AL-02: Bobby Bright's Response to the Love-Palin Ad

Bobby is the Real Deal! (4.00 / 1)

Be assured that Bobby Bright is the Real Deal.  If he says he's not going to forget where he came from or not remember the folks who sent him to Washington to take care of the People's business, you can believe it. He will LISTEN to the people of the 2nd District, no matter their status...which is more than I can say about Terry Everett or his surrogate, "Subway" Jay.  Bobby will be a REPRESENTATIVE for the people of the 2nd District, not just a "Party" fixture. He's everything he presents himself to be and more.  GO BOBBY!

---

by: Grace @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:01:30 PM CDT

yowza (4.00 / 1)

That's a very good ad, and frankly, it would be helpful if other Dems in close races in the South ran something similar. Its short and sweet, and it hits home, because he's essentially distancing himself from Obama, while connecting Love with Bush/Cheney/Pig/Lipstick... and that works, frankly, in Alabama.

the truth shall set you free

---

by: plainsmanpolitico @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 00:26:22 AM CDT

That's a GREAT ad! (4.00 / 1)

Way to go, Bobby!

---

by: hgalloway @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:18:46 AM CDT

Very Nice (0.00 / 0)

Bobby Bright really impresses me. Griffith and Bright would be wonderful additions to the Blue Dog Coalition and I hope the group would look into inviting them to join once they are elected.

I know some will disagree with me on here, because it IS a liberal leaning blog, but, Democrats like Bright and Griffith are the types of Democrats our party needs in rural southern areas.

They both remind me of my favorite Congressmen Jim Marshall and Gene Taylor.

With Childers and Cazayoux winning in MS and LA, plus the possibility of Bright and Griffith winning, this populist strategy of social conservatism mixed with fiscal responsibiility is exactly what our party needs.

Sure, some might be upset that this group is not more dedicated to pushing a liberal social agenda, and that's understandable if you support those types of issues, but, all of the coalitions within our party must work together if we're ever going to accomplish anything.

---

by: RuralDem @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:56:53 AM CDT

Social Conservatism? (0.00 / 0)

What's that?

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:10:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Redeye (0.00 / 0)

Social conservatism = anti-abortion, pro-public prayer in school, anti-civil rights, anti-LGBT rights, teaching of creationism, free trade with third world countries, etc...

As for the blue dog coalition, Mr. Griffith is already a proud member. he displays their logo on his website. Being a progressive Democrat, I'll end my comments there.

 

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:27:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

It's fine that you're not a fan, but at least understand what you're talking about.

Sure, social conservatives are pro-traditional family, pro-prayer in school, etc, but um free trade? That'd be on the fiscal side. Besides, you can thank some of your "progressive" friends for stuff like that as well. Last I checked, there are quite a few liberals that are free-traders.

Griffith can't be a member of the Blue Dog Coalition if he's not even a Congressman yet. They also have certain number limits within the organization.

---

by: RuralDem @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:33:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Social Conservatives (0.00 / 0)

Social conservatives like to tell Americans how to live, who to marry, how many children to have, how to die, who to worship, when to pray, who they should marry and who to have sex with.  I don't see how one can be a "social conservative" and a Democrat.


The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:38:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He can't? (4.00 / 1)

Check his website. He proudly displays this logo, which is linked directly from his website's front page!!!

BTW, prayer is legal in schools. The only thing that is illegal is a government sponsored prayer in school. The reason for that is seperation of church and state. Neither government nor it's employees, teachers, principals, etc., can legally sanction or lead public prayer in a government-funded school. However, if your son or daughter wants to pray in school, it's their constitutional right and it's not forbidden.

A true Christian wouldn't think of school prayer as a pro-family issue.

 Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."

Of course, we know that the GOP wants to be seen as fighting for the right to pray, a right that everyone already has. What was the word that Jesus had for those people?

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hrmm (0.00 / 0)

He might support the coalition, which many, including myself do, but my point is he is not a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, which is the a conservative House caucus of Democrats.

That's like you running around saying you're a member of the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus), which, unless you're a member of Congress, you're not officially a member of the group.

