Which Is It? Blue Dogs or Red Dogs?

It's time to draw a line in the sand.  There are forty-seven members of the Blue Dog Democrats, and we need to know which ones support the U.S. troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and which ones agree with Rep. John Tanner that they are nothing more than deficit-enhancing debris. This is what Mr. Tanner had to say when announcing the plan by a segment of the Blue Dogs to block a vote on the GI Bill of Rights:

Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers.

A group that has voted time after time to support George Bush's war, at a cost of over $500 billion dollars, now dismisses the men and women who risked their lives as candlestick-makers who don't deserve money to go to college?  The Blue Dog's reason?  Because their budgetary rule of pay-as-you-go has "been ignored one too many times."  Yes, these champions of fiscal responsibility are fine with George Bush's twice-a-year $100 billion "supplementals," they are fine with billions going to Halliburton and Blackwater, but when it comes to providing a benefit to the people who fought in the war that the Blue Dogs supported, well, to hell with the troops.  

The Blue Dogs only need 15 votes to block a vote on this measure which scheduled to come up next week, and when asked if they had enough members opposing the bill, Blue Dog leader Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) said:

"There’s 47 of us, what do you think?"

I think that out of the 292 co-sponsors of the bill , 36 are Blue Dog Democrats, which means one of two things:  either Tanner and Boyd plan to join forces with Republicans to kill this bill, or there are at least 4 Blue Dogs who don't have the courage to stand by their convictions and do the right thing.  
It's time to find out where the Blue Dogs stand.  Do they stand with the troops or do they stand with George Bush, John McCain and the Blue Dogs who dismiss the troops as "candlestick-makers" who don't deserve benefits when they return from war?   Call and ask if they intend to help block H.R. 5740.

Mike Arcuri:  [phone]
Joe Baca:  [phone]
John Barrow:  [phone]
Melissa Bean:  [phone]
Marion Berry: [phone]
Sanford Bishop:  [phone]
Dan Boren:  [phone]
Leonard Boswell:  [phone]
Allen Boyd:  [phone]
Dennis Cardoza:  [phone]
Christopher Carney:  [phone]
Ben Chandler:  [phone]
Jim Cooper:  [phone]
Jim Costa:  [phone]
Bud Cramer:  [phone]
Lincoln Davis:  [phone]
Joe Donnelly:  [phone]
Brad Ellsworth:  [phone]
Gabrille Giffords:  [phone]
Kirsten Gillibrand:  [phone]
Bart Gordon:  [phone]
Jane Harman:  [phone]
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin:  [phone]
Baron Hill:  [phone]
Tim Holden:  [phone]
Steve Israel:  [phone]
Nick Lampson:  [phone]
Tim Mahoney:  [phone]
Jim Marshal:  [phone]
Jim Matheson:  [phone]
Mike McIntyre:  [phone]
Charlie Melancon:  [phone]
Michael Michaud:  [phone]
Dennis Moore:  [phone]
Patrick Murphy:  [phone]
Collin Peterson:  [phone]
Earl Pomeroy:  [phone]
Mike Ross:   1-800-223-2220
John Salazar:   [phone]
Loretta Sanchez:  [phone]
Adam Schiff:  [phone]
David Scott:  [phone]
Heath Shuler:  [phone]
Zack Space:  [phone]
John Tanner:  [phone]
Gene Taylor: [phone]
Mike Thompson:  [phone]
Charlie Wilson:  [phone]

•  Blue Fog

      What some of these sad politicians are living in.

  by David Boyle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:02:10 PM PDT

  •  Additional deep thoughts

        What do people here prefer, a. Blue Dogs or b. Fire Dogs (in lakes?)

        Democrats are quite the canine zoo these days.    

    by David Boyle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:04:14 PM PDT

    •  Labs.

      by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:05:07 PM PDT

      •  DKos: the "lab"oratory of online democracy

            --"Orange Dogs"?

