The standard line of defense used by persons sticking up for the Blue Dogs, be it on health care or any other issue, is that they’re not corrupt or money-driven or anything like that, but are simply voting the way their constituents want them to vote. Let’s put this to the test by looking at their stance on the public option — which is the only meaningful health care reform being seriously considered in Congress right now.
Here’s a list of the Blue Dogs. Now go to www.opensecrets.org and look to see who’s throwing the most dough in the Blue Dogs’ coffers. Then look at whose industries are favored by the Blue Dogs’ votes. In the first eight months of 2008 alone, their PAC took in $455,800 from the health care industry — an industry that typically donates heavily to Republicans.
Oh, but you say, the Blue Dogs aren’t all about the money — they’re just voting their districts, which are conservative/Republican, and their constituents don’t like the public option. Let’s look at the career of Bud Cramer, former King of the Blue Dogs — now working for a particularly sleazy firm lobbying his old buddies on Capitol Hill. How can anyone say he’s not all about the money? As for the idea that the public option doesn’t sit well with Republicans: Well, guess what — 50% of Republicans back meaningful health care reform such as the public option, and 72% of all Americans do so.
Why are the Blue Dogs so out of step with what a majority of their constituents want? Just follow the money. (And in the meantime, don’t forget to Whip for the public option!)




29 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Follow the fucking money.
But but but but PW!
The Blue Dogs are all Honorable men and women and we KNOW that they are Honorable men and women because they tell us so, as they tell us how HARD they work for all of us.
It is just purely a coincidence that they vote completely in line with their
corporate mastersdonor base.Anybody wanna buy a bridge?
Check out Jim Cooper, Blue Dog of Nashville. Obama beat McCain 56-43 in the 5th district.
Cooper had no serious opposition, and won going away. He is said to be one of Obama’s earliest supporters. There is no decent explanation for his views.
Bingo!! It’s always been about being a corporate whore. Just look at the voting for the war. Cooper and his ilk are hardly ever voting their district. It’s all about the money.
Que RF & CT.
We know they are honorable men and women because they have a (D) after their names.
‘So are they all, all honorable men.’
Got your pitchfork handy?
Blue Dogs for the most part are opportunists seeking office for money and power. I think that is starting to change. Whoever got to Sanchez (Hillary?!?!) to flip on a strong public option and whatever prompted the other 22 mix of Blue Dogs and Frosh Dems to do the same may be a preview of a coming split. Kinda like what Palin is doing to the Republicans.
I see it as dividing the group into those who do and don’t have respect for humanity aka having a ♥ (heart)
Obama told the banksters that he was the only thing between them and the pitchforks. I could see the logic of that view, at least.
The only thing between these Blue Dog sleazeballs and the pitchforks is…. what? If, as this post suggests, the public is behind the public option, what advantage do they gain besides campaign contributions? Is that really all they gain?
Bernie Sanders had a good point on Thom Hartmann’s program last Friday. He said it wasn’t just the money, it was a matter of these lobbyist lickspittles cozying up to our reps and being their friend, getting under their skin, and as Chomsky has discussed, “manufacturing consent”.
When these Blue Dogs hear from us and their constituents, all they hear is rage and complaints (not that you can blame the people for being pissed, of course). Maybe it’s getting back at us that motivates them; that they can piss us off and we don’t have many options. I find it hard to believe it’s just the money.
“Are Blue Dogs Just “Voting Their Districts” — Or Their Donors?”
This is too easy, it’s gotta be a trick question.
The Blue Dogs may be our last link to reason left in Washington so I wouldn’t go trashing them just yet. And picking on their contributors is not exactly fair.
I voted for Obama but he took lots of money from lots of people too.
The Blue Dogs know something most of the socialists in this country don’t: Providing more and more freebies to the citizens costs lots of money. We live in an era where everybody thinks everything is an entitlement.
Hog Wash!!!!!!!!
People need to become more self sufficient. There are too many deadbeats and freeloaders in this country.
And, to quote Gerald Ford…..
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
I suggest you reflect on Gerald’s words.
Don’t the Blue Dogs realize that if this health care bill fails, it could be the end of the democratic party as we know it.
LOL
And T9
No, Blue Dogs are not afraid of blaming the ills of the nation on the poor and sick, a tactic common to all fascists. I’m not calling them fascists, just staying they are not beneath stooping to using fascist techniques.
They use people who can’t defend themselves as an excuse to further the agendas of the corporations who fund their campaigns. At least until now. That may be changing with the health care reform issue.
