A Rational Suggestion to Blue Dog Democrats

During the November 2006 midterm elections, many Democrats across the country ran on platforms that were decidedly more conservative than the official stance of Democrat Party as a whole. In some cases these candidates were more conservative than their Republican counterparts.

Designated as 'Blue Dog Democrats' these candidates stood for easing gun control, reigning in federal spending, and a few even stated they were against Roe v. Wade and gay marriage. Thus, many of these freshmen Democrats were elected based upon a decidedly conservative agenda that pits them in direct opposition to Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and Diane Feinstein.

Republicans had hoped that they could forge a coalition with these 'blue dogs' to thwart some of the extremist legislation planned by the Party elite. This would only make sense since these particular Democrats distanced themselves from the national Party and its leadership during the campaign. Voters in their districts, therefore, are expecting them to follow through with their campaign promises.

However, several days ago some of the freshmen Democrats who are being sworn in today stated that Republicans were counting their chickens before they hatch if they believe that any such coalition can occur. The Blue Dog Demos who spoke to the press indicated that they had no intention of aligning with Republicans to thwart any legislation proposed by the Democrat Party leadership.

Here again, campaign rhetoric appears to be flying out the window even before the oaths of office are taken.

The problem with the Blue Dogs, however, is that back home they will be held accountable for their votes. They promised bipartisan cooperation and a conservative agenda, and the voters will be looking for it.

Sensing the growing problem, Nancy Pelosi put together a strategy to help the Blue Dogs. She stated that they would not be expected to tow the party line in all of the legislation that is proposed; that she understood that they were accountable to the voters back home; and therefore, the Blue Dogs were free to vote as they see fit, even if it flies in the face of the Party leadership.

This is the mark of a shrewd politician...if she had actually meant it.

Something happened between the time the Blue Dogs were elected in November and the opening session of the 110th Congress. We know, for example, that all freshmen Congressmen are given a complete orientation session by their respective Parties during which subtle and not-so-subtle expectations are communicated.

You figure it out. The independent, conservative-minded Blue Dog Democrats changed their tune in a hurry once they got to Washington. Despite assurances from Pelosi that they were free to vote in a manner that would garner them the most votes back home, the unspoken message was conveyed to them, obviously, that they had better march in lockstep during the first 100 hours or else.

It is no accident that Pelosi gave to many of the Blue Dogs some key committee appointments. Was this in exchange for their full, complete, unwavering loyalty during the first 100 hours?

This is certainly the impression one gets from observing this scenario as it plays out.

My suggestion to the Blue Dogs is simply this--do not forget where you came from and who put you into office. Do not forget what you promised those who put you into office. And remember, if you fail them in any way whatsoever, you will not get elected again. Two years will be it.

So, show that you have some political savvy by forming cooperative alliances with Republicans who share your conservative philosophy. Pelosi is not worth your unswerving loyalty. Your values are the ONLY thing that matters.