            Woof!!

        by David Boyle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:06:44 PM PDT

  •  Tanner Called our Troops Butchers!!!! n/t

    by Ottoe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:15:46 PM PDT

    •  I think I know where someone can shove

      a candlestick.

      by nailbender on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM PDT

    •  It's true - he did.

      The troops obviously aren't candlestick makers, and unless they're in food service which we've contracted a great deal of away as it is, they're not bakers either. Thus, in inappropriately referring to our troops as butchers,  Rep. Tanner clearly is an unpatriotic, anti-troops terrorist lover (I'm not sure if I got the transitive property of quoting out of context quite right but its close) and the Blue Dogs, if they follow him on this, agree.

      So I think it's time we start push-polling these Congresspersons and their staff and get them on the line for a question like this:

      Rep. Tanner thinks American troops are, in his words, the same as butchers and don't deserve adequate medical care and education benefits.  I'm calling you, my representative, to see whether you agree with Rep. Tanner and intend to block HR 5740 or or whether you agree with the American people that the troops deserve better than the raw deal they got from the Bush administration and the previous Republican Congressional leadership and help reward and celebrate the brave fighting men and women of the American armed services?

      Just sayin'

      by StlInquirer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:25:16 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, Seriously

        I mean, it is comic to exaggerate his remark as if he described our troops as butchering people," but really it WAS pretty disrespectful ... the whole point of the legislation is to reward their service, and the whole point of his dismissal of them is that they aren't anything special.

        by Ottoe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:41:38 PM PDT

        •  I smell a progressive primary challenger in '10!

          I think the "more" Democrats is in pretty good shape for '08 and even '10.  Time to get to work on the "better".

          by StlInquirer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:52:19 PM PDT

  •  Tim Holden...

    I fucking hate Tim Holden.  

    I tried not to highlight his name in the voting booth for the primary, but the machine wouldn't allow me to complete the vote if all the boxes weren't lit.

    I nearly fucking gagged pressing his name.

    by LiquidC on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:30:35 PM PDT

•  4073 reasons why Sen. Clinton lost

  by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:02:35 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, dude(tte).

    Can't watch that one more time. Gag reflex, you know.

    by psnyder on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:03:15 PM PDT

•  and let's be a little more careful

  of exactly WHO we support for US House or Senate in the future, okay?

  I told you Shuler was not progressive and did not deserve our support, but he was promoted on this blog again and again.....

  by dancewater on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:03:48 PM PDT

  •  Always have to compare to the alternative

    If it's between a blue dog and a Republican, the Democrat is always better.

    If it's among Democrats, that's another matter.

    by plf515 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:05:36 PM PDT

    •  don't agree....

      and the DINO cannot count on my vote or support.

      by dancewater on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:07:46 PM PDT

      •  Why don't you agree?

        Shuler is in NC-11.  He beat Charles Taylor.  Do you prefer Taylor?

        by plf515 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:15:04 PM PDT

        •  I did not vote for either one.....

          Shuler is better on energy and the environment than Taylor, but not helpful at all on civil rights or human rights or stopping illegal and immoral occupations.

          and the repub he will be facing in the fall is saying NO to telecom immunity.  

          by dancewater on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:21:25 PM PDT

      •  According to Progressive Punch

        Shuler gets a 75.

        Taylor, who he replaced, did not do as well.

        by plf515 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:18:15 PM PDT

  •  Shuler

    ...is one of the co-sponsors of the bill.  The question is, is he going to stand by it?

    by BarbinMD on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:07:39 PM PDT

    •  You can officially cross Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand

      off of Mr. Boyd's list of 47. Rep. Gillibrand supports fiscal responsibility in all things but she equally supports the men and women that serve this nation. She believes this nation in turn is obligated to serve them.

      She is in full support of increased benefits for our returning veterans.

      Always has been. Always will be.

