Talk:Blue Dog Coalition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Early comments 2 Changes 3 Contradiction of Name 4 Jane Harman 5 "fiscal conservatives" a sham 6 Opening paragraph was biased 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.2 Discussion 8 Removal

[edit] Early comments

Is this really a formal organization of Democrats, or is this just an expression used to describe Democrats of this type? [unsigned comment by Kurtbw 09:49, 22 May 2004 (UTC)] Aubret Bitoni There is a Blue Dog Caucus in the US Congress. [unsigned comment by Pimpalicious 12:50, 23 June 2004 (UTC)]

Could someone divide the Blue Dog Caucus into Senators and Representatives? Thanks. [unsigned comment by 67.170.67.92 02:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)]

I'm removing the claim that they are "mostly from the U.S. Southern states". According to the list on this page, 15 of the 35 are from the south, which is not "most", although a plurality are from the south. The breakdown by region is:

• South - 15 (Alabama 1, Arkansas 2, Florida 1, Georgia 3, Kentucky 1, Louisiana 1, Mississippi 1, North Carolina 1, Tennessee 4)
• West - 11 (California 8, Colorado 1, Hawaii 1, Utah 1)
• Midwest and Great Plains - 7 (Iowa 1, Kansas 1, Minnesota 1, North Dakota 1, Oklahoma 1, Pennsylvania 1, South Dakota 1)
• Northeast - 2 (Maine 1, New York 1)

--Delirium 08:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section that likens Blue Dogs to old Democrats. There is a wide variety in attitude toward fiscal issues, and opposition to desegregation and civil rights legislation are not characteristics of Blue Dogs either, like they were for southern Democrats. This section also contained the same inaccuracy as the one cited above that most of the Blue Dog Caucus is from the South. Joydawg 00:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I added Melissa Beans (IL-08) and Jim Marshall (GA-03) to the list of current members and accordingly adjusted the number of members to 37, which is the number of members listed on the Blue Dogs' official website. Though I'm not sure about Marshall, Bean joined around the beginning of 2006 according to her office, which I just finished working in for a few months. This IS an actual working coalition that has regular meetings and a platform. The opening sentence of this article calling them social conservatives is correct in that the majority of the members are, but misleading in that the group does not advocate a platform of conservatism on social issues. Instead, they simply eschew official stands on social issues and concentrate on advocating governmental and fiscal responsibility.

Well, he was elected in 2002, so I presume his membership stems from that year, or the year in which he was inaugurated.

He's one of the most conservative Democratic members of the House of Representatives, so I would assume he was admitted to the caucus upon election, although I could be mistaken.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the assertion that Al Gore's defeat in Tennessee cost him the election, as a) many in the nation believe that he was the legitimate winner in 2000, and b) regardless of this, no one state alone can "cost" any presidential nominee an election. The loss of Tennesse was embarrassing for the Veep, but no more important to the result than Missouri (also a Bush win, also 11 electoral votes) or Indiana w/12. Best not to raise the issue at all, right? -- PVenkman

[edit] Contradiction of Name

I don't know enough about this term to really know what the true story is, but one of the two reasons given for why they are called "Blue Dog" democrats has got to be wrong. Somebody should fix this. 216.165.2.125

We are merely reporting the possible sources. Terms like these generally have multiple claims to parentage. Rkevins82 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The explanation now makes it sound like there's only one, when it's a clear contrast to the "yellow dog" Democrats. They wouldn't be named "blue dogs" without the yellows, even if it does refer to a painting, too. Calbaer 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Harman

The article opens by contending that "Blue Dog Democrats are social and economic conservatives and centrists".

Oh really? What about Jane Harman? My impression of Jane Harman is that she is strongly preoccupied with foreign policy, military, and security issues, especially everything to do with Israels' security needs as perceived by the foreign policy right wing both here and in Israel. Her conservative credentials have been forged by her staunchly hawkish foreign policy and security stances, particularly her support of the Iraq war, for the Patriot Act, and for a generally belligerent foreign policy in the Middle East.

Has anyone noticed her speechifying against abortion or gay marriage, or advocating the dismantling of Social Security? Does she even care one way or the other regarding the domestic social and economic priorities associated with the American right? If so, that's certainly not what she's known for. She is a foreign policy conservative (if hawkishness imples conservatism). Therefore the opening sentence of this article is misleading.

