The Blue Dogs - leaders of U.S. Congress

[sandman]

more evidence of the shift to the right by the Dems....

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/16126919.htm

Leaders of the House pack?

Blue Dogs could point way for the Democrats.
By Steve Goldstein
Inquirer Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - President Harry S. Truman famously said: If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

For the new Democratic majority in Congress, the maxim should be changed: Get a Blue Dog.

The Blue Dog Coalition, a pack of conservative-to-moderate Democrats, has grown to 44 members in the new House of Representatives, including Bucks County's Patrick Murphy, and represents a powerful and pivotal voting bloc that could determine what legislation is passed in the 110th Congress.

Resident scholar Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute said the Blue Dogs "hold the balance of power" for the Democratic agenda.

Political analyst Charlie Cook said a prominent Republican told him that if House Republicans want to remain relevant, "they would take their cues not from the White House" but from the Blue Dogs.

"Who would have thought even six months ago that one of the largest groups in the Democratic House caucus would be conservative to moderate Democrats," said Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas, communications cochairman for the group.

There are nine new blue "puppies," in the group's cuddly lexicon, an increase of about 25 percent and a voting coalition that makes up about one-fifth of House Democrats.

One of the litter is Murphy, of Bucks County's Eighth District. He actively sought the group's endorsement early in his race against incumbent Republican Michael G. Fitzpatrick.

"While campaigning over the last 18 months, there were two issues that families were most concerned with: the war in Iraq and irresponsible spending in Washington," Murphy said. "I reached out to the leaders of the Blue Dog Coalition to show my dedication toward restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington."

Murphy's application was seconded by Rep. Tim Holden, the only other Pennsylvania Blue Dog member.

Wanting to be a Blue Dog is not nearly enough. Aspirants must undergo an extensive interview and screening process, according to Ross.

"We want hands-on participation and we want members that aren't just trying to look conservative back home, but who really do share our values and priorities," said Ross.

The Blue Dog endorsement carries a financial benefit, too. The coalition's political action committee raised $1.3 million for this election - much of it from the usual special-interest groups - and Murphy received $5,000 for his general election campaign.

Coalition members are expected to attend twice-weekly meetings and actively participate in making proposals and discussions. Murphy said he looked forward to "rolling up my sleeves and getting our fiscal house in order."

Ross said the group would focus on the budget, the debt and the deficit. "We have a 12-point plan for budget reform and a package of accountability bills to hold federal agencies accountable for their spending," said Ross. The latter is sometimes referred to as "paygo," for pay-as-you-go government spending programs.

Blue Dog Democrats also support strong defense policies, while steering away from "bedroom," or social, issues.

The Blue Dogs may already have had an impact.

Shortly after the election, the coalition wrote to incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) to object to her plans to award the chairmanship of the House intelligence committee to Florida Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, bypassing Californian Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the panel. Hastings is the only member of Congress ever to have been impeached and removed from office as a federal judge. He was acquitted by a jury of bribery charges in 1983, but an appeals court called for impeachment on different charges and referred the case to Congress, which removed him in 1989. Three years later, he was elected to the body that voted to end his judicial career.

On Tuesday, Pelosi told Hastings that he would not be chairman. She will choose someone other than the two top candidates, she said. The about-face on Hastings was welcomed by the Blue Dogs, though Harman, one of their pack, won't get the job.

The Blue Dog Coalition was formed by 21 House members in 1995 in the wake of the GOP congressional sweep. The name is a reference to "yellow dog Democrat," an old phrase describing Southerners so loyal to the party that they would sooner vote for a yellow dog than a Republican.

A Blue Dog Democrat is a yellow dog that has almost been choked to death - turned blue - by party extremists. Or one that's been left standing out in the cold.

Former Rep. Charlie Stenholm of Texas, a founding member, used to say that a Blue Dog "has a little better sense of smell than a yellow dog, and sometimes will bite you, which a yellow dog won't do."

Ross said the election results showed that Republicans were defeated by conservative to moderate Democrats, not liberals, so the new majority should let its Blue Dogs howl.

"We do not plan to be obstructionist," said Ross, "but we also do not plan to be rubber stamps." Or to follow the pack.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Good article.  I've said it before, this election was no mandate for great change.  People were just fed up with Republican bullshit and scandals.  The Democrats now have their turn to fuck it up.  The best thing they can do is avoid the Deans, Kennedys and Kerrys of the party.  America is a country of moderates with a very, very slight conservative streak.  Aligning yourself with extremist on either side is a career ender.

[Booker Floyd]

Leaders of the House pack?

Great question!

Ill answer:







These are the leaders of the House.  Guess how many are Blue Dogs?

Some other recent Blue Dog triumphs not mentioned in the article:

Ed Case losing his congressional seat after being defeated by Daniel Akaka in the Senate primary.
Harold Ford Jr. losing his congressional seat after being defeated by Bob Corker in the Senate race.

And they really spin the Intelligence Committee situation.  First, the author states that Pelosi intended to appoint Hastings as if it were fact.  Hastings was an option and I havent read anything indicating he was a sure thing.  Also, opposition to his appointment extended beyond the Blue Dog Coalition.  The author says he was elected to the body that had impeached him, which is wrong.  The Senate impeached him, not the House.

The only sure thing, and the real point, is that the Blue Dog member lost her prestigious assignment, which the author conveniently glosses over.  He makes an issue of Hastings before mentioning Harmans Blue Dog membership as an afterthought, a true marker of his bias.  He, like you, is probably a conservative (possibly a Republican) seeking to marginalize the core of the Democratic Party by aggrandizing the minority faction with which he most identifies.     