      Peace,

      Andrew
      former internet outreach coordinator for the '06 campaign of Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY-21)

      by Andrew C White on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:52:08 PM PDT

  •  He didn't pay for his college education

    Let them throw footballs.
    Love to see him come out and deny someone, anyone, who has pulled a tour in the war zones their 4 years of higher education. That might get a better Democrat in his office.

    by Mark Centz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:16:56 PM PDT

•  Irish setters

  Every last one of them! ;-)

  by droogie6655321 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM PDT

•  Disgraceful to send our guys over there and not

  support them. How many of those not supporting the troops now supported the war?

  by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:04:08 PM PDT

•  guys and gals ..

  by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:04:21 PM PDT

•  Democrats support the troops

  Republicans support the war

  by plf515 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:04:24 PM PDT

  •  Many Democrats voted for the war. How many have

    admitted it was a mistake?

    by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:05:50 PM PDT

    •  3.14?

      Oh, wait a minute.
      That's pie.

      by johnnygunn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:32:35 PM PDT

      •  I only know about Edwards. One of the reasons I

        like him.

        by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:16:38 PM PDT

•  How many of these people

  have parents (or did themselves) who benefitted from the GI Bill?  How many of them paid for their education through its benefits?  How many of them have talked with people who have?  It is one of the most important social bills ever passed and one of the most effective (no data here, but it certainly has been the difference in my family, as my dad went through college on it, and we are here because of that).  

  by annetteboardman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:04:33 PM PDT

•  Anybody who blocks this bill

  should have to spend the rest of their time in Congress with a bag over their heads.

  by LeftHandedMan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:05:07 PM PDT

  •  How about anyone

    who blocks this bill has to spend the rest of their term in Congress dodging mortars in Iraq.  My GI Bill barely pays my rent.

    I'm $65000 in debt because these assholes think I don't deserve to go to school.  And to think, I'm learning Arabic so I can help end this war.  These guys are on their own, they won't get my support.

    by Obamaniac08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:37:48 PM PDT

•  why pass an "emergency" supplemental at all?

  we're in the sixth year with no end in sight.  Why not a regular supplemental?  Something stinks.  What advantage does BushCo get using this language?

  by Compound F on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM PDT

  •  For one thing, when the media report ....

    ...on the size of the defense budget, the cost of the wars in Iran and Afghanistan are excluded. Clever, eh? The DoD budget doesn't include money for wars actually being fought.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:36:31 PM PDT

    •  yes, but regular supplementals do that also.

      they are separate from normal pentagon funding.  watch this video (real player) starting at about 45 min in when this exact issue arises at a Senate hearing.

      http://www.c-span.org/...

      it should be the video at the top of the page, the one where Jim Nussle of OMB gets grilled on this point.  The Senator (forget his name, Repub) speaks opaquely about certain protections that emergency funding engenders, protections the Repub suggests are advantageous against Democrats.  Nussle's answer is simply nonsense evasion.

      by Compound F on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:54:48 PM PDT

  •  All supplementals are "emergency" by definition.

    If an expense is foreseeable,  it's supposed to be in the budget.

    There's been some minor bitching about the use of supplementals for war expenses that should've been part of the regular budget,  but the Republicans mostly rolled over on it because it also helps conceal the true size of the deficit (supplementals go straight to debt,  without being counted in the official deficit figures).

    by Ran Talbott on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:10:10 PM PDT

    •  I think that is not quite accurate,

      but I'll have to find the page I was reading before my browser crashed to provide evidence.

      by Compound F on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:33:34 PM PDT

•  I've never been a fan of John Tanner.

  He's a bad fit for his district. He's one of the "CAFTA 15" and has been a free trade fundamentalist for his entire tenure in Congress. I'm usually not a fan of giving Democrats in Bush majority districts a primary but Tanner is such a bad fit for his district in rural northwest Tennessee.

  by dem4evr on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM PDT

  •  he was portrayed well in Farenheit 9-11

    he was one of the Congressmen who ran away from Michael Moore.  Way to go, Congressman Tanner.

    by Sandy on Signal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:10:30 PM PDT

•  You forgot the $30 BILLION WEALTHFARE

  For JP Morgan and Bear Stearns.  Talk about your "candlestick makers"!!!!

