The dems would be wise to heed the blue dogs. America is a center-right nation, and the only hope democrats have for long-term viability is to move closer to the center.

The first job of any elected official is to get re-elected. And thus far the left has been generally unable to muster enough strength to defeat Dems who are not good on reform. Districts have been redrawn to a point where incumbents win at near Soviet Politburo levels. We need serious election reform before we will see enough elected officials with the stones to take on real reform.

The right seems to be able to do all kinds of ridiculous stuff without paying for it at the polls.

Well these are the people who would rather the Republicans take control again so they can exsist comfortably as their lap dogs.

2010 will be a bloodbath for the Democrats if they DON"T tackle the major issues. If they DO, then it's a bloodbath for the Republicans.

This cannot be said often or loudly enough Steve. Voters are not going to reward politicians for maintaining the status quo. "Vote for me. I fought to make sure you only got half a loaf" is not a winning strategy. I understand that they are concerned about their constituent's concern with the deficit but the only chance they really have of securing their position is selling their people on the idea that they are doing the right thing and that there are advantages for them of having a Democrat in the seat. If what voters really want is for nothing to change then they will vote for the Republican anyway. Why wouldn't they?

d) they don't want to talk about *real* universal healthcare, either, for all that the lack of it is shackling small businesses' ability to keep old workers and/or hire new ones.

I may get my pet from the SPCA but I don't go to a "Whipped Dog Kennel" to choose my politician/representative.

Yeah, they should just pass the "Job Creation Act of 2010" and the unemployment crisis will be over.

Sigh. Think NY-23 pretty much shows who's "closer to the center."

I have another theory about NY-23, by the way. I think Limbaugh's attack on Scozzafava for "bestiality," Owens's response, and Hoffman's refusal to disavow it might have thrown the election to Owens. Owens had just been breaking even with women before that in the polling, and something sure changed in the last day. Hoffman showed his, and the right's, true colors.

Al is right on. His sage advice was very helpful for the Democrats in 1994.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the concern troll!

Back in reality, voters expect representatives to a) do something and b) stand for something.

If congress does nothing on health care there is no question that this will give republicans a general advantage next year. The ones who lose the most from this are the democrats in red or purple districts. So, they need to be gutsy. We'll see if they are.

I pray to God that most of these guys will be primaried in 2010. It would be a terrible shame to send a single one of them back when they could have been replaced by a representive with a brain.

If it's jobs they want, they better jump on the green jobs bandwagon. Smart grid, conservation, new wind and solar, retrofitting high efficiency motors, new appliances, and a whole field of other job generators are just waiting for the right incentives. There's no other place to create so many jobs that also help with climate change and energy independence. It's patriotic to want green jobs.

The only thing that will save center right democrats is if the base turns out- and the only way the base will turn out is if lots-lots-lots is done to please them. By asking to do nothing, these guys are sealing their own demise.

You know, I think that there is a myth about the democratic party as a party of some kind of homogeneous set of beliefs. I think this belief is, and has been for some time, based on just that, a myth. The democratic party is every bit as spread out in its own way as the republican party was prior to the age of Rush, Sarah, George, Dick, and Condoleza.

I agree with Steve. I'd be a lot more sypathetic to the Blue Dogs if they would stop posing on budgetary issues. We can create the jobs, but it will cost some money in the short term. Job creation is not rocket science, and we know there is a lot of infrastructure to build. My advice to Blue Dogs on jobs: Stay away from the cameras and GET OUT OF THE WAY.

Learn from the governor's race of VA. Dems opposing the dem platform and running like a centrist republican lite will lose the dem base who just won't show up. Stop worrying about how many votes you may lose by running as a progressive and start realizing how many votes you will gain.

Voters gave congress a mandate and putting it off or watering it down will cause you to lose elections. Yes you may gain huge corporate campaign donations but dollars are not votes. Standing with the people will get you reelected.

The nation polls more liberal-progressive on the issues than anything else despite what the media tries to convince you of so take it to heart.

A true dem fighting for the dem platform will get you elected. Indifference, stalling, and running as a tentative repub will not get you elected.

