I tend to agree with anyone who promotes fiscally conservative policies but was a bit miffed when I read that the so-called Blue Dog Coalition is now holding up reform because it may cost more up front and lend to the deficit.

My qestions are:

1- did they vote for the tax cuts under Bush and were they requiring that they be "deficit neutral" and

2- did they vote for the Iraq war expenditures without consideration for the deficit even after no WMDs were found and no connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda was found?

I've already written them asking these questions (BlueDog@mail.house.gov) but will not lose sleep waiting for an answer.

Hopefully they will not mind being addressed as "Dear Mr. and Ms. Dog". They did choose the name after all.

BTW one of the reps from Pennsylvania who is a member is Patrick Murphy, a vet who has taken a lead on some difficult issues like DADT. I was sure to mention that in the letter, but am still curious to know what his position is on my questions. Hopefully all of them will find the courage to support real health care reform.

"Historical reference" from Wikipedia - and yes, I know it's an oxymoron!!!


"Blue Dog Democrat" is derived from the term "Yellow Dog Democrat." Former Texas Democrat Rep. Pete Geren is credited for coining the term, explaining that the members had been "choked blue" by "extreme" Democrats from the left.[4] The term is also a reference to the "Blue Dog" paintings of Cajun artist George Rodrigue of Lafayette, Louisiana; the original members of the coalition would regularly meet in the offices of Louisiana representatives Billy Tauzin and Jimmy Hayes, both of whom had Rodrigue's paintings on their walls. Tauzin and Hayes later switched to the Republican Party. The Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1994 during the 104th Congress to give more conservative members from the Democratic party a unified voice.

Interestingly, when Tauzin resigned he promptly became a honcho for Big Pharma. Clear where his loyalties lay (not for the people who elected him, but for the corporations that were bankrolling him).

They all ought to be called Greenback Dogs, because the greenback is all they listen to and represent. Regular citizen constituents be damned.

A cornerstone of what might be called Blue Dog Democracy is "fiscal conservatism". By which I guess they mean they are for paying for the cost of legislation except when they are not for paying for the cost of legislation.

There is another word for that...but that's a word they would rather reserve for Republicans, at election time.

There have been Democrats like this FOREVER. Our two monopolistic parties have never tended to have ideological uniformity, until the Republicans of the last 25 years. (Yes, there were liberal Republicans before the '80s.)

Perhaps all of this is good reason to start developing a multi-party system. That is, more than two.

We appeared to be on the verge of this back in 1992, with the emergence of the Reform Party under Ross Perot. That party had no ideological coherence whatsoever, meaning that a far-right nut like Pat Buchanan could eventually gain a major candidate position in it, so it's now just a footnote. But it seemed to me that the Reform Party promised the sort of fiscal conservatism--to a degree--and social moderation that conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans (the not-so-liberal ones, that is) allegedly espouse.

So maybe that's where people should start. Reconstitute the Reform Party and also energize the Libertarian Party. And perhaps if we had a Democratic Socialist Party that might work for progressives.

But there's the problem of not having a parliamentary system to work with, so that would be a major issue in constituting how Congress works. Would the majority leaders and speaker then become closer in power and position to a prime minister?

Americans, by whom I mean only citizens of the USA though our immediate neighbors to the north and south tend to copy us on this one, do not like to lose just to make a point.

Parties on the extremes would have to be willing to lose long enough for their wisdom to be recognized and rewarded with majority support.

The healthcare "debate" (if it can still be called that) is only the latest example of the level to which patience has sunk as a virtue in politics, or in our society in general.

It may be that lack of patience and persistence that kills any challenge to the two party system and at the same time encourages yelling in desperation to control debate in those two parties - whether that yelling is done by individuals at a healthcare debate or by donations by corporations to campaigns; something the Supremes may make legal once again.

If donations are a form of free speech then large donations to campaigns are a form of yelling, and donations to organizations that scream lies (swift boating is I think the current popular term) will become the norm if they show success.

Perhaps campaign reform will be the result. If not then it will not be good for US democracy or the economy.