Nothing annoys me more than when either side wants to question someone's faith like you're doing with the "true Christian" comment.

Stuff like that shows me why the liberal wing of our party is just as bad as the extreme right wing of the GOP.

---

by: RuralDem @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 17:44:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

*sigh* Here we go again.... (0.00 / 0)

This sounds like something driq/OP would say:

Nothing annoys me more than when either side wants to question someone's faith like you're doing with the "true Christian" comment.

Stuff like that shows me why the liberal wing of our party is just as bad as the extreme right wing of the GOP.

FYI Rural Dem, this is a blog for the liberal wing or our party, of the liberal wing of our party, by the liberal wing of our party.

There will probably be a lot things said here that will annoy you more.  For example:

A true Christian wouldn't think of school prayer as a pro-family issue.

Somehow you twisted this comment as questioning your faith.   

As far as the so called "conservative house Democrats" they are part of the problem not the solution.  They need to either lead, follow or get out of the way. 

Eight is Enough.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 18:45:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um (0.00 / 0)

Redeye,

I've acknowledged that I understand what this site is at least once, maybe more, in the past. This is one of the first sites I visit outside of the ones here in my state of Georgia. You guys do a great job, and, on economic matters, I tend to agree with many of the things that some of y'all say.

I never said my personal faith was being attacked, so there's no need to bold the "your". However, its obvious the "true-christian" statement was made to provoke a response.

Fortunantly, the majority of the liberal wing of the party realizes that all factions have to co-exist and work together in order for us to keep our majority and make gains throughout the country. I tend to think we agree on more than we disagree on. Remove the divisive social issues and more often than not, conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats tend to agree on a majority of issues.

But hey, it seems that you'd prefer to stay in the minority and having NO chance at pushing any legislation, than having a working coalition that can at least push certain issues. No matter what you say, the party would be in the minority without the Blue Dogs, especially after 2006.

Again, there are issues that we'll disagree on, but hey, you're coming off as the "my way or the highway" type that would rather push an extreme liberal agenda, or no agenda at all.

Fortunantly, a majority of Democrats do not hold that same belief.

---

by: RuralDem @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 19:38:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um NO (0.00 / 0)

Your coming to this obviously far, left, liberal blog trying trying to promote a socially conservative agenda" will not hold".

As MadisonAubie says "if I wanted to be a conservative"I would vote Republican.

Fortunately you don't speak for a "majority of Democrats".  And how do you know what the majority of the liberal wing think?   Who made you the spokes person  for the liberal wing?  

What do you mean by "remove the divisive" social issues?  What "divisive social issues" are you referring to?  Surely you aren't suggesting I compromise my liberal position in order to appease social conservatives.  

I'm not the one with the "my way or the highway attitude".   I'm also not one with a "go along to get along atitude".  And yes I proudly stand up for my "extreme liberal positions".

Melissa was not obviously " trying to provoke a response" she was stating her OPINION as she is free to do.  

It is MY opinion that conservative Democrats are the reason progressive legislation is not being passed becasue they cave in and vote with the Republican obstuctionist which enables them to block all progressive legislation.  That's why we don't have universal health care for all Americans.   I repeat, it's time for them to lead, follow or get out of the way.

You don't have to worry about answering any of my questions.  We need to agree to disagree and move on.

Good night and good luck.

Eight is Enough. 

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 20:47:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

RuralDems Favorite Congressmen (0.00 / 0)

Jim Marshall

Marshall is a social conservative. He opposes abortion, gay marriage and gun control, and supports a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning. He has cited the concerns of people who have ethical objections to embryonic stem-cell research as influencing his votes on federal funds for such research: he supports allowing cell extraction only if embryos are not destroyed.^[2] He is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative congressional Democrats.

However, on economic and environmental issues, Marshall tends to vote more with his party. He opposed repealing the estate tax and opposed reducing environmental regulations on the construction of new oil refineries ("Gasoline for America's Security Act"). He voted against bankruptcy reform, for American withdrawal from the World Trade Organization, and against tort reform.