I agree with Dave but do it through a second stimulus, not climate change legislation. Immigration, climate and gays are vote killers next year when people are out of work and losing their houses. Remember Maslow's hierarchy or lose.

also the majority of both dems and repubs are becoming more and more anti-corporatism...that is the populist movement. Both sides are sick of watching congress being bought and bribed to the point of standing against the will of the majority of the people for their corporate handlers.

How about rebranding the climate change legislation a job creation bill centered on moving America non-foreign sources of energy. Hello, drill some oil wells off the Florida coast if Republicans insist, but spend the bulk of the money rebuilding the grid and installing solar and other renewable sources of energy.

We want better dems BUT we are not insane enough to reelect Bush and repubs have not changed one iota from Bush's administration...they offer nothing new and are really only an obstructionist party whose base has gone insane, refusing to compromise on anything and believe in Democracy only when they are in power...they will never accept a majority that disagrees with them.

btw...all the tax issues in MO passed. We voted to increase taxes by a huge number in order to get what we wanted.

bjobotts two of my brothers are hard rock conservatives. They blow and blow about "liberals," socialists etc, but after a while they settle down on their dislike of Wall Street and the way both parties bent over and held their knees when Wall Street demanded bailouts. They were shocked to hear I don't love the last two Goldman Sacks controlled Treasury Secretaries either. After a while we find ourselves in general agreement.

It took a while before I figured out that Talk Radio is really trying to redirect populist anger away from their corporate handlers to Obama and the "socialists."

I was surprised the Combat tax was extended in Jackson County. It hasn't ever really delivered the promised reduction in drug usage.

Democratic leadership needs to understand that they are playing with matches while sitting on a powderkeg.

For me, failure to provide strong action will provide impetus to declare independence or, if possible, membership in a truly progressive party.

Each day, I see party leadership not representing my interests on more and more issues that are important to me. The fuse is becoming very short.

The Blue Dogs really don't enjoy being in the majority -- it gives them less reason for not getting anything done. They would be a lot happier if there were fewer Democrats, as long as that reduction did not include themselves.

"two of my brothers are hard rock conservatives. They blow and blow about "liberals," socialists etc, but after a while they settle down on their dislike of Wall Street and the way both parties bent over and held their knees when Wall Street demanded bailouts. They were shocked to hear I don't love the last two Goldman Sacks controlled Treasury Secretaries either. After a while we find ourselves in general agreement." - Ron Byers

Another reason to form a separate party. On a number of issues (warrantless surveillance, campaign reform, etc.), I could see a partnership with "right-wing" parties against the corporate-controlled hierarchy.

If we formed our own party, we might be free to pursue our goals without compromising to entrenched interests.

As we all remember, Obama and the Democrats were given a mandate because of the slogan "The Status Quo We Can Believe In"

"We gotta protect our phony baloney jobs, genlemen! Harrumpf! Harrumpf!"

2010 is looking like it will be a good year for Republicans.

The electorate handed Democrats huge majorities in the House and Senate a year ago. For these vulnerable incumbents, why do they think voters did that?

The districts that flipped did not like the Republicans that they had, and the national Republican party had some famous corruption cases. Now those districts don't like the Democrats that they have (or may not like, depending on how the representatives vote), and the national Democratic party has some famous corruption cases (Rangel, maybe Geithner.)

What's the "lesson" of NY23? If the Republicans had run a conservative Republican instead of a liberal Republican, they'd have probably won. Maybe, maybe not. But if you are in a district, like NJ or VA, that went for Bush then Obama, what would you be thinking now? You'd better find out what your constituents really want. Odds are that they like Obama a lot less now than a year ago, and a relatively fresh and untainted Republican has a good chance against you.

Obama promised Hope and Change. That's a little different from the 2,000 page House health care bill, which is a mess.

Don't let Bayh's stupidity stand in the way of good policy. The way congressmen will get reelected this time is to have their picture taken as often as possible in as many towns in their districts as possible holding a shovel or giant scissors.

"The dems would be wise to heed the blue dogs. America is a center-right nation, and the only hope democrats have for long-term viability is to move closer to the center."

