Blue Dog Dilemma

When a red state Democratic or a “Blue Dog” does something I don’t approve of, I don’t always make a stink out of it.

Why? Because they’re dealing with people like this.

It will take a lot more than a pot of white beans to get Broussard to vote for one particular candidate this November: Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu. The dealbreaker for him was when she voted for the Affordable Care Act.

Broussard has all kinds of problems with the law itself — that it’s wrong to force people to buy insurance, that it will make businesses hire less. But there’s something else that bothers him: The law is the signature achievement of a man Broussard never wanted to see become president.

“I don’t vote for black people, lady,” he says. “No, ma’am. I don’t vote for black people. They got their place, I got my place. That’s the way I was raised.”

Broussard says Landrieu votes too much in line with the president’s agenda -– he calls her “Obama Lady.”

No, you can’t win them all, and when circumstances permit you probably shouldn’t try to, but the truth is there is no majority without Blue Dogs. There is no majority without red state Dems.

Someone who votes with you 70 percent of the time is better than someone who votes with you 0 percent of the time.

Anyone who didn’t learn this lesson after 2010 probably never will.

This entry was posted in Election 2014, Ethics, Racism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Kitty Smith

    Furthermore, 70 percent of the time is perfectly acceptable when you have other legislators who agree 70 percent of the time in a different way.

    Enough 70 percents in enough different ways, and it gets done anyway.

  • http://zagrobelny.blogspot.com/ zagrobelny

    70 is just fine. But no harm in replacing them with viable candidates who have a higher percentage. The Landrieus will never win over racists voters like that so it’s time to stop pandering to them as much.

  • Kerry Reid

    That dumbfuck cracker comment puts me in mind of one of my favorite editorial cartoons from the late great Bll Mauldin: http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/mauldin/images/03250r.jpg

  • Olga Grobut

    It couldn’t be simpler: you vote for the Blue Dog over the Republican,
    the moderate Democrat over the Blue Dog, the progressive Democrat over
    the moderate, the socialist over the progressive. It all depends on the
    local circumstances, where the rubber hits the road.

    Which makes it all the more frustrating that even as we speak the purity trolls at
    firedoglake and the daily kos are scheming to throw the elections if
    they don’t get their ponies. These people threw the ’68 election to
    Nixon and they haven’t learned a damned thing since.

    It’s all so pathetic it makes me want to puke.

    • http://cendax.wordpress.com/ Norbrook

      Exactly. I pointed out (a number of times) to the purity trolls that the last time a “pure progressive” ran in my district, he got a whopping 23% of the vote. The next election, we couldn’t even find a candidate. Our current “conservaDem” representative was the first Democrat to win parts of this district in over 150 years. The difference between “Speaker Pelosi” and “Leader Pelosi,” as well as “committee chair” and “ranking member” was those Blue Dogs.

  • j.martindale

    When we have issues with Blue Dogs, we need to fight it out in primaries. After that, you always have to vote for the lesser of two evils in America.