I don’t actually think this is a very good cartoon, as it seems to miss the point. Illustrating the Blue Dogs as sleeping while money was spent on “Military Spending”, “Tax Cuts”, and “Iraq War”, isn’t really true as at the time their votes meant nothing. I would imagine pretty much all the Democrats as a group voted against such things, but with a Republican House (at the time) the Blue Dogs and in fact the Democratic party in the house as a whole had no real say against an organised Republican vote. Then when Democrats took it back in 2006 and the veto threat went away with Obama, then suddenly their block of votes became significant as it meant the Democrats were split on issues that involved fiscal spending (like Health Care).
A more correct illustration would show the Blue Dogs locked up snarling in a cage, only to be released by the Democrats as the house was reclaimed and for them to bite the hand of the body that just freed them.
One thing the Republicans were good at was sticking mostly together when it came to voting for stuff they wanted, something the Democrats need to learn pretty quickly if they want to get anything done.
"Sounds a bit too much like a party divided in that case then. Not going to get anywhere or do anything when your own party is too busy infighting."
Welcome to the wonderful world of Democratic politics, my friend.
"Care to point me in the direction of the voting records?"
I've not actually perused the records themselves, I just know from extensive reading that some Blue Dogs (though not all) voted in favour of Bush's tax-cuts, the war in Iraq, and various military boondoggles. If I find a handy primer anywhere, I'll let you know. Paul Krugman's July NYT article on the subject ("An Incoherent Truth) is a good place to start, though.
It's worth noting also that this is about more than casting your vote, it's also about the noise generated before the votes as well. The amount of volume being generated by the Dogs over healthcare is far greater than it was over a tax cut (during a war, no less) that was obviously going to raise the deficit; the one thing the Blue Dogs are supposed to be entirely against.
M. Wuerker's archive can be found here.
4 comments:
I don’t actually think this is a very good cartoon, as it seems to miss the point. Illustrating the Blue Dogs as sleeping while money was spent on “Military Spending”, “Tax Cuts”, and “Iraq War”, isn’t really true as at the time their votes meant nothing. I would imagine pretty much all the Democrats as a group voted against such things, but with a Republican House (at the time) the Blue Dogs and in fact the Democratic party in the house as a whole had no real say against an organised Republican vote. Then when Democrats took it back in 2006 and the veto threat went away with Obama, then suddenly their block of votes became significant as it meant the Democrats were split on issues that involved fiscal spending (like Health Care).
A more correct illustration would show the Blue Dogs locked up snarling in a cage, only to be released by the Democrats as the house was reclaimed and for them to bite the hand of the body that just freed them.
One thing the Republicans were good at was sticking mostly together when it came to voting for stuff they wanted, something the Democrats need to learn pretty quickly if they want to get anything done.
"I would imagine pretty much all the Democrats as a group voted against such things"
Then your imagination is faulty.
Sounds a bit too much like a party divided in that case then. Not going to get anywhere or do anything when your own party is too busy infighting.
Care to point me in the direction of the voting records?
"Sounds a bit too much like a party divided in that case then. Not going to get anywhere or do anything when your own party is too busy infighting."
Welcome to the wonderful world of Democratic politics, my friend.
"Care to point me in the direction of the voting records?"
I've not actually perused the records themselves, I just know from extensive reading that some Blue Dogs (though not all) voted in favour of Bush's tax-cuts, the war in Iraq, and various military boondoggles. If I find a handy primer anywhere, I'll let you know. Paul Krugman's July NYT article on the subject ("An Incoherent Truth) is a good place to start, though.
It's worth noting also that this is about more than casting your vote, it's also about the noise generated before the votes as well. The amount of volume being generated by the Dogs over healthcare is far greater than it was over a tax cut (during a war, no less) that was obviously going to raise the deficit; the one thing the Blue Dogs are supposed to be entirely against.
Post a Comment