If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The Democratic party next year will be the closest to a fully left, socialist brigade than it's ever been, thanks to the electoral evisceration of their core voice of reason: The Blue Dogs   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 360
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

7717 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2010 at 10:59 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



360 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-19 08:57:08 AM  
Who were voted out for not being Republican enough, if you believe the election results.

Seriously, this is a tired talking point. Democrats want results from their party, and the Blue Dogs were doing the same bullshiat the Republican Party is currently doing: Obstructing the process for personal/political gains. In spite of a lost majority in the Senate, the Democrats are better off without these anchors.
 
2010-11-19 09:10:49 AM  
Ronaldo Vega: Who were voted out for not being Republican enough, if you believe the election results.

Seriously, this is a tired talking point. Democrats want results from their party, and the Blue Dogs were doing the same bullshiat the Republican Party is currently doing: Obstructing the process for personal/political gains. In spite of a lost majority in the Senate, the Democrats are better off without these anchors.


It is not a talking point, it is a fact. There are now much less moderate Democrats now. Most of the of the Democrats who kept their seat are quite Liberal indeed.

What either side says that means may be a talking point but that is another story.
 
2010-11-19 09:10:51 AM  
Blue Dogs? "Reasonable"? Give me a goddamn break. Being Republican-lite doesn't make you "reasonable," especially when your sole goal is re-election, therefore you have to be as obstructionist as the Republican jagoffs on the other side of the aisle.
 
2010-11-19 09:12:59 AM  
tnpir: jagoffs

May I ask what region of the U.S. you grew up in?
 
2010-11-19 09:15:42 AM  
mrshowrules: Ronaldo Vega: Who were voted out for not being Republican enough, if you believe the election results.

Seriously, this is a tired talking point. Democrats want results from their party, and the Blue Dogs were doing the same bullshiat the Republican Party is currently doing: Obstructing the process for personal/political gains. In spite of a lost majority in the Senate, the Democrats are better off without these anchors.

It is not a talking point, it is a fact. There are now much less moderate Democrats now. Most of the of the Democrats who kept their seat are quite Liberal indeed.

What either side says that means may be a talking point but that is another story.




The fact no matter who is in-charge, we will end up extending tax breaks while the deficit balloons says otherwise.


We could use some good ol' fashion tax and spend liberals. Because we're stuck with spend and use old people and cripple's social security or health-care to pay for it asshats in both parties.
 
2010-11-19 09:15:49 AM  
You mean the Democrats who said "fark you" to the voters who originally put them in office and cried "I can be just as Republican as the Republican candidate" to the other half of the electorate (who said "yes, but you're not ACTUALLY Republican so, no vote for you) didn't keep their seats with that awesome strategy? Unpossible!
 
2010-11-19 09:25:18 AM  
Country has been trending left for awhile now. This just show in those districts people we're pissed about democrats calling themselves democrats when they had no interest in progressive change.
 
2010-11-19 09:25:45 AM  
mrshowrules: It is not a talking point, it is a fact

The headline implies that the Democratic party has become, or is becoming, a "Socialist Brigade" due to the loss of the Blue Dogs. It's a talking point.

mrshowrules: There are now much less moderate Democrats now.

And who's fault is that? They weren't voted out of their districts because they weren't liberal enough. They were voted out because they weren't Republican enough. The people in their districts made the decision to remove them, not the Democratic Party. This does not imply some conscious effort to swing the party to the left, it's the effect of Republicans and Tea Partiers swinging hard right and increasing their voter turnout.
 
2010-11-19 09:28:00 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf: Country has been trending left for awhile now. This just show in those districts people we're pissed about democrats calling themselves democrats when they had no interest in progressive change.

If the Blue Dogs were in lockstep agreement with Nancy Pelosi, they wouldn't have gotten elected in the first place.
 
2010-11-19 09:32:15 AM  
Ronaldo Vega: If the Blue Dogs were in lockstep agreement with Nancy Pelosi, they wouldn't have gotten elected in the first place.

Most of those blue dogs were in place long before Pelosi was huge on the political canvass.
 
2010-11-19 09:32:33 AM  
2wolves: tnpir: jagoffs

May I ask what region of the U.S. you grew up in?


Colorado. Why?
 
2010-11-19 09:38:02 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf: Most of those blue dogs were in place long before Pelosi was huge on the political canvass.

If you'll take my greater point: The Blue Dogs are Democrats that cater to Republican/Right leaning voters because they live in districts heavily populated by such. They wouldn't have been elected in the first place if they campaigned on a left leaning agenda.
 
2010-11-19 09:38:48 AM  
choke on a dick, liarmitter.

i'll bet ten bucks you can't even define "socialism."
 