People who vote for Blue Dogs for the reasons you report are the main argument for the Electoral College. You’re too ignorant of real world issues and keep voting against your own best interests.
Most people in congress have sold their votes for “contributions”. Looking at the amounts these crooks have gotten from Health Insurance companies all I can say is. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then one can assume that it is indeed a duck. Following the money, I can only assume that these pols have been bought, body and soul. BTW, do you know the definition of an honest politician? It is one that stays bought.
Since congress has made bribery legal(campaign contributions) I believe that at least 98% of congress are crooks and liars.
To quote Gerald Ford…
To quote Gerald Ford some more…
I suggest you reflect on Gerald’s words.
PW, want to thank you bringing to the light of day what should be an OBVIOUS connect but what never was fully processed in my pea brain . . . GREAT CONNECT!!
It’s that pure spin the MSM and corporatist lords throw over us like a net of obfuscation to blur the reality they’re hiding!
LOVED seeing this in print and brought to the top for all to see . . . . we should ALL use this insight and debunk the verbiage being thrown at us for what it is-utter bullshit! *G*
Providing 14 trillion to banksters costs money too, torgo (perfect handle, “Manos”). Funny how you don’t mention that; it’s only us greedy bastards wanting what every other civilized nation on this planet has that raises your ire.
1972 – 2009 … Nothing has changed.
The same words Deep Throat said to Woodward pertain today to Blue Dog Dems: “Just Follow The Money”!!
Greg, I’d suggest that it’s the money, and KEEPING the money that motivates them. Status quo, ya know.
WE are a threat to BOTH of those points, GETTING the money, and KEEPING the money.
We are their enemy, and they know it. And thus it SHOULD be.
Like aging dinosaurs, we are their meteor, and they see us coming.
May I suggest you visit politico.com?
Are you addressing me? I’ve been around FDL about 21/2 years, mostly agreeing, occasionally not on particular subjects. I don’t believe we’ve met.
Actually, we met yesterday in another thread about the Blue Dogs. My take on your argument was that criticizing politicians that do not keep their campaign promises and vote with their donors over their constituents is counterproductive and that they deserve our loyalty simply because they are democrats. Since both you and Redfish were so adamant in your defense of the Blue Dogs, I assumed that you would both show up in this thread to continue those arguments. No sign of RF, so obviously I was wrong. Nice to Meet you.
I said pretty much what I had to say yesterday. Your summary of my position oversimplifies my views. In short, I have no objection to applying all of the pressure you feel necessary to convince Democrats that they need to support the most progressive positions possible. On the other hand, they are not all the same and virtually all are better, than any of the Republicans. I’ve spent too many years living under Republican government because of fractures among Democrats. Nice to meet you too, but hate to FDL get where everyone must join the choir on every part of every post in order to avoid being called a troll.
Any summary of someone’s opinion will inevitably oversimplify, that is why I prefaced my remarks with “My take on your argument.” Looking back though I’m not seeing where I called anyone a troll. I believe that everyone has a right to their opinion, but the commenter that you were defending ended the thread by calling Phoenix Woman a fringe radical.
I got so frustrated and angry with the idea that “It’s OK if you’re a Republican” during the past eight years and just substituting the word Democrat for Republican makes no more sense in my view. There have always been fractures between Democrats as there are between Republicans because many people actually have firm beliefs that guide their choices. For me, I don’t care as much about party affiliation as I do about supporting good legislation. If a candidate has no intention of following through on their promises than they shouldn’t make them. If they do, they deserved to be called out.
Anyway, have a great weekend. I’m off to check my beehives and roast a chicken.
This is probably going to get me yelled at in big ways. Nonetheless, I am inclined to believe that we (Progressive Community and Democratic Party) as a whole would be much better off if about half (26) of the Blue Dogs lost their seats in the 2010 elections. Here is why:
(1) it dilutes their power in the Democratic Caucus (a good thing I think)
(2) if over half lost it would cause them to rethink their center-right tendencies and the remaining members may become less of a gaggle of corporate whores
(3) we would still have enough Dems in the caucus to maintain control
nice to see that you seem to treat “(Progressive Community and Democratic Party)” as partially overlapping sets.
often overlooked if folks only spent their time in Democratic Party online outreach type sites.
Jesse Unruh – the BIG DADDY of California politics back when we were the Golden State claimed that any decent politician should be able to: “take their money, screw their women, and then vote against them, you don’t belong in the legislature.”
That’s a truism!
Let me re-phrase
If you can’t take their money, screw their women, and then vote against them, you don’t belong in the legislature.