Yet Again. The House Delivers; Republican Democrats in the Senate Fail.

[TheBigotBasher]

Blue Dog Democrats always confuse me. Why do these Republican voting Democrats seek election on a Democratic Party platform? Why does the media call them moderate, when the truth is that they continually enable the Hard Right Republican Party more than their own platform?

The proposals from the President amounted to a budget requirement of $3.6 trillion.
The proposals from the House amounted to a budget requirement of $3.5 trillion.
The proposals from the Senate amounted to a budget requirement of $3.6 trillion.

All very good - but it is what the Senate took out that is important. The Republican voting Democratic Senators have cut back on the Presidents' spending plans, and will expire his signature tax cuts of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples would expire in 2011. These tax cuts as part of the make work pay programme were already cut by Republican voting Democrats (from $500 to $400). The $13 a week may be condemned by the millionaire talking heads on Fox News as well as Republican Democratic Senators as small, but $13 is a real boost to those on low incomes where every $ counts in the daily battle to make ends meet.

It is therefore more galling that the Republican Supporting Democrats enabled a massive tax cut for the rich, by supporting the Kyl/Lincoln estate tax amendment which raised the estate tax exemption to $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples and lowers the tax rate from 45% to 35%.

Do Republican supporting Democrats really think it is better to give tax cuts to the literally dead rich, than to those killing themselves with the long hours back breaking work endured by the working poor? To those Democratic Senators that do - remember there are more poor than rich and it is to you and the Democratic Party these voters looked to to give them a leg up in November 20008.

I ask Blue Dog Democrats - who do you think you are helping when you vote with Republicans to block your own Presidents proposals? Proposals that helped carry the Democratic Party to a Democratic House, Senate and Presidency for a reason. The people wanted them.

The Hall of Shame


Baucus

Bayh

Cantwell

Landrieu

Lincoln

Murray

Nelson (FL)(he even looks like a Bush)

Nelson (NE)

Pryor

Tester

[annabanana]

1. How many of these received Act Blue funds?

I will encourage leaving them off the list next time. I contributed to many races beyond my state, because I wanted a Democratic majority.

If the people that WON those elections refuse to act like Democrats, I see very little point in continuing to pour money that way.

edit: I am personally insulted by Reid's "scolding".

[Thrill]

2. Snowe and Collins are more liberal than some of them. Thats a fact

[TheBigotBasher]

4. Very True

Sen. Lincoln calls herself a moderate or centrist Democrat, aiming to appeal to the somewhat conservative (though historically Democratic) southern state of Arkansas. Lincoln was among the minority of Democrats to support CAFTA and she is opposed to some protectionist trade measures. While still in the House she was one of only 17 Democrats to vote for the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995 which sought to change federal employment laws. The law was vetoed by President Bill Clinton. She has voted in favor restricting class action lawsuits and tightening rules on personal bankruptcy. Though initially she was one of the few Democrats in Congress to vote in favor of the tax cut passed in 2001, she now advocates scaling back or eliminating the portions of that tax cut, has opposed making tax cuts permanent. She supports the permanent elimination of the estate tax. On April 5, 1995 she was one of only 27 Democrats in the House to vote in favor of the Contract With America Tax Relief Act which was approved by the House but never put into law. Lincoln also voted while a member of the House to amend the constitution to require a balanced-budget amendment; she did however vote against the line-item veto. She voted with the more populist element of her party in 1996 against the Freedom to Farm Act, while being one of only two Senate Democrats to vote against an agricultural bill reversing many of the reforms of the previous act in 2002.

The Democratic Party in relation to Political parties across the World is right of Centre. Therefore those who are Democrats trending Republican are extreme right and Republicans are now hard right. They are not moderates.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. That is a lie

Ben Nelson, the Democratic Senator who have voted least with Democrats this year, has voted with the party 69.2% this year:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/senate/party-voters/

Collins and Snowe have voted with the Republicans 55.4% of the time and 47.7% of the time this year, respectively. That means that Collins voted with the Democrats 44.6% and Snowe voted with the Democrats 52.3% of the time. If mathematics is not your strong suit, you may be interested to know that 69.2% is larger than either 44.6% and 52.3%.

[Thrill]

9. Its not about whether they have voted so far with the Democrats in this Congress

I'm talking about voting records as a whole and their views. Go look at the National Journal liberal and conservative ratings that came out about a couple months ago. I didn't say that Snowe and Collins vote with the Democrats more. I guess reading is not your strong suit.

[TheBigotBasher]

10. So Nelson voted against the party on nearly one in 3 votes.

Snowe and Collins who ran against the Democratic Party voted with the Democrats on every other vote.

From those statistics one is trending against the Democratic platform and the other two are trending towards it.

I'm not caring about the Rethugs - the voters defeated them. I care about the Democratic Party delivering its platform and the consequences of what happens if Democratic Senators do not deliver it. Everyone loses.

