Scott Brown to vote in favor of START treaty. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101221/ap_on_go_co/us_us_russia_nuclear
My point exactly. Even if they can't replace him, if they force him to the right in the primaries, the Dems are going to annihilate him in the general. This is Massachusetts. Scott Brown is the Republican equivalent to a Blue Dog. These dimwits want a far right Republican, which is about as likely as Barbara Boxer winning Jim Inhofe's OK Senate seat.
In fariness, the left does pretty much the same thing. I can't tell you how many times I read from the left moaning about how Blue Dogs were worse than useless and how they hoped all the Blue Dogs would lose their elections. So now there are a bunch of hard-right Republicans in those former Blue Dog seats. Doesn't strike me as much of a victory for the left.
Now that's a thought, Boxer stumping in an Oklahoma diner and Inhofe schmoozing at a Mill Valley wine-and-cheese. The Marinites would love to hear from Inhofe about how global warming is a hoax.
Not much, true. But here's where the comparison might diverge a bit. The Blue Dogs are/were, as a group (if not to the last individual), corporate whores on a level heretofore unimaginable. They voted based on what their masters said. Brown's voting record appears to be based, at least to a greater extent, on different criteria. If I had to put a finger on it, it would be something to the effect of "I'm going to vote with the Republicans most of the time. Except for the 10-15% of the time where they're being complete and total jerkoffs." Now the question becomes: If he can't count on Tea Party/conservative money (which he can't anymore), where is he going to get the $ to defend his seat? My guess is the same place the Blue Dogs did.
Either that or he'll be underfunded and lose badly to a Democratic candidate with millions of dollars and a powerful statewide campaign organization on their side. Hell, he might lose even if he does have plenty of money.
Two big differences. 1. The problem with the Blue Dogs for me, and for MOST of the "moaners," isn't that they're "too conservative." It's the preening before the media that some of them do about how they're better than mainstream Dems, and the reinforcing of conservative talking points. Most liberals understand they're not going to vote with us sometimes. Just vote with us SOMEtimes, and don't undermine the rest of the caucus. 2. Do liberals primary Blue Dogs?* They primaried Joe Lieberman, sure, but that just proves the point. There's no political reason for a Connecticut Democrat to vote like he did. *Blanche Lincoln's opponent was supported by the left because a) she was already inCREDibly unpopular Arkansas and had no chance to win anyway, and b) her shenanigans on financial reform, which is hardly something she had to do in order to retain the support of her constituents.
That too. It's one thing if Blue Dogs are conservative about tax increases or gun rights or farm subsidies. We liberals get that. But the extent to which they vote the way the US Chamber of Commerce tells them to, even (especially!) when it's not politically popular in their district, pisses us off.
My guess is that part of the definition of Blue Dog has gotta be corporate whore, because they are representing voters who share the Chamber of Commerce's view is that the role of the government is to get out of the way of businesses (and give a few handouts on occasion).
The Tea Party is going to "purity test" itself into irrelevance very soon if they keep this up. I'm not a huge fan of Scott Brown, but he's exactly the kind of Republican that stands a fighting chance in a state like Massachusetts.
I'm sure the good people of Idaho, Arizona and Alaska will continue to find them relevant once the national republicans are through using them...
Exactly. From the standpoint of a moderate, he's the kind of open minded politician that we need in Washington, and from the standpoint of a right winger, he's the best they can hope to get out of a state like Massachusetts.