2010-11-19 09:40:05 AM  
Ronaldo Vega: IdBeCrazyIf: Country has been trending left for awhile now. This just show in those districts people we're pissed about democrats calling themselves democrats when they had no interest in progressive change.

If the Blue Dogs were in lockstep agreement with Nancy Pelosi, they wouldn't have gotten elected in the first place.


Gene Taylor, a bluedog from Mississippi, got beat because he voted with Pelosi.

He was one of the most "conservative" democrats and it kept getting him reelected for years. However, the public is sick of any democrat (at least here) and it cost him the election. He has won by 60+%. After Katrina, it was even harder to beat him.

For the blind dog leftists here on Fark, he lost because the last 2 years the democrats have been out of control. His Mississippi district isn't filled with unemployed welfare queens or hispanics that vote for dems because they are braindead. Perhaps that is why the liberals keep getting reelected.
 
2010-11-19 09:40:25 AM  
Ronaldo Vega: If you'll take my greater point: The Blue Dogs are Democrats that cater to Republican/Right leaning voters because they live in districts heavily populated by such. They wouldn't have been elected in the first place if they campaigned on a left leaning agenda.

It's all about how you package it. You can sell a progressive message in heavy republican districts.
 
2010-11-19 09:45:30 AM  
Good riddance.
 
2010-11-19 09:46:08 AM  
So we're in for two years of MOST LIBERAL EVAH stuff? Woo, it's just like the last 10 goddamn years. I've heard it all before and I already expected to hear it all again.
 
2010-11-19 09:57:23 AM  
OK, the Dems got smoked last election, but if every year see TEH MOSTEST LIBERALIST EVAR!!1!, why does the Democratic Party remain competitive, seeing that Real Americans are conservative? I guess roughly half the country are traitors.

If the Dems go lefter and lefter every year, shouldn't we be Soviet Republic by now? (anyone who's tempted to say "we are" needs a history lesson, tout suite)

As for the Blue Dogs...good riddance. Join the GOP, where you belong.
 
2010-11-19 09:59:00 AM  
tnpir: 2wolves: tnpir: jagoffs

May I ask what region of the U.S. you grew up in?

Colorado. Why?


The use of 'jagoffs' has a regional and era based peak. Not something that is common.
 
2010-11-19 09:59:10 AM  
i love, too, how wingnuts claim that obama is "teh mostest librul presnit evar!11!!" and then go on to cite his brief senatorial career because his actual administration has been right down the center - if even a little to the right.
 
2010-11-19 10:02:13 AM  
Fully Left Socialist Brigade

Wow. Great TF handle.
 
2010-11-19 10:02:42 AM  
Oh no!
I'm so frightened the the liberal socialist loony center-right is going to destroy the country! Help us, decent hard-working patriotic far-right!
 
2010-11-19 10:09:08 AM  
SouthernManDunWrong: Gene Taylor, a bluedog from Mississippi, got beat because he voted with Pelosi.

He was one of the most "conservative" democrats and it kept getting him reelected for years. However, the public is sick of any democrat (at least here) and it cost him the election. He has won by 60+%. After Katrina, it was even harder to beat him.


Case in point, he wasn't Republican enough for the hard right swinging Republicans and Tea Party hillfolk.

SouthernManDunWrong: For the blind dog leftists here on Fark, he lost because the last 2 years the democrats have been out of control.

Out of control in regards to what? The Health Care Reform bill that took forever to pass? The constant hamstringing caused by Republican filibustering? How exactly were they "out of control" at any time?

Oh, wait. Talking point. I keep forgetting they need no basis in reality.

SouthernManDunWrong: His Mississippi district isn't filled with unemployed welfare queens or hispanics that vote for dems because blah blah blah, same old tired bullshiat

Which district is it that you live in? I'm honestly curious to see how much social aid it receives in comparison to, say, the boot strappy 2nd district of Rhode Island.
 
2010-11-19 10:22:28 AM  
Liberal Republicans were disheartened by the Republican Party and the way Bush was leading this country. Hearing Obama's stump speeches, they pushed for conservative Democrats (Blue Dogs) to represent them because they heard the sway coming and wanted to make sure their representative was still a part of the majority to "bring home the bacon".

Then after 2 years of Obama's mismanagement of the mission statement because he was too busy fighting fires to sell his accomplishments, these same Blue Dogs came back to their electorate and said "See, I'm not letting Obama get away with the super-liberal agenda that he really wanted!". Those same moderate and liberal Republicans thought another sway was coming because of all of the noise the Tea Party was making. They heard "I won't let him get away with his super-liberal agenda either!" coming from their own party's candidate again. They figured why vote for the Democrat who acts like a Republican, when they can just vote for the Republican. So they did.