  But hey, everyone was fine with that tiny little hand out!!!

  by foolme1ns on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:07:09 PM PDT

•  Boyd should check his math

  There are 48 Blue Dogs on your list. Plus, there's one more not on the list (Bill Foster... 202-225-2976), so really there's 49.

  by Crisitunity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:07:14 PM PDT

  •  s-s-s-h-h-h-h

    I'm meeting him tomorrow.  I hope he signs on prior to the meeting.  Otherwise...

    by llbear on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:37:12 PM PDT

•  Thank you.

  It's time our representatives know we're keeping check. If they don't do what's right, they'll be replaced. There should be NO job security for these people. The only way to work it, is to keep them on a tight rope.

  by jazzence on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:07:37 PM PDT

•  Let us not support every Democrat

  without being purists, we have to make some line they should not cross. The new GI bill should be one of them. Give some latutude to Reps from swing Districts, but not supporting the troops is a No No.

  by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:08:18 PM PDT

•  FWIW

  Patrick Murphy has never voted to fund the war.  I don't imagine he's going to start to now.

  by Adam B on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:08:25 PM PDT

•  Baca is

  Listed as a Co-Sponsor, that's a good sign.  But I still want to see someone else in his seat.  I even re-registered as a Dem(was a green) to support Joanne Gilbert.

  by greeninca on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:08:39 PM PDT

•  They spend $340 million per day in Iraq

  for no good reason.  There is nothing that can justify this war and now they cannot even support the GI Bill of Rights.  Oh Hell, they are going to hear from me.  I live in TN where all but Rep. Cohen made the list.  Good God.  

  This time I will also shame them in the letters to the editor.  I have had enough of this b.s.

  by Sandy on Signal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:08:51 PM PDT

  •  $400 million a day. n/t

    by Meteor Blades on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:34:33 PM PDT

•  have these wastes of good democratic seats been

  contacted yet by places like VOTE VETS?  are they our candidates in the upcoming elections? are their districts heavily populated by flag pin wearing troop support patriotic American's who might be shocked to learn what the person they put in congress is about to do TO our troops???

  how much does it cost to run ads in these districts letting the electorate know?

  Vets, both current and of our past wars must make a real issue of this with those blue DOGS.   a public one if need be... a very public one if all else fails...  blue dogs hide behind our flag and our troops when it serves them...  it's time to take away that BLIND.

  blue dogs give REAL DOGS a bad name.

  by KnotIookin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:09:03 PM PDT

•  Bad Dogs

  but our dogs

  by Amayupta yo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:09:07 PM PDT

•  I prefer "Bad Dogs".,,,,

  which happens to be a great name for a four legged dog too! ( An aquaintance had a dog that eventually answered to that name unintentionally)

  by irate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:11:26 PM PDT

•  How do we finance great primary opposition?

  We need to make a list and go after these guys. Cutting off education to vets is a loser at the ballet box. Even in Arkansas, which has 2 dems on the list.

  by Village expects idiot home soon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:12:55 PM PDT

•  Some of you folks are being unrealistic....

  As mentioned above, in certain Congressional districts you have two choices:

  1. Blue Dog Democrat or,

  2. Republican...

  As a former constituent of Dennis Moore (D-KS), I can guarantee you a traditional Democrat will have a hard time in this area; not unlike a hard core GOP Conservative in say, New England (they are virtually extinct there)....

  Please don't disparage them because they are who they are.  Just my views....

  by Jabarten on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:18:32 PM PDT

  •  Most of us understand the dilemma of ...

