique position to simply be negative
about anything and everything. It worked for the dems in terms of
Iraq (even thought that was an easy target). Most Americans don't
know what it is everyone is negative about.
mianderson
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Wonko the Sane wrote...
> > > Bush was arrogant enough about his agenda that he brazenly invaded a
> > > sovreign nation who'd done nothing to us (recently) because he wanted to
> > > do so... without justification and overriding the protests of much of
> > > the rest of the world in the process. His arrogance and hubris got
> > > 4,000+ American Soldiers killed. 'Bush was less arrogant'. Get real.
>
> > You've learned your talking points well, grasshopper.
>
> You dare to try that 'talking point' BS with me of all people
oh jesus....back to the "how dare you...Im a veteran" nonsense mode of
thinking.......
Wonko the Sane
YAY!
Doug
McMahone
The "Dems are losing because they aren't mean enough" meme is
basically ridiculous--and mostly shows a lack of self awareness on the
part of the writer.
I wonder if he remembers four years of "selected not elected" just as
a minor for instance.
Marty
John Rogers
filthy animal.
This guys delusional madness is very funy.
John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really
know about what they imagine they can design."
(Friedrich Hayek)
John Rogers
animal.
>On Aug 18, 9:47�am, Jon Enslin <jens...@charter.net> wrote:
>> What's funny about this is that just a few years ago, Republicans were
>> saying something along the lines of "Why don't *we* exercise power
>> like the Democrats do!!!"
>>
>> It seems to me that majorities govern "not to lose," instead of to
>> implement the agenda they ran on in the first place.
>>
>> Jon
>
>Actually Bush's GOP majority aggressively pursued their agenda and
>basically said FU to anyone who didn't agree.
To begin with, kinda sorta.
Too bad it wasn't a conservative agenda they were pursuing.
John Rogers
animal.
>On Aug 18, 6:47�am, Jon Enslin <jens...@charter.net> wrote:
>> What's funny about this is that just a few years ago, Republicans were
>> saying something along the lines of "Why don't *we* exercise power
>> like the Democrats do!!!"
>>
>> It seems to me that majorities govern "not to lose," instead of to
>> implement the agenda they ran on in the first place.
>
>But what is the Dems agenda? They gained control by putting up
>conservative candidates in many districts. Did they really think
>they would suddenly become far left supporters of Pelosi and Obama?
Don't think for one little second that a "Blue Dog" wouldn't vote with
their girl Nan if they thought they could get away with it.
They would.
John Rogers
animal.
>On 2009-08-18, shiite <uncd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 18, 9:48�am, Con Reeder <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2009-08-18, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Congress knows there is going to be a bloodbath in 2010 as all
>>> of this comes home to roost. For the Democrats, it is not a
>>> united front -- it is now every man for himself.
>>
>> He're's hoping that Bbama gets "Clintoned," and that we get GOP
>> majorities in both chambers. Gridlock looks really good right now.
>
>Clinton was all for cutting the size of government and did a great job
>of working toward that, along with the Republican congress.
Government did not get smaller during the Clinton Administration.
Google Beta User
> Don't think for one little second that a "Blue Dog" wouldn't vote with
> their girl Nan if they thought they could get away with it.
>
> They would.
What's the conservative view of Blue Dog (Bayh, Nelson, types)? On
the street and bloggers mostly.
I haven't followed politics as closely as I have since the 2008
campaign, but the impression I get is that at least in the senate,
bluster aside, many of these 1. pundits and 2. senators are actually
pretty close with each other, regardless of their political party.
Google Beta User
> > So, how are they winning? Because the Democrats brought a scalpel to a
> > gun fight. The Republicans have attacked and attacked and attacked.
> > Meanwhile, what has been the Democratic response? They're reaching out
> > in a spirit of bipartisanship. Why?
>
> I was going to read the whole thing, then I got here. Ask the Blue
> Dogs how kind and gentle the democrats are being about things.
> Bipartisanship? Please.
Max Baucus.
The whole reason for dragging is that the Blue Dogs and Senate
Finan...uh, Max Baucus want "consensus votes". Funny thing is that
Republicans are saying there is almost nothing the Blue Dogs or Baucus
can come out with that they'll vote for.