Marshall has consistently been a vocal advocate of larger benefits for military servicemen and veterans. In December 2005, Marshall was the sole Democrat to vote against HR 2863. This defense appropriations bill, which passed 308-122, included language supporting increased protections for detainees held in U.S. custody.^[3] In February 2007, along with Gene Taylor from Mississippi, he was one of two Democrats to vote against H CON RES 63, which expressed opposition to a troop surge in the Iraq War.^[4]

Jim Marshall is the only Democrat who voted against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, which would have expanded publicly-funded health care for uninsured children. However, he did vote to extend S-CHIP funding through March 31, 2009, which provided additional allotments to eliminate funding shortfalls. See S-CHIP.^[5][6]

Gene Taylor

Taylor is one of the most conservative Democrats in the House; In 2004 he voted with the Republican leadership 54.2 percent of the time. ^[3] He voted for all four articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton — the only Democrat to do so — and has frequently skipped Democratic conventions. In 1998 he was one of only 18 Democrats in the House to vote to rename the Washington National Airport the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. He is pro-life, a supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment and a firm supporter of gun rights. He had refused to vote for Nancy Pelosi as the Democrats' candidate for Speaker of the House until the party regained power in 2006, instead casting a protest vote for Jack Murtha. He did, however, join the other Democrats in voting for Pelosi in 2006.

Taylor is a strong opponent of affirmative action and opposes some anti-discrimination laws. He was one of only 15 Congressional Democrats to cast a vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1990.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 22:00:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, we're not far left (4.00 / 1)

Or just limited to the liberal viewpoint.  We're explicitly progressive, which I take to mean "desiring to improve government, and interested in actions not just ideas." 

While I disagree with RuralDem on a number of issues, I think he (or she) is with us in seeking improvements through action. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 23:07:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks (4.00 / 2)

Mooncat,

Thanks for the post. Trust me, I'm in no way trying to come on here and troll. This was a post about Bobby Bright, and well, I'm a fan! I've posted on here a few other times, and as far as I know, I think I've been respectful of the site and commentators.

I won't apologize for my views, but I will apologize if I sounded "trollish", though it wasn't my intention.

I have no problem with people standing up for their beliefs, all I am saying is I do not think there are enough liberal Democrats, or for that matter, conservative Democrats, out there for us to win without each other. I'm simply saying I think certain "types" of Democrats can do better in certain districts. It's great if you support a more liberal Democrat in AL-02, but from what I understand of the district, it's pretty conservative.

If any of you are familiar with Georgia, let me give you this:

A Democrat like John Lewis could not win in Jim Marshall's district, and vice versa.

Like you're saying mooncat, we likely disagree on many issues, especially if we're from different wings of the party, however, we likely agree on more of the "wonkish" issues than we do the "hot-button" issues that cause so much controversy.

I'd much rather work with someone that I can find a common ground with 50% of the time, than someone who will agree with me 10% of the time.

You can still hold true to your beliefs while also realizing that the "all or nothing" approach usually does more harm than good.

Anyway, I'm a he!

---

by: RuralDem @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 00:06:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Democrats like John Lewis (0.00 / 0)

Democrats like John Lewis couldn't win in Marshalls district because:

1.  He's an African American

2.  He is pro choice

3.  He is pro affirmative action

4.  He is pro civil rights

5.  He is a liberal democrat. 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:31:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

RuralDem (0.00 / 0)

I'd much rather work with someone that I can find a common ground with 50% of the time, than someone who will agree with me 10% of the time. You can still hold true to your beliefs while also realizing that the "all or nothing" approach usually does more harm than good.

Well, it's according to several factors. First, you're assuming that it's automatically 50%. I don't see that much that Parker Griffith or I would agree on. I don't see that much difference in policy statements between his website and Wayne Parker's.

Second, I hold some liberal/progressive views in higher esteem than others. I would have far less problem with a fiscal conservative than with a social conservative. Just like Obama and the FISA vote, I don't think a citizen's rights should be abridged just to garner votes.