How very corporate of you, Al.

But if you are in a district, like NJ or VA, that went for Bush then Obama, what would you be thinking now?

Nothing, because in both cases, the exit polls made it very clear that the elections had not a damn thing to do with Obama. Did you have a point to make?

Ron Byers: How about rebranding the climate change legislation a job creation bill centered on moving America non-foreign sources of energy. Hello, drill some oil wells off the Florida coast if Republicans insist, but spend the bulk of the money rebuilding the grid and installing solar and other renewable sources of energy.

That's a good idea. Push it hard on the Democrats, and see what they say. Add in some Pacific coast wells, Alaskan wells, and nuclear, and you have the McCain/Palin approach.

Did you have a point to make?

Sure he does; a dishonest one. Just one example:

What's the "lesson" of NY23? If the Republicans had run a conservative Republican instead of a liberal Republican, they'd have probably won.

They did run a liberal Republican, you jackass, and they probably would have won had not the radical conservative spoiled the race.

As I said in the other thread, you're usually dishonest, Marler, but you usually aren't this stupid. So now you indicate that you have to be both to support the Republicans? So much the better for us, jackass.

It's refreshing, though, to see Marler drop his unconvincing pretense as an honest commentator and return to the bad faith, pro-Republican rhetoric we all know and mock him for.

Add in some Pacific coast wells, Alaskan wells, and nuclear, and you have the McCain/Palin approach.

Almost, Marler. As I've said before, since we don't have the ability to safely store the nuclear waste we generate right now, we need a bold solution. I've said I'll agree to increased nuclear power with one proviso: We bury the waste in the backyards of advocates like you.

Strangely enough, you've never addressed this point. It leads one to suspect your're -- gasp! -- arguing in bad faith.

Then again, so does this: Posted by: MatthewRMarler

Add in some Pacific coast wells, Alaskan wells, and nuclear, and you have the McCain/Palin approach.

Except as has been pointed out many times in many different ways, this oil drilling "approach" would solve nothing. Oil is sold on an international market. Drilling more in the US will, at best, add a very small amount to the total that is available on that market now. This will not significantly change the supply available in this country so, as an energy policy, it is pretty close to worthless.

If the idea is to let the babies (conservatives) have their bottles so that shut the f up about it, that will, of course, also fail. It might conceivably create a few hundred jobs. Other than that, what exactly would be the point.

Except as has been pointed out many times in many different ways, this oil drilling "approach" would solve nothing.

Of course not. As I just indicated, there are huge problems with storing nuclear waste from an expanded use of nuclear power, too. But Marler isn't here for good faith debate and certainly isn't prepared to argue honestly on their merits. One suspects he likes the ideas because he knows that the reality-based community is opposed to them, and that "drill, baby, drill!" is cheap demagoguery that favors Republicans.

Shame on you, Marler.

Gregory: As I've said before, since we don't have the ability to safely store the nuclear waste we generate right now, we need a bold solution.

Here's bold. American DU has more energy content than American coal? Perhaps. It's certainly worth some large-scale experimentation.

Another approach is the combined fission-fusion reactor being developed (I think it's under construction) at the U. of Texas.

brent: Except as has been pointed out many times in many different ways, this oil drilling "approach" would solve nothing.

What it does is reduce oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela while the alternative energy industry is being built. That is neither "nothing" nor "panacea", but merely useful.

What it does is reduce oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela while the alternative energy industry is being built.

What on earth are you talking about? To the extent that this would change oil importing at all (which is quite little once you take into consideration refining capacity and wildly variant disparities in shipping costs to the corporations that consume the oil), it won't change our dependencies. Which is the whole point. Our oil will still be priced and be entirely at the mercy of the price in the international market. As a matter of energy policy, no one cares where it comes from. They care about matching the supply to the demand. IOW, they care what we pay for it and the nature of the market means that will not be significantly changed whether we drill more or not. Which is to say nothing about the considerable externalized costs, both environmental and fiscally of increasing industrial activity in this area.

Here's bold.