    ...some Blue Dogs, although there are a number who are in districts a good deal more liberal than they are. But it's not like we're beating them on the head over same-sex marriage here. This is about veterans. And every district has lots of them.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:39:12 PM PDT

  •  I understand that they have to cave on some

    issues, but supporting veterans should NOT be one of the issues that they cave on!  There is absolutely no excuse for them to cave on this issue, none!!!

    by bhouston79 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:23:10 PM PDT

•  Allen Boyd

  Nasty, more-Repub-than-thou, snotty, condescending DINO jerk.  I'm sick of how many times he's meanly acted like his party is the bad guy, in the face of 7 solid years of sordid, uber-corrupt Republican extremism.  What is wrong with him?

  by DemDachshund on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:25:33 PM PDT

•  They can't get it to the floor with 292

  co-sponsors?

  Are they certain that none of the Republicans will break party lines on the procedural votes? Especially the ones in military districts with competitive races?

  Cause that's a LOT of Republican co-sponsors:
  AL: 0 of 5
  AK: 1 of 1
  AZ: 1 of 4
  AR: 0 of 1
  CA: 4 of 19
  CO: 1 of 3 [Marilyn Musgrave being the 1]
  CT: 1 of 1
  DE: 1 of 1
  FL: 14 of 16
  GA: 0 of 7
  ID: 2 of 2
  IL: 5 of 8
  IN: 1 of 4
  IA: 2 of 2
  KS: 2 of 2
  KY: 2 of 4
  LA: 0 of 4
  MD: 2 of 2
  MI: 8 of 9
  MN: 2 of 3
  MS: 0 of 1
  MO: 3 of 5
  MT: 1 of 1
  NE: 0 of 3
  NV: 1 of 2
  NJ: 4 of 6
  NM: 2 of 2
  NY: 4* of 6 [Fossella being one of them]
  NC: 5 of 6
  OH: 3 of 11
  OK: 0 of 4
  OR: 1 of 1
  PA: 6 of 8
  SC: 1 of 4
  TN: 1 of 4
  TX: 3 of 19
  UT: 1 of 2
  VA: 1 of 8
  WA: 1 of 3
  WV: 1 of 1
  WI: 0 of 3
  WY: 0 of 1

  88 of the 199 Republicans, by my count.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:30:09 PM PDT

•  How come the dkos delegate counter..

  still shows obama behind with superdelegates?  According to most reports he is past her.  

  by GlowNZ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM PDT

•  I See -

  At least a half dozen names
  that we were supposed to get all excited about in 2006.

  I'm not excited.

  by johnnygunn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:31:31 PM PDT

•  Throughout American history ...

  ...the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American-Cuban War, World War I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, and now the Iraq War, bucket loads of politicians have dissed veterans. Even Franklin Roosevelt started out his Hundred Days with a cut in the pitiful veterans benefits of the time, although he quickly retreated on that score, admitting his error.

  Only after World War II, or rather while it still raged, were veterans finally, really acknowledged in a way that mattered, with the GI Bill. Since then, however, the dissing has returned in force. This is so whether it was atomic veterans of the '40s and '50s, the Agent Orange and Post-Tramatic Stress Disorder sufferers of Vietnam, those afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome after Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, and now the latest cohort, 30,000 or more of whom have come home with physical injuries, and thousands of others physically whole butwith mental problems resulting from their service.

  Oh, sure, politicians love to have veterans on the dais in beribboned uniforms for Fourth of July speeches. Or as backdrops for their solemn commemorations on Memorial Day or Veterans Day itself. If this generation of elected officials had spent as much time visiting the wards of Walter Reed as they have wrapping themselves in the flag, they would have known about conditions there long before they read about it in the newspapers.

  When it comes to actually providing for veterans, those for whom the war will never really be over, too many these politicos have nothing but excuses. And many who back a war in particular, and an aggressive foreign policy in general, are those who make the most excuses.