Google Beta User
> Much of the issue is that when you are the opposition party of any
> free government you are in a unique position to simply be negative
> about anything and everything. It worked for the dems in terms of
> Iraq (even thought that was an easy target).
Except that they caved in and had no credibility on the issue because
they VOTED for the war.
Kerry and Clinton's rationalizations in 2004 and 2008 were cringe
inducing.
Jaybyrd
Did you copy this word for word from AM talk radio?
John Rogers
filthy animal.
>On Aug 19, 4:26�am, John Rogers <tiger7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The only reason the VAST majority of "conservative" (ha) Blue Dogs
don't vote with their girl Nan is because they want to keep their job.
Inevitably, if they have enough votes the party will "allow" the Blue
Dogs to vote "against" Pelosi/Stoyer-grade legislation.
I forget the name of one of them, but in the legislation that already
passed the House, one of the Blue Dogs was on the committee and voted
for every measure in the bill in committee and against every attempt
by the Republicans to amend it.
Then, on the floor, he voted AGAINST it.
A Blue Dog is just another liberal Democrat more in favor of his job
security than his own guilty conscience.
Jaybyrd
> Hey, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com>... keep the change, you
> filthy animal.
>
> >On Aug 19, 4:26 am, John Rogers <tiger7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Don't think for one little second that a "Blue Dog" wouldn't vote with
> >> their girl Nan if they thought they could get away with it.
>
> >> They would.
>
> >What's the conservative view of Blue Dog (Bayh, Nelson, types)? On
> >the street and bloggers mostly.
>
> >I haven't followed politics as closely as I have since the 2008
> >campaign, but the impression I get is that at least in the senate,
> >bluster aside, many of these 1. pundits and 2. senators are actually
> >pretty close with each other, regardless of their political party.
>
> The only reason the VAST majority of "conservative" (ha) Blue Dogs
> don't vote with their girl Nan is because they want to keep their job.
>
> Inevitably, if they have enough votes the party will "allow" the Blue
> Dogs to vote "against" Pelosi/Stoyer-grade legislation.
>
> I forget the name of one of them, but in the legislation that already
> passed the House, one of the Blue Dogs was on the committee and voted
> for every measure in the bill in committee and against every attempt
> by the Republicans to amend it.
>
> Then, on the floor, he voted AGAINST it.
>
> A Blue Dog is just another liberal Democrat more in favor of his job
> security than his own guilty conscience.
>
You bring up conscience when speaking of politicans?
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>Hey, Google Beta User <wany...@gmail.com>... keep the change, you
>filthy animal.
>
>>On Aug 19, 4:26�am, John Rogers <tiger7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't think for one little second that a "Blue Dog" wouldn't vote with
>>> their girl Nan if they thought they could get away with it.
>>>
>>> They would.
>>
>>What's the conservative view of Blue Dog (Bayh, Nelson, types)? On
>>the street and bloggers mostly.
>>
>>I haven't followed politics as closely as I have since the 2008
>>campaign, but the impression I get is that at least in the senate,
>>bluster aside, many of these 1. pundits and 2. senators are actually
>>pretty close with each other, regardless of their political party.
>
>The only reason the VAST majority of "conservative" (ha) Blue Dogs
>don't vote with their girl Nan is because they want to keep their job.
>
>Inevitably, if they have enough votes the party will "allow" the Blue
>Dogs to vote "against" Pelosi/Stoyer-grade legislation.
>
>I forget the name of one of them, but in the legislation that already
>passed the House, one of the Blue Dogs was on the committee and voted
>for every measure in the bill in committee and against every attempt
>by the Republicans to amend it.
>
>Then, on the floor, he voted AGAINST it.
>
>A Blue Dog is just another liberal Democrat more in favor of his job
>security than his own guilty conscience.
>
>John M. Rogers
I guess I am still too naive. I want to believe in their sincerity.
Hugh
John Rogers
animal.
Yes. They feel REALLY BAD when they don't get to vote with their
boyee Steny and their beeyotch Nan.