If you had a friend who was wrongfully accused of a crime and serving a life sentence,and a new warden who told everyone that, if hired, he'd get the prisoners better treatment but he didn't think they needed to let any out of prison, whether they were actually guilty or not, how excited would you be to hire that warden?

Third. You're wrong if you believe that I can still hold firm to my beliefs while voting for someone who has opposite views from my own. All voting for a blue dog will get you is more Democrats thinking they have to be a conservative to win.

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:48:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two responses in one (0.00 / 0)

Redeye,

It's not about race.

I fully believe another Blue Dog like Sanford Bishop could win the district. Both Marshall and Bishop are strong on agricultural issues, which is important in the middle/south GA area. Bishop represented us for years, and then after redistricting, Marshall represented us, now, after another redistricting, Bishop represents the county I live in. Both men are a great fit for their respective districts, and I believe they have many similarities. Maybe next time, do some research before suddenly throwing out race as the main issue.

Lewis could not win in the district because of number 5.

MadisonAubie,

I simply threw out a number. However, I'm sure you knew that, because if you were serious about your argument you would have pointed out the 10% as well. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough, though I think it's easy to understand. The approach you seem to favor (anyone Democrat who is not a hardcore liberal is bad) will negate progress on issues that most Democrats can agree on. No one can speak for everyone, but I do think we could find common ground on some issues.

Next, you start by saying "Second, I hold some liberal/progressive views in higher esteem than others", then you go into "Third. You're wrong if you believe that I can still hold firm to my beliefs while voting for someone who has opposite views from my own".

Please, let me know when you find someone that you agree with 100% of the time. That would be amazing. The only people that seem to do that are partisans, and, fortunantly, you do not seem like a partisan.

As far as the Blue Dog argument, that's fine if you believe that. Like I've said, fortuantly for the Democratic Party, and, well, for the country, the "all or nothing" types such as yourself do not hold too much sway in the leadership of our party. I'd much rather work with others to get some of the things that we both want passed, while working to persuade that person to support less agreeable issues, than to simply take my ball and go home because we disagree on one issue.

I kind of think we're going in a circle, but, this is interesting!

Even if we disagree on this stuff, I do appreciate you guys and the way we're discussing this. I'm still very uninformed on Alabama politics, especially on a local/state level, but I see some similarities between GA and AL.

Again, thanks for the great discussion.

---

by: RuralDem @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 13:31:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

RD (0.00 / 0)

Someone who agrees with me 50% of the time is not a conservative. They would be a moderate. I have a REAL problem with the blue dog coalition. They RARELY agree with me on policy issues.

 They're the ones who forced the FISA vote, not the GOP. They're the ones who push a lot of the pro-corporate interests, such as NAFTA, CAFTA, Free Trade with China, etc... Liberals in Congress, backed by the unions, one of which I'm a member, have fought tooth and nail to stop these free trade pacts, but when you have blue dogs who vote with the GOP more than with their own party on trade and corporate interests and publicly state that they're conservative on almost all civil issues, well what's left to vote for if you're a liberal?

There are two candidates for Congress in my district. I don't feel that either one of them would represent my views or vote for my issues, so I will not be voting for either of them. BTW, RD, the sex toy law that we make fun of here in Alabama.... passed by a "conservative" democratic majority. The constitutional ban on gay marriage, even though there was already a law on the books outlawing it in Alabama.... "conservative" democratic majority. The tax code in Alabama, which is based largely on sales taxes, the most regressive type of tax there is.... "conservative" Alabama majority.

You say a "conservative democrat" can't do damage? Just look at some of the stupid laws passed by our proud, Democratically-controlled Alabama state government.

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 17:01:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Curious (0.00 / 0)

about your analogy to the warden. Why not accept the new warden to improve the friends state while still working to set him free?

I am not trying to lecture but politics is very seldom a choice between someone who agreeds with the majority of your beliefs and someone who believes in none. It is most often a choice between the lesser of two evils.

I admire your determination not to vote if neither candidate reflects most of your views but I pose this question - I am sure there were many voters who feel like you in Florida in 2002. Had they participated and voted for Gore as the lesser of two evils do you think we would be better off today? 