It's not hard, people. The Democrats need to regain the confidence of their base and attract the middle with the innate promise their strategies will bring and have brought.

No more "health care reform!* (* offer not valid for the next 4 years, no single payer)".

Or "banking reform!* (* we stopped the really really really evil stuff...we're still collaborating with the really really evil and really evil people since they'd collapse us all otherwise)".

Fixing DADT is nice...but trivial to most Americans AND improving the result of a well-intended, but wrong-headed, middle-ground fallacy from Clinton.

The Tea Party may say that there have been "too many changes" but the bigger problem is that for all those changes, so few have been consequential and next to none of them have have their strengths demonstrated at all.
 
2010-11-19 10:26:10 AM  
2wolves: tnpir: 2wolves: tnpir: jagoffs

May I ask what region of the U.S. you grew up in?

Colorado. Why?

The use of 'jagoffs' has a regional and era based peak. Not something that is common.


Well, IIRC, I heard Dennis Miller use the term some years ago and have been using it sporadically ever since, interchanging it with "jerkoff" and "jackass."
 
2010-11-19 10:33:02 AM  
tnpir: 2wolves: tnpir: 2wolves: tnpir: jagoffs

May I ask what region of the U.S. you grew up in?

Colorado. Why?

The use of 'jagoffs' has a regional and era based peak. Not something that is common.

Well, IIRC, I heard Dennis Miller use the term some years ago and have been using it sporadically ever since, interchanging it with "jerkoff" and "jackass."


If you keep using such language, we'll have to warsh your mouth out with soap.

/My grandmother was from Arkansas, and would say things like "We had to warsh our clothes in the crick." (Too bad she wasn't born in Warshington.)
 
2010-11-19 10:39:26 AM  
Hooray for gerrymandering!


/is it time for another insipid argument about the European political spectrum and how it proves Democrats are, like, right wing and stuff?
 
2010-11-19 10:45:40 AM  
Lionel Mandrake: ...if every year see TEH MOSTEST LIBERALIST EVAR!!1!, why does the Democratic Party remain competitive...

By being dishonest, that's how. Democrats seized control of the House in 2006 by hiding their liberalism. They ran a slate of posers who pretended to be conservatives and centrists. That was the Rahm Emanuel strategy. But once they got themselves elected, they fell in line behind Nancy Pelosi's far-left agenda.

The voters tossed out the centrist pretenders in the last election and now the Democrat Party is exposed for what it is -- an extremist minority, far from the mainstream.
 
2010-11-19 10:48:59 AM  
MuadDib: /is it time for another insipid argument about the European political spectrum and how it proves Democrats are, like, right wing and stuff?

Well, I'm assuming that submitter was being facetious. I'd agree that it's somewhat silly to call Democrats "right wing", but anybody who thinks that the American Democratic party is a "fully left socialist brigade" has some very serious personal issues to sort out.
 
2010-11-19 10:51:48 AM  
Remember, people: Halfway between any two points of view is "reasonable".

For example, some people think we should kill all of the Jews. Other people think we should abort every baby. Clearly, the reasonable position is to abort every Jewish baby.
 
2010-11-19 11:01:47 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

Funny. I thought we used to call them "Reds".
 
2010-11-19 11:02:36 AM  
'1 IN 5' AMERICANS MENTALLY ILL

20% of Americans call themselves 'Liberals'

Coincidence?

hahaha!
 
2010-11-19 11:02:45 AM  
They won't when the GOP cleans their clock in 2012. It will be a blood bath of epic proportions. Enjoy your "majority" in the senate boys and girls.

I have to go now. I have a job and I can't sit here on the computer all day and do nothing like you guys can.

Later
 
2010-11-19 11:02:50 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf: Country has been trending left for awhile now. This just show in those districts people we're pissed about democrats calling themselves democrats when they had no interest in progressive change.

Yeaaaaah, that would totally explain why the Republicans managed to win a majority.

/Don't stop beliiiiieeeevvin'!
 
2010-11-19 11:03:13 AM  
People who feel this sentiment is remotely reasonable are insane and, quite possibly, intentionally stupid.
 
2010-11-19 11:03:26 AM  
If you belong to the party of the Democrats you're guilty of treason, infanticide, malfeasance, and God knows how nay crimes against humanity.

If you belong to the Republican Party you belong to the party of Stupids.
 
2010-11-19 11:03:36 AM  
If only the Republicans had stayed home on election day, this all could have been prevented. Don't you see what you've done? Now we have a TRUE socialist brigade in the Senate, whereas before everything they passed was loved by Republicans. You should really consider filibustering things from this point forward.
 
