What Are Blue Dogs Worth?
That's the question I have to ask myself after reading
Salena Zito's great column on the issue. Blue Dog Democrats fancy themselves as conservative Democrats, though I'm not convinced anymore.
During the 90's, the Blue Dogs did vote more conservatively. When Nancy Pelosi replaced Dick Gebhardt, that trend changed. In fact, I think Pelosi's precinct boss mentality, which she got from her dad, is producing more party line votes. It's also causing more dissension and less participation in the caucus meetings. This doesn't reflect badly on the Blue Dogs. It's a sign of the increasing influence of the Nutroots crowd.
Tthat said, there's something that I'd disagree with from Ms. Zito's column:
Take taxes for instance. Most people think that they're overtaxed. The lone exception I've seen were the 203 'wealthy' liberals who paid for an ad in the Strib, saying that they should be paying more. What issue is more partisan than taxation? None.
Take national security. There aren't many issues that are more partisan these days than fighting the GWOT. While people don't think that President Bush has done a great job with Iraq, they know that Democrats aren't serious about Iraq because the Nutroots crowd won't let them be.
More than anything else, people are looking for leadership. That's where the Blue Dogs' reputation falters the most. I can't think of a single major initiative where they've shown leadership.
More than anything else, people are tuning out partisan Democrats who spout that day's mindless talking points. It isn't that people tune out partisans. It's that they tune out blowhards, most of whom are found on what might be called the 'Bombastic Left' if they weren't already called the Nutroots.
Posted Sunday, July 23, 2006 2:22 AM
June 2006 Posts
No comments.
During the 90's, the Blue Dogs did vote more conservatively. When Nancy Pelosi replaced Dick Gebhardt, that trend changed. In fact, I think Pelosi's precinct boss mentality, which she got from her dad, is producing more party line votes. It's also causing more dissension and less participation in the caucus meetings. This doesn't reflect badly on the Blue Dogs. It's a sign of the increasing influence of the Nutroots crowd.
Tthat said, there's something that I'd disagree with from Ms. Zito's column:
U.S. Rep. John Tanner, (D-TN), is one of the founders of the Blue Dog Coalition. "I think most Americans don't see the world as 'left' and 'right' but identify themselves somewhere in the ideological center, which I call the 'commonsense center,'" he says. "They, like us, have grown tired of the partisan bickering...they want realistic, pragmatic solutions to the problems facing our country."Mr. Tanner is right that people want common sense solutions to the nation's problems. That said, I've yet to see conclusive proof that people reject partisanship if the partisan is applying common sense and getting things done.
Take taxes for instance. Most people think that they're overtaxed. The lone exception I've seen were the 203 'wealthy' liberals who paid for an ad in the Strib, saying that they should be paying more. What issue is more partisan than taxation? None.
Take national security. There aren't many issues that are more partisan these days than fighting the GWOT. While people don't think that President Bush has done a great job with Iraq, they know that Democrats aren't serious about Iraq because the Nutroots crowd won't let them be.
More than anything else, people are looking for leadership. That's where the Blue Dogs' reputation falters the most. I can't think of a single major initiative where they've shown leadership.
More than anything else, people are tuning out partisan Democrats who spout that day's mindless talking points. It isn't that people tune out partisans. It's that they tune out blowhards, most of whom are found on what might be called the 'Bombastic Left' if they weren't already called the Nutroots.
Posted Sunday, July 23, 2006 2:22 AM
June 2006 Posts
No comments.