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 22:57:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trick question? (0.00 / 0)

The answer is no, because the election was in Naught, Naught.

---

by: Go Blue @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 23:31:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OP (0.00 / 0)

I voted for Gore in 2000. However, going down this same road again, it's easy to blame the Nader voters in Florida for Gore's close results in Florida (I refuse to call it a loss) but there were a lot of Nader voters in other states as well.

 The Florida AG purged hundreds of thousands of voters from the voting list before the 2000 elections, most of them from black or poor areas. She presided over sanctioning of the vote tally in Florida.

 Florida Governor Jeb Bush had already told W that he'd deliver Florida for him. The exit polling was enough in Gore's favor that many networks called Florida for Gore early in the night.

 Now, if you want to point REAL blame, consider how Gore didn't spend nearly as much time and effort in Tennessee, HIS HOME STATE, as W did. If Gore had carried Tennessee, HIS HOME STATE, we wouldn't be pointing the finger of blame for the Florida fiasco today.

 With that said, If I HAD voted for Nader in 2000, it would have been because I thought he was the best candidate for the job and I would not be disappointed that one of the candidates that I didn't vote for lost because I would not have considered either one of them as the candidate that I considered the best for the job.

You see, I'm not a "party" voter. I vote for the individual who most closely represents my own personal beliefs. They don't have to be an "exact match" as you want to say to bolster your argument but they do have to agree with me on a majority of issues.

 If there was a "moderate to liberal" republican running in AL-05 against Parker Griffith, I'd be voting for a Republican in November. As both candidates are too far right for me to consider them for office, I will leave that part of my ballot blank.

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 08:45:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 1)

There's no need to get all upset and angry.

If you spoke for a majority of Democrats then there would be no Blue Dog Coalition because the liberal wing of House Democrats would have done everything in their power to strip those members of any power, leaving them ineffective. That's all I meant.

I'm not suggesting you compromise anything, refer to my post to mooncat.

I stated my response to what she posted, and instead of accepting my response as an opinion, you decide to point out that she's attacking MY faith.

That's great that you're not a fan of Conservative Democrats. Again, try checking out the make-up of Congressional Democrats, and maybe you'll see that as of right now, if you take out all of the Conservative Democrats, you're left with a Republican majority.

I'm glad you were able to Google Marshall and Taylor. Maybe you could Google some more and look around the country and see there's not enough elected liberal Democrats, or conservative Democrats, to hold a majority in Congress, or in many states.

Again, I'm not advocating that you hold back your views. To me, some issues are more important than others. I work with my more liberal friends to push the issues we mutually agree on.

However, you come off as the type that would rather view all issues equally, and only work with those who share that view on all issues. Thinking like that is the reason why things do not get done.

The all or nothing routine is a pipedream.

---

by: RuralDem @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 00:15:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The all or nothing routine is a pipedream. (0.00 / 0)

Let me clarify this image that you won't to paint of me. I don't agree with 100% of what Obama is proposing but I'm voting for him. A candidate doesn't have to agree with 100% of my views for me to support him. You suggesting such is an awfully weak argument because I've never said such and I've never indicated as much.

However, if I disagree with a majority of a candidate's platform, which would be fair to say about the blue dog coalition, I don't see any purpose in voting for someone who's going to vote against my thoughts the majority of the time. Ain't happening.

He doesn't have to be a "liberal" for me to support him but he damn sure ain't going to be a blue dog conservative Democrat!!

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 17:08:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know what I want to know? (0.00 / 0)

Why should liberal/progressives let conservatives tell us what to do and how to do it?  They are not our friend and they are not on our side.  They are against every thing we are for. 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 17:17:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

EXACTLY (0.00 / 0)

Don't tell us what a fine, moral conservative candidate you are and expect us to fall into lockstep and vote for you just because you're the "lesser of two evils". Remember the term RD used about our elected officials being "representatives". That they are, and a blue dog conservative democrat does not "represent" me or my values and beliefs.