  A lot of Blue Dogs aren't among these hypocrites. But those who aren't know those who are. So instead of making us do all the calling, how about some of them - who meet their Blue Dog pals face to face all the time - make some of those calls for us?  And twist some arms.

  by Meteor Blades on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:33:05 PM PDT

•  "Because he hates the troops!"

  How on earth can anyone vote against this legislation? The campaign ads practically write themselves. Especially the Blue Dogs. No matter the official GOP reasons for opposing this, what your opponent will say is "you don't support the troops".

  by gmhowell on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:37:09 PM PDT

•  Truly bizarre comment...

  ...if if you class the GI bill as an "entitlement program," I think they're a rather entitled group. And if you look at the "entitlements," they're hardly detrimental to society, especially when you look at the rates of veteran homeless, veterans having problems with re-entry into society, etc. So even economically speaking it's a cost effective use of money, in the long term.

  But yeah, just a bizarre comment. I suppose we'll hear about lazy welfare vets soon, and how a voucher system for emergency shelters is the proper solution for homeless vets...

  by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:38:16 PM PDT

•  For a great look at this issue

  see Paul Rieckhoff's blog at HuffPo.

  by Dragon5616 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:39:32 PM PDT

•  Great campaign fodder for their opponents! nt

  by ronlib on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:43:22 PM PDT

  •  And better repubs than DINOS. nt

    by ronlib on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:46:49 PM PDT

•  Damn right they're 'entitled' to better veterans

  benefits.

  When there is stop-loss going on at record levels, when the deployments exceed a year and are going on 3 - 4 times for many servicemembers, they sure as hell should be 'entitled'.

  Or these Blue Dogs should ante up their kids and have them serve time on the line.

  by Ammo Hauler on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:48:17 PM PDT

•  JANE Harman still has her statement of SUPPORT

  of the New GI Bill as the Top link on her statement list in her virtual office. And she came out after she made that statement opposing it.

  Her OPPOSITION is not on her House site. What piece of crap.

  Shit medical care, shit benefits, the IRR, lack of equipment, poor readiness, shithole bases and regular trips to the Sandbox. Active, Reserve, Guard....
  BOHICA.

  Meantime, there's Blackwater, KBR, Hellibutton and the rest sucking the 'budget' dry.

  If they call my kid back after this deployment he'll be looking at 45+. He's done 23, 6, +4and counting to probably 19 mos. He already did two active duties before Shock 'n  Awe and then got his degree. Somewhere in there he managed to get his student loans paid off.

  by deMemedeMedia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM PDT

•  West Pointers only have to do 5 years after

  receiving a $250,000+ education, but the Pentagon wants to tie the New GIBill benefit eligibility at SIX years service.

  While the Veteran Administration said if they do pass the Bill, it would be TWO years before they could set up a system to actually implement the pay to the Vets.

  Want salt in the wounds, West Pointers can now play professional football, do recruiting in their 'spare' time and get credit for full time service.

  by deMemedeMedia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:04:12 PM PDT

  •  West Point disrespectful of the long grey line

    All the football recruiter will do is to recruit more football players. That is disrespectful to the long grey line of heroes.

    by exploring on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:48:28 PM PDT

•  John Salazar is supporting

  according the the 2008 GI Bill site, anyway. That said, I don't trust the Bush Dogs and am still not 100% sure that Salazar will vote right when the bill comes up.

  by Zappatero on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:23:19 PM PDT

•  It's about keeping the troops from leaving

  Another way to keep the volunteers from leaving is to eliminate all inducements to muster out.  Many went in to get an way to an education.  If 'no GI Bill' denies them that chance,  that have to re up. Just another case of 'f' the troops ala Walter Reed. This is about supporting Bush not the troops.

  by exploring on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:35:07 PM PDT

•  Charlie Wilson?

  Of Charlie Wilson's War ?
  http://www.imdb.com/...

  He is denying GI benefits?

  by Chrisfs on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:29:22 PM PDT

  •  different fella

    by Andrew C White on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:54:09 PM PDT

•  STRIP ALL 47 of the fucks. They vote fascist any

  goddam way.

