In my desperate attempts to find news not about Anthony Weiner, I went to POLITICO’s website and found an article about Blue Dog Democrats, or I should say, the lack of Blue Dog Democrats in Congress. The Blue Dog Caucus was started in 1995 and was always a thorn on the side of liberal Democrats of the west coast and north east. Whenever it came to taxes, health care, and especially the farm bill, these moderates always seemed to have the upper hand.
Coming from the Dakota’s, Tennessee, Kentucky, and “Pennsyltucky,” these Congressmen and women would always use the same argument; our “rural” constituents don’t want more spending, so I can’t vote for this unless I can tell them how they will benefit from it. Or they would lay the guilt on the Democrats in safe seats and rant about how in order to keep the majority the liberals need to put together more moderate policy proposals. Well guess what, the Democrats did pass moderate legislation that benefited every single state in the union, and they still lost.
According to the article “The Blue Dog decline has been sharp, to put it mildly. Following the 2008 elections, the coalition counted 54 House members. When the dust settled from the 2010 midterms, just 25 remained.” Of course if they were real Republican’s it would be a lot easier for them to win reelection. They do come from more conservative districts, but I find it hard to believe Blue Dogs lost because of the policies that were passed between 2008 and 2010.
The hardest votes Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to get were for the bailout, stimulus, and health care, and had to work hard to convince the Blue Dogs. They were worried about keeping their job, and since the media and Republican’s hit the panic button whenever they get a chance, they have to go with the flow. The communications staff of House and Senate members (usually between 2-5 people) don’t have the time or tools to work on all the stories the media is covering. Most congressional offices have a policy of sticking to a limited amount of stories that make the member look good. But Blue Dogs can’t say the Democrat’s didn’t try to help them.
One of the biggest bills (and one that gets the least attention) was the Farm Bill in 2008, which is set to expire in 2012. It always carries huge subsidies for America’s least productive industry (1.2 percent of GDP) but there is never, ever, a debate of whether it should be passed. As far as the people who benefit from it are concerned, the more people who can benefit from it the better, and you can forget all that deficit stuff. The subsides in this law are with billions. I will also be writing a letter to Anheuser Busch. Since the law extended the tariffs for ethanol allowing local breweries to charge less to bars, I want to know why I still have to pay triple the price for a Budweiser.
Both Democrat’s and Republican’s need a wide variety of candidates in order to keep the gavel. The difference is while Democrat’s make a big deal out of their differences, Republican’s pretend there aren’t any. When the Democrats took back the House in 2006, there were stories coming out of Blue Dogs telling their leadership they were the reason they control the House. But the leadership should have reminded them about all the money they so the Blue Dogs could have their seat.
There will be Blue Dogs coming back in the next year, and yes it will help the Democrats get control of Congress, but that doesn’t mean the Democratic leadership should bow down to their every wish. If they wind up losing their seat it’s because their constituents didn’t see what their representative did for them. But if you look at what the GOP has accomplished this year (cut to Eric Cantor trying to fix his whip), and considering the seriousness of the issues coming up (cut to John Boehner crying), Democrats should stop singing the blues and replace it with rock and roll.
One response to “Blue Dogs Singing The Blues”
Pingback: Ethanol Wins |