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 17:23:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 0)

Well, I still stand by my view that if you truly care about making a difference, you'd work with those that you might not always agree with, instead of simply saying "hrmph you're a conservative, forget you".

No, I'm not questioning your dedication, so please don't take it that way. But again, like I've stressed, we're all Democrats for a reason, and um, y'all might want to do some research on the Blue Dogs. Conservative Democrats are far more moderate than Conservative Republicans.

Look at the voting records themselves, and even the vote ratings, and you'll see that.

There is one exception to that rule and that's Zell Miller when he was in the Senate. I think he hit 90% as far as voting with the GOP.

---

by: RuralDem @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 18:28:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK Then, (0.00 / 0)

Why are the Democrats the only party willing to compromise their principles and work "with those they don't agree with"?  Huh? 

Conservatives certainly say "hrmph you're a Democrat, forget you". 

 How come Republicans never reach across the aisle?  Huh?

What exactly are the so called "rural issues" that people care about more than they care about having access to quality healthcare, or quality public schools, or civil rights, equal rights and human rights?  Isn't the price of gasoline a "rural issue"?  Don't people that live in rural areas send their sons and daughters off to Iraq and Afghanistan?  Do they care more about "rural issues" than they do our troops?

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 18:43:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bud Cramer (0.00 / 0)

Here's our current blue dog, Bud Cramer, and his rating with different conservative and liberal groups.

American Civil Liberties Union: 25% (Liberal civil liberties group)
Chamber of Commerce of the United States: 86%  (Corporate interests group)
Christian Coalition: 58% (Conservative group)
American Conservative Union: 50% (Conservative group)
National Taxpayers Union: 26% (taxpayer friendly group)
League of Conservation Voters: 36% (Liberal environmental group)

I'm sorry but those values are too far removed from my own for me to be a blue dog supporter.

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 18:52:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You left off the most important one (0.00 / 0)

Alabama - 7 House Members  

http://www.uaw.org/cap/08/rollcall/vote01.php

---

by: Go Blue @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 22:42:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

see below (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Go Blue @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 22:45:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually... not (0.00 / 0)

Bud Cramer on Free Trade

Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru.

Voted YES on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Voted YES on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement.

Voted YES on implementing free trade agreement with Chile.

Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.

The company that I worked for built plants in Communist China making the same parts that our plants made. They said they were building these plants to supply their manufacturing base in Singapore to supply Asia with their vehicles.

Shortly after getting these plants up and running, my company, an international company headquarterd in Michigan, entered into bankruptcy in a New York Court with a conservative judge appointed by the Bush administration.

This "international" company, which was in the top 25 of Fortune 500 companies, and which had a very healthy profit, only entered their AMERICAN companies into bankruptcy.

They immedialtely asked the judge to dissolve our negotiated contracts and cut our pay almost 70%. To add insult to injury, they then asked the judge to set back a half billion dollars in bonuses for top executives when the company emerged from bankruptcy.

The plant that I worked at is slated to close in 2009, unless sold to another company.

You can award Bud Cramer all of the +s you want for 2007, when he was probably already considering leaving Washington, but the damage has already been done.

As you can imagine, I have a very bitter taste in my mouth from the blue dog coalition or ANY Democrat who proudly calls themselves "conservative".

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 06:41:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

YouTube Moment (0.00 / 0)

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 08:25:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trade (0.00 / 0)

Alright, that was nice and all, but, I wonder, why did you leave out the big "No" vote? At least be fair in this discussion, as I'm trying to do. According to On The Issues, Cramer voted:

Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)

Also, while we're at it, since you insist on making Cramer the standard-bearer for all Blue Dogs, let's look at a white member of Congress who is known as a staunch liberal.

Here's Nancy Pelosi's votes, according to On The Issues:

# Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
# Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
# Voted YES on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
# Voted YES on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
# Voted YES on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)

So, I take it all liberals really do support free trade? I mean, if you're going to paint all Blue Dogs with a brush because of Bud Cramer, then isn't it fair for me to paint you and other liberals with the same brush because of Nancy Pelosi?