2010-11-19 11:03:36 AM  
Please. Demanding tax cuts for the super-wealthy while cutting the deficit by slashing working-class benefits is in no way "reasonable". The Republicans wouldn't know reasonable if it came out from the behind the glory hole in the airport bathroom and introduced itself.
 
2010-11-19 11:03:44 AM  
WaffleStomper: They won't when the GOP cleans their clock in 2012. It will be a blood bath of epic proportions. Enjoy your "majority" in the senate boys and girls.

I have to go now. I have a job and I can't sit here on the computer all day and do nothing like you guys can.

Later


You sound like a fat Mayan.

Am I doing it right?
 
2010-11-19 11:03:58 AM  
The Democratic party next year will be the closest to a fully left, socialist brigade than it's ever been, thanks to the electoral evisceration of their core corps voice of reason: The Blue Dogs

FTFS
 
2010-11-19 11:04:27 AM  
WaffleStomper: I have to go now. I have a job and I can't sit here on the computer all day and do nothing like you guys can.

You really told the rest of us that sit around in front of the computer doing programming or graphic design while making a hundred dollars an hour!
 
2010-11-19 11:04:49 AM  
YAY! More divisiveness! Fewer avenues for compromise!
Its pretty much what you've all been wanting.
 
2010-11-19 11:04:52 AM  
WaffleStomper: I have to go now. I have a job and I can't sit here on the computer all day and do nothing like you guys can. Fries are done.

Later
 
2010-11-19 11:05:14 AM  
LasssiterBeRight: If you belong to the party of the Democrats you're guilty of treason, infanticide, malfeasance, and God knows how nay crimes against humanity.

If you belong to the Republican Party you belong to the party of Stupids.


And if you don't belong to either one you are spineless. I have more use for libs than spineless wimps that can't stand for what they believe.
 
2010-11-19 11:06:00 AM  
Yay! As an evil lib, I'm looking forward to the destruction of America!


Am I doing it right?
 
2010-11-19 11:06:39 AM  
"voice of reason" my ass. Blue Dogs are career politicians, selling out any particular point of view so as to remain in power as long as possible. To what end? Probably just plain old pork and lobbying.

Let's have a real showdown, America, between your fascist right wing loonies and our commie, left wing nutbars. Let's see whose vision for America is more just, more fair, and more prosperous.
 
2010-11-19 11:06:46 AM  
Ronaldo Vega: Who were voted out for not being Republican enough, if you believe the election results.

Seriously, this is a tired talking point. Democrats want results from their party, and the Blue Dogs were doing the same bullshiat the Republican Party is currently doing: Obstructing the process for personal/political gains. In spite of a lost majority in the Senate, the Democrats are better off without these anchors.


Now all you have left is the Left Wing Moonbats,,which apparently makes you happy. Nancy Pelosi? Thats what you want?
 
2010-11-19 11:06:49 AM  
So in other words, they proved to be only slightly behind the Republicans in the process of gutting the moderates.

Color me unsurprised. But I'm not entirely sure that this is a bad thing. American political culture tends to find a lot of value in tension between extremes, specifically as opposed to consensus between moderates, because of the way that the extremes tend to balance out and thus keep each other from doing stupid shiat. When everyone agrees, there's only one direction to go, and with no further disagreement they tend to go recklessly. Some might argue that our current economic and military situations are results of periods (brief in the latter case, less so in the former) of exactly such consensus. Perhaps a return to tension is what we need for now.
 
2010-11-19 11:06:51 AM  
tnpir: Blue Dogs? "Reasonable"? Give me a goddamn break. Being Republican-lite doesn't make you "reasonable," especially when your sole goal is re-election, therefore you have to be as obstructionist as the Republican jagoffs on the other side of the aisle.

I'd like to know why the mods rated this headline as "commie."
 
2010-11-19 11:07:28 AM  
mrshowrules: Ronaldo Vega: Who were voted out for not being Republican enough, if you believe the election results.

Seriously, this is a tired talking point. Democrats want results from their party, and the Blue Dogs were doing the same bullshiat the Republican Party is currently doing: Obstructing the process for personal/political gains. In spite of a lost majority in the Senate, the Democrats are better off without these anchors.

It is not a talking point, it is a fact. There are now much less moderate Democrats now. Most of the of the Democrats who kept their seat are quite Liberal indeed.

What either side says that means may be a talking point but that is another story.


Polarization? This is news? Newt Gingrich came to power in 1994 and polarization is what he designed. No more moderate Republicans. And now fewer conservative Democrats.

This is the house than Newt built.
 
Displayed 50 of 360 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report