I'm not sure how the above is relevant. This link states that she's "known for her centrist politics," consistent with the sentence in question. Calbaer 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the word 'centrist' I object to; it's the phrase 'social and economic'. The sentence in question states that Blue Dog Democrats are "social and economic" conservatives and centrists - i.e., they take (for Democrats) relatively conservative postions on social and economic issues. No, she doesn't. For a Democrat, she's mainstream on social and economic issues. She takes right-of-center positions on foreign policy issues, at least on the Middle East. That's what makes her "centrist" (i.e., right of the Democratic mainstream), according to your (surely objective) source. Therefore, the phrase "social and economic" is inaccurate. If you still don't understand at this point, I give up. I don't really care that much.

I never said the source was "objective," but it is verifiable, and you aren't providing verifiable evidence of your POV. Calbaer 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Harman, unlike the other Blue Dogs, does not represent a district with a large Republican presence. Her district on the West Side of Los Angeles is about as Republican as Pelosi's district. In the neighborhood she lives in, Venice, Kerry got 80% of the votes in the 2004 presidential election, and George W. Bush recieved fewer votes than Michael Badnarik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.48.179 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the objection above. The following sentence was simply factually wrong: "Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs, on the other hand, tend to be social conservatives, but have differing positions on economic issues ranging from fiscal conservatism to economic populism." Every relevant source in the links already provided here directly contradicts this. Every one lists fiscal conservativism as their fundamental belief. The Blue Dogs own official site seems to back this up. Every one shows some evidence of a pro-business or economically conservative bent. None supports the claim of social conservatism. The group's press releases are on their website, and it can be seen that they have never taken a position on any of these social issues. And the voting records don't support that statement--many of these are social liberals. Some quotes from the reference links:

"In the 106th Congress, the Blue Dogs are 30 fiscally conservative House Democrats who tend to vote together as a coalition on budgetary and economic issues. " -Illona Nickels C-Span

"The Blue Dog Coalition was founded in 1994 to provide a unified voice for moderate members of the Democratic Party in the US House of Representatives, particularly on economic issues." -Deborah White, under the heading "United on Fiscal Responsibility".

'The Coalition has been particularly active on fiscal issues, relentlessly pursuing a balanced budget and then protecting that achievement from politically popular "raids" on the budget. Past Coalition budgets have won the endorsement of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition and multiple newspaper and magazine editorials. As one column pointed out, the Blue Dogs have proven that "common sense, conservative economics and compassion aren't necessarily mutually exclusive."' - Oficial website on congressional homepaage of Co-Chair Mike Ross.

I've taken that sentence out and given the whole thing a bit more context and I hope made the distinctions a bit clearer. Though I think I kept everything else that was there in there in some form. Acerimusdux 09:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "fiscal conservatives" a sham

The recent emergency Iraq spending bill was stuffed with some $21 billion in pork going to democratic special interests. According to an article in the denver post these earmarks were delivered to blue dog's districts in order to secure their votes for the bill. From this it seems that the blue dogs are little more than a cartel that makes the passage of bills contigent on pork flowing to their districts. Hardly the fiscal conservatives this article purports them to be, are they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.116.132.206 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Opening paragraph was biased

a minimal observance of npov should prevent openings like this, which reads like it was written by representatives of the subject of the article:

Blue Dog Democrats are a group of 44 conservative to moderate Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives. [1] The Blue Dogs are a coalition of like-minded Democrats whose primary mission is to promote fiscally responsible budget reforms and accountability for taxpayer dollars. Many members hail from conservative-leaning districts, where liberal Democrats and liberal values are a decided minority. Therefore, the Democratic Party has become more supportive of Blue Dog candidates in recent times. This was especially true in the 2006 election, when Blue Dog candidates such as Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth were elected in conservative-leaning districts, ending years of Republican dominance in these districts.

So, non-blue dogs are fiscally irresponsible, unaccountable. Not to mention being "a decided minority" whatever that means. Attempting an edit. Bacrito 13:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Removal

I removed the external link to the "FAQ" [1] that has also been removed by a congressional IP multiple times in the past couple of days. I don't know their reason (whether its a conflict of interest or not), but I removed it because it is redundant. If you notice, the link is already being used as a source in the article (currently #4). We don't need to then list it again. Although, the inline reference could use updating with the author, title, date, etc. But that's a minor point really. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)