If youre impressed with the Blue Dogs 44 members, youll be interested to learn that the Congressional Progressive Caucus is the largest in Congress, with 62 members.

Aligning yourself with extremist on either side is a career ender.

Says the guy who identifies with and posts Ann Coulter articles.

[The Dog]

Booker beat me to the punch - sums up reality quite nicely.  Great line at the end btw  haha.

I agree with Booker's assumptions about the author too - its funny that the conservatives are STILL trying to downplay the mid terms.  Maybe they should be focusing on the future, not the past?

[sandman]

25% increase is major.

one-fifth and growing. 

their influence and power is significant.

[Booker Floyd]

25% increase is major.

one-fifth and growing. 

Hey, if it means knocking out Republicans in conservative districts so that the core of the Democratic Party can expand their influence, as they have, then were in agreement.  Every one of those Blue Dogs voted for the same Speaker.

[pilferk]

25% increase is major.

one-fifth and growing. 

their influence and power is significant.

Hmm...by how much did the Democrats, as a whole, increase their % in the House?

About 16% or so?

They (the Blue Dogs) outperformed the norms, both in total % of house dems and in dems elected, by about 10%.

Noteable? Sure.  Remarkable? Not really....especially considering where those dems were elected (states and counties).

[pilferk]

25% increase is major.

one-fifth and growing. 

Hey, if it means knocking out Republicans in conservative districts so that the core of the Democratic Party can expand their influence, as they have, then were in agreement.  Every one of those Blue Dogs voted for the same Speaker.

Heh...beat me to it.

That's pretty much exactly the point.

And anyone still insisting this election wasn't a mandate for change is burying their head in the sands and ignoring what the voters said;  Not just in the election itself, but in the exit polls that were conducted.

Not coincidentally, I'm sure, that's precisely the stance taken by key parts of this administration.

[sandman]

25% increase is major.

one-fifth and growing.?

Hey, if it means knocking out Republicans in conservative districts so that the core of the Democratic Party can expand their influence, as they have, then were in agreement.? Every one of those Blue Dogs voted for the same Speaker.

you're making my point. it took conservative democrats to take control of the house.

would they have won with far left wing candidates? probably. but since they didn't we'll never know for sure.

RF hit the nail on the head....this country is moderate. and the more successful party will be the one that courts moderates more effectively. for several years it was the republicans. in recent months it was the democrats. and that success is at least in part due to running more conservative candidates (i.e. moving towards the right).

[pilferk]

you're making my point. it took conservative democrats to take control of the house.

Untrue.

They needed 16 seats.  They pulled 30.  9 of those seats were "Blue Dogs".

30 - 9 =21.

21 > 16.



Now, if you want to say there are more moderates in the dem party this go round, I'll certainly agree.  You have to have more moderates to win in traditionally red states and red districts.

But to say that without them, the dems wouldn't have control....or to think they're going to have a large influence over the Dem rank and file in the House....that's not true.

[sandman]

you're making my point. it took conservative democrats to take control of the house.

Untrue.

They needed 16 seats.? They pulled 30.? 9 of those seats were "Blue Dogs".

30 - 9 =21.

21 > 16.



Now, if you want to say there are more moderates in the dem party this go round, I'll certainly agree.? You have to have more moderates to win in traditionally red states and red districts.

But to say that without them, the dems wouldn't have control....or to think they're going to have a large influence over the Dem rank and file in the House....that's not true.

not every moderate dem is a blue dog.

the dems are gonna need the votes of some BDs to get anything done.

[pilferk]

not every moderate dem is a blue dog.

the dems are gonna need the votes of some BDs to get anything done.

No, but every conservative dem, as far as I can tell, is (you did say conservative, not moderate).

As they'll need some votes from liberal dems and their groups (Congressional Progressive Caucus, for example).   So what's your point?  That they'll have to work together?  Don't we pretty much know that, through common sense, already?

And so far...they've voted right along the party lines..at least for leadership.

The BD's are no more or less likely to "stick to their guns" as the more liberal members of the dem party in the house are, and they'll need to compromise no less.  They're no more influential than other groups are....which is entirely the point.  The author is vastly overstating their influence....as are you.

[The Dog]

I think the mid terms were more about getting rid of child molesters, those that sheild them, corrupt officials, a buffoon in the white house and his ultra conservative neo con buddies - not left, right or middle, moderate, conservative.  It was a change from the old gaurd to the new, republican to democrat.

[SLCPUNK]

I think the mid terms were more about getting rid of child molesters, those that sheild them, corrupt officials, a buffoon in the white house and his ultra conservative neo con buddies - not left, right or middle, moderate, conservative.  It was a change from the old gaurd to the new, republican to democrat.

The winning team just had to stand there while everybody threw the ball out of bounds.

[Booker Floyd]

I think the mid terms were more about getting rid of child molesters, those that sheild them

Mark Foley wasnt a child molestor.  He doesnt deserve much defending, but this false, lazy rhetoric doesnt help anybody.

[The Dog]

I think the mid terms were more about getting rid of child molesters, those that sheild them

Mark Foley wasnt a child molestor.  He doesnt deserve much defending, but this false, lazy rhetoric doesnt help anybody.

yeah, you're right, he never did touch any kids.  i mentioned it b/c it was just one of MANY things that turned people off the Repubs.  I think how the repubs handled it is worth mentioning in talking about why people voted democrat and not republican.