Also on what issues did Nelson vote against the Party?

[roguevalley]

16. collins fights with slime in her elections, as low as it gets and snow pretends

to be a moderate. check their records. their actions don't match their deeds even a little bit but they project pretty well

[wyldwolf]

3. Look, some of you need to make up your mind!

... especially about people like Tester. One day he's accused of being a progressive populist and the next day he's a Blue Dog? And the OP really should learn what a Blue Dog is or has the term "Blue Dog" now replaced "DLC" as the blanket term to describe any Democrat on any given day who votes contrary to any progressive's wishes on any given day?

No, I don't care one bit for what this handful in the Senate is doing and I wish they'd fall in line BUT I've been around long enough to understand the basic concept of electoral politics.

Article:

Liberals who kept the fires burning during the long Republican reign now fear that moderate Blue Dog Democrats will thwart their much-delayed dreams. Elected from purplish parts of America, the Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives who regard expensive new programs with a wary eye.

What's a liberal to do? First, recognize that the Blue Dogs are the reason Democrats have such nice majorities. They are why the dreams are even on the menu. Second, concede that the Reluctant Ones have a point...

The semi-conservative parts of the country that elect Blue Dogs are not thickly settled with liberals. Forty-nine House Democrats come from districts that backed John McCain in 2008. They have no reason to relax. As a reality check, the special election in upstate New York to replace Blue Dog Kirsten Gillibrand (now in Hillary Clinton's Senate seat) remains too close to call...

The author, Froma Harrop, was an Edwards supported in 2008.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/centrist_dems_dogged_if_they_d.html

[TheBigotBasher]

5. I am also aware of "basic politics".

It is clear that the voters gave the programme of Barack Obama a clear majority because they wanted the change that he proposed. Democratic Senators, even in Conservative leaning states were elected to support that programme. If the voters wanted to oppose that programme they would not have voted for a Democratic candidate.

It is also clear the GOP will not go easy on Republican Democrats. For all of the Programmes that fail or or massively watered down by the Democratic Senate, the GOP will deliver a simple line; Obama broke his promise. There will be no discussion of the nuances between Democrats and Conservative Democrats. It will be the programme of the President that they will say has failed and it will be them who lose.

These Republican voting Democrats could not find funds within the budget to ensure make work pay is permanent; but could find money for a massive estate tax cut. What kind of majority is that?

The people do not want the GOP, they want an alternative, they voted for it and assumed they got it, but if all that the Senate delivers is a watered down GOP then the real one becomes attractive again.

[wyldwolf]

6. sorry, that isn't how it works

House members and Senators were elected to represent their districts and states respectively, not to support the agenda of the President. That's the truth of the matter, regardless of how you or I feel about the way the House and Senate are voting.

One doesn't have to LIKE something to recognize the basic truth of it.

[TheBigotBasher]

8. The GOP will not go easy on Republican voting Democrats.

Kay Hagan signed up to the Bayh list of Party traitors, the GOP did not exactly refrain from calling her "Liberal".

The GOP will use every tactic to defeat Democratic Senators in 2010 and 2012. This will definitely include broken Presidential promises and they will not differentiate on promises watered down by Democratic Senators or actually broken.

That is how it works in reality.

[wyldwolf]

11. all of your revolutionary rhetoric aside, that's pretty irrelevant

Kay Hagan isn't voting the way she's voting to garner favor with the GOP. She's doing it because she believes she's representing her constituents and probably genuinely votes the way she believes.

I understand it's difficult for "progressives" to believe someone might actually have a different opinion than they do, but it does happen.

[TheBigotBasher]

12. Kay Hagan

was most definitely elected on the coat tails of Barack Obama. His election saw a doubling of votes compared to the 2002 election and those voters turned out to get Obama in and his programme delivered.

Who does it help if that programme is not delivered?

[wyldwolf]

13. alternatively she was elected on the George W. Bush backlash from independents

so.. so what? Neither means her vote is owned and controlled by whichever group believes they put her in office.

And you're taking the wrong approach in your argument with me. I want Obama's programs delivered. I just realize politics doesn't always work to my benefit.

[Doremus]

14. There's only one person they want to help. Themselves.

[Kingofalldems]

15. Kick

[LooseWilly]

17. Why is Maria Cantwell on your list of shame?

She's nearly as liberal/progressive as Barbara Boxer. She did NOT vote against the Obama budget. (As far as I can tell only Landrieu and Bayh actually voted against it... IN & LA... Indiana is just one of those places... and apparently all the Democrats got flooded out of LA)

What is she being shamed for again?

[quakerboy]

18. What happened in Washington?

I mean, I get Montana. or LA, FL, or Nebraska. But Washington? What the hell happened?

Even for those in more edgy states, this seems rather strange. You know that whoever the pubs put in to run against them will now nail them for being on the side of the rich. Its not like they bought themselves a pass or anything by siding with the pubs on a vote.