  I'd strip the sons of bitches tomorrow,

  AND

  I'd start a marketing war and a legislation war on the sons of bitches

  AND

  I'd make it clear your with US the U.S. the 80% who do NOT back the goddam fascists, OR

  YOU are one of the fucking fascists.

  Aside from increased Dem turnout

  cuz the Dems were FINALLY fighting for peeee-ons,

  let me see,

  you'd have MORE BETTER Dems,

  AND

  make the fuckers pledge -

  either support progressive USA dems OR join the goddam republicans.

  let people know that they're voting for fascists out to fuck them, they ain't voting for 'conservatives', whatever the hell that means.

  rmm.

  by seabos84 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:43:17 PM PDT

  •  That's a little over the top

    it also doesn't recognize that in fact only a small portion of them vote that badly. Several of them vote very well most of the time.

    Some of them need to be replaced and the idea that a democratic sub-caucus should be created and used to undermine the majority of the Democratic caucuses position needs to be re-thought.

    Peace,

    Andrew

    by Andrew C White on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:59:33 PM PDT

    •  over the top is bottom 75% getting fucked by sell

      outs and fascists for 30 years.

      but, if YOU can afford the last the last 30 years,

      and tooooo many of the professional / managerial class of Dems are in that top 25% AND can afford the degradations AND keep making excuses for these bastards.

      these right wing definitions of 'moderate' 'centrist' 'conservative' have created an environment where 10s of millions vote against their own self interest for the betterment of the parasites at the top,

      aided and abetted by the fucking sell outs in the Dem party ostensibly cowering from the 'conservatives' in their districts.

      I've had 9 different health 'insurance' boondogles since hillary fucked up health care in 1993, and I've had 4 different retirement plans, the longest 1 being self funded cross-my-fingers ... ooops! that was my health 'care' 3 times for 5 of the last 15 years.

      I'm sick of excuses ------- I'm over the top?

      yeah, whatever.

      rmm.

      by seabos84 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:43:55 PM PDT

  •  Not all of them are bad

    My congressman Steve Israel is a good guy and is a sponsor on the bill. He's voted democratic most the time but due to the district being long island is required to be in the blue dog or "moderate coalition" in order to get elected. The only bill I ever was severely angry about him voting for other then the war resolution,(He has voted with the democrats for quite awhile now against measures to continue funding) was the bankruptcy bill. But in general he is a good dem.

    I suspect most on that list (Stephanie Herseth Sandlin,Gilibrand etc...) are good democrats but are required to be blue dogs due to their district's conservative or moderate leanings.

    Their are these blue dogs and then their are blue dogs who back stab us on every vote. Their is a difference between the two and we should take note.

    by Conniver on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:16:38 PM PDT

•  It's B.S. like this that makes me....

  ....LOATHE the Blue Dogs. I understand that the Blue Dogs come from districts that are gnerally more conservative, but the G.I. Bill of Rights is a NO BRAINER, especially for so-called "moderates" who are supposedly pro-military. To oppose this with Republican framing is inexcusable. I challenge anyone to demonstrate which district supports the White House so damn much that they would encourage their representative to vote AGAINST the bill. I GUARANTEE you that that number would be very small indeed.

  by lams712 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:46:24 PM PDT

•  Will Congress Ever Do the Right Thing?

  It seems as if we are more than willing to piss away hundreds of billions to maim and kill people in other countries, yet we spend a fraction of that amount to help our own fellow Americans. This country is becoming more fucked up by the day.

  by kefauver on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:39:32 AM PDT

•  How Many of These Dogs

  Are in vulnerable districts?

  I'm originally from South Dakota and Herseth Sandlin would be hard to unseat.

  And, if she were, somebody worse would probably be put in.

  by Karen Hedwig Backman on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:15:44 AM PDT