Now, here's Gene Taylor's votes on free trade:

Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
# Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
# Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
# Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
# Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)

To be fair, I'll include a liberal, Jim McGovern:

Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
# Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
# Voted YES on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
# Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
# Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)

My point to all of this? Well, again, overall (meaning, in general) Blue Dogs tend to stay aligned with the party due to economic issues, such as free trade.

Which, hey, if you're thing is social issues, that's fine. Again, I'll simply say that I'd rather have someone in there that I can sometimes agree with on some issues than never agree with any issue.

Before the race card was thrown out earlier, I was also making a point that the type of district is also a major factor. John Lewis could not win in Sanford Bishop's district, nor could Jim McGovern win in Jim Marshall's district, and vice versa. If you're a hardcore liberal, yet you're district is fairly conservative, why not support an economic populist Blue Dog Democrat? In that type of district, the Democrat might be very conservative, but, there's a reason he's a Democrat.

---

by: RuralDem @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:22:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Last reply RD (0.00 / 0)

As I've stated, I'm a "civil progressive" first, so the first area that I look for similar views is how much they believe in equal rights for everyone.

 As you probably already know but chose to ignore, my Bud Cramer votes on trade was in direct response to Go Blue's post about how in 2007, the UAW gave him an 86% rating, voting with labor on 12 of 14 issues.

I was pointing out that the damage had already been done before 2007 and how Cramer had voted "against" us on so many trade agreements before hand.

PAY ATTENTION!!! I was NOT stating that these were the only reasons that I had stopped voting for Bud Cramer. They were only my response to his 86% rating in the one calendar year.

Now, as for Nancy Pelosi. She's not my congresswoman and how she votes in Congress has no bearing whatsoever on who I will vote for in AL-05. I know you conservatives love to play the guilt by association game and like to throw out Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid when you don't have anything positive to say about your own candidate but let me reiterate. The following two choices are the only ones that I am aware of that will be on my ballot:

a) Parker Griffith - D (conservative)

b) Wayne Parker - R (conservative)

Those are the only two choices that I have been given. It's on those two candidates, and those two alone, that I will base my non-vote in AL-05.

 

 

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:35:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ahh (0.00 / 0)

I think you're missing the general picture, and instead, you're attempting to harp on specifics, which is fine, if that's what you want to do.

I would mention though that as much as you dislike Cramer, Parker Griffith is not Bud Cramer.

I only chose Pelosi because that's the first person that came to mind. Amazing how you ignored my part about Taylor and McGovern, of course, that further erodes what you're saying, so, it's convienent to ignore it.

It puzzles me how someone can complain so much about the process, yet, refuses to vote. I guess that's the "all or nothing" approach that extremists on both sides of the aisle enjoy.

---

by: RuralDem @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:28:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hot Damn (0.00 / 0)

Another double naught spy.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 14:04:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's what I thought MadisonAubie (0.00 / 0)

I wonder why politicians feels as if they must pander to the anti civil rights, womens' rights, and human rights crowd in order to be elected to public office? 


The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:34:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right on, Redeye (0.00 / 0)

They're against rights for almost everyone and then wonder why we don't get excited about voting for them. As a progressive, I believe STRONGLY in equal rights for everyone..... E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E!!! To quote the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I don't remeber seeing the phrase... unless they're black, female, Hispanic or gay.

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:58:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why do they think they must pander? (4.00 / 1)

Or at least not antagonize those forces?  Two words:  Empirical evidence. 

When was the last time you saw an unabashed liberal elected from a Southern state?  Please educate me. I'm all for speaking truth to power, but there are limits to how far you can move from the mainstream of your constituents and still be a viable candidate.  These people are called REPRESENTATIVES for a reason.

If we want to elect non-Blue Dog Democrats from Alabama, we need to change public opinion in Alabama through reason and a more widespread dissemination of accurate, factual information.  Which is what we are trying to do here. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 23:13:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LiA (4.00 / 2)

Mooncat,

Admittedly, I'm nowhere near as familiar with AL politics as I am with GA politics, but from my limited understanding, it seems that y'all have a situation similiar to ours, a Democratic Party  that has always been mostly conservative, however, in recent decades, the party has seen a slow but continous rise in the number of liberals, and a slow but steady decline in the number of conservatives.

However, unlike other states, GA and AL still have a large contingent of conservative Democrats. I see these Democrats as staying loyal to the party because of fiscal issues.

At this point in time, there is not a large enough number of either faction to carry the party by itself. 

Basically, right now, both factions need to work together to promote the issues we believe in.

LiA is obviously geared towards the liberal wing, and that's great. Like I said, I see many topics on here where I agree with what is said, though there are also some topics I disagree with.

Either way, my point is not to troll, it's simply to say "hey, we might have some different views, but there's a reason we're all Democrats, and instead of the constant fueding, let's work together until we're stronger."

Sure, the day will likely come where one faction gains so much power over the other that it can essentially write them off, but at this point in time it's impossible.

I hope that makes sense.

---

by: RuralDem @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 00:22:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Makes sense to me (0.00 / 0)

A bird needs two wings to fly.

If you don't have people of differing opinions in a political party, it becomes a creepy, corrupt echo chamber like the current Republican party.

And the same is true of even a progressive blog.  I'm fine debating the issues with fellow Democrats - even if they aren't pro-choice or in favor of marriage equality.  

Discussion about issues is important.  I have friends who only recently have decided that "civil unions are probably ok."  Five years ago, NO WAY they would have said that.

And RD, I'm not being condescending and implying that we can make you "see the light," just pointing out that everyone's on a journey and people's viewpoints change as they get new information and experiences. 

Unless you're George Bush that is.....

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:26:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mooncat (0.00 / 0)

I respect what you're saying and since this started with my comment, let me expound on it. I had no intentions of attacking anyone's religious beliefs. However, I also don't believe teaching creationism and mandating school prayer are "family values" issues, based on the bible verse that I quoted.

What I was trying to say was that the GOP and "social conservatives" have perverted the teachings of Jesus Christ for political gain. What better way to condition the uninformed masses that your opposition is the anti-Christ (Which also is not biblical) than by rewriting the Bible and make the ignorant think that they're doing God's work by following YOUR political position?

As for "blue dog conservative democrats", I'm a social progressive before anything else. I believe firmly that ALL people are born with certain, inalienable rights. I believe in a person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't believe the government should make reproductive choices for a family. I don't believe the government should tell a person who they can love OR marry. I don't believe the government or anyone else in this country should be able to discriminate against another person because of their race, their religion or lack thereof, their national heritage, their gender or their sexual orientation.

 Therefore, even using the binary code of "1" is better than "0", if that "1" is willing to step on another person's personal freedoms for personal gain, (Which we attacked george Wallace for) I am not going to throw my vote away on him/her.

 

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:17:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Political Statement (0.00 / 0)

I'd love to see a Democrat stand up to the conservative's social injustice.

Political statement: I am a candidate for elected office. I believe in the principle that our nation was founded on "a government of the people, by the people and for the people".

Our founding fathers did not put an asterisk behind those words. Instead, with every word that they spoke or wrote, they encompassed the inalienable right of EVERY person to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Even though I may not agree with someone's views, beliefs or choices, I respect their right to make those choices, just as I would hope others would respect my right and YOUR right to make our own choices.

Too many politicians use our differences to seperate and conquer. A person who uses divisive tactics, the us against them tactic, show that they're not comfortable enough in their solutions to our problems to allow public discussion of them. Instead, they try to make the election about personal issues, our own inner biases.

If elected, I will use my power in office to represent ALL of my constituents and I will not abuse my power by having your government force their views on you. You see, I believe in what the constitution stands for, individual freedom and the rights of American citizens to make their own choices.

 

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:47:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here! Here! (0.00 / 0)

Well said MadisonAubie.


The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:28:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll try again Madison (0.00 / 0)

Alabama - 7 House Members  

http://www.uaw.org/cap/08/rollcall/vote01.php

 

---

by: Go Blue @ Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 22:46:53 PM CDT