Experimentation? Under construction? Let's get this clear, now, Marler: Are you saying, now, that you aren't in favor of increased construction and use of the current fission technology, or are you simply dishonestly obfuscating your support with your usual boring diversions? Because just as with increased drilling, experimental nuclear technology won't yield dividends for some time in the future.

And anyway, new technologies don't necessarily answer the question of nuclear waste. I notice -- and, naturally, I'm shocked, shocked! -- that you didn't answer my question: Are you in favor of storing the increased nuclear waste produced at a facility near you, or are you, typically of a conservative, hoping to benefit from a policy for which someone else has to bear the risks and costs?

No one imagines you comment in good faith, Marler, and no one is convinced by your bullshit. Why do you bother? Are the Republicans' sweet, sweet tax cuts really worth humiliating yourself for?

Marler, What I propose is just like the Palin/McCain approach except I want the bulk of the money to be spent producing renewable energy and just a little to drill off the coast of Florida or some other Republican state where the rich folks would see what the oil companies have wrought.

By the way good luck getting drilling permits off Jupiter Island.

As to nuclear I am not opposed to it at all if you can figure out what to do with the waste. How 'bout a big hole in your back yard.

By the way, y'all really should check out Marler's "bold" link and see that he thinks reviving a project canceled 15 years ago -- a project with absolutely no guarantee of success -- is a "bold" solution.

Still, the question remains: Are you willing to store the extra waste it will generate -- and it will, by admission of even that nuclear advocacy site you link to -- in your back yard?

You're really phoning your trollery these days, Marler. Shame on you.

By the way, Marler wrote: What it does is reduce oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela while the alternative energy industry is being built.

No, it doesn't, as Brent pointed out. You're simply lying to pretend that that oil would in any way be slated for the American market, as opposed to the world market.

Really, Marler, your bullshit used to be better than that.

And then there are other center-right Dems not mentioned in the article who have prevented a vote on Single Payer. Steve keeps forgetting to mention them....

"Consider a Congressman, then consider an idiot. Ah, but I repeat myself."

-- Mark Twain, 1872

Creigh Deeds is a case history on what happens to Democrats who try to pretend to be Republicans. He lost because his positions turned off his potential supporters who stayed home in droves. And the same thing will happen to those right wing Democrats (don't ever call them moderates because they most certainly are NOT moderate.)

The US is left leaning in its policy preferences no matter what people want to call themselves so if these guys want to win, they are going to need to show that they are working for the programs that people want. The wishful thinking of the slope headed contingent that the US is a center right nation has been disproved time after time in elections and public surveys. The Blue Dogs need to learn to believe their lying eyes and not the Beltway pundits or they're toast.

Regardless of the fact that Marler mentioned tu as the site for fusion energy production, fusion is decades away if we ever are able to achieve it anywhere on the Earth. To even mention it as a potential source of usable energy serves to advertise your ignorance of what you are talking about.

The amount of oil that could be obtained by drilling in the US is negligible. The north shore is estimated to have a total of several months and the rest of the potential sites aren't going to be a whole lot more. So by destroying the western US, Alaska, and the Gulf we get at most another year of oil. And as for who actually gets that oil will depend on who pays the most for it. Does anyone really think that EXXON, BP and the others will sell to the US for less than they could get from China or Japan? If you do, maybe we can talk about some undeveloped vacation land I have for sale about a mile south of Galveston within sight of the beach. I'm willing to part with it cheap because I need the money.

Texas Aggie: Regardless of the fact that Marler mentioned tu as the site for fusion energy production, fusion is decades away if we ever are able to achieve it anywhere on the Earth. To even mention it as a potential source of usable energy serves to advertise your ignorance of what you are talking about.

It's the combined fission/fusion reactor that is being built. The fusion reaction generates neutron beams that transform the reactor products in the fission reaction, and uses existing radioactive waste as fuel.

The rest of you, you might look up more recent designs than 15-year old designs with similar names. The proposed (bold) design produces no waste and uses waste that exists now.

I'd be willing to accept glassified nuclear waste buried in my back yard, but then I live in an area that gets regular fires, so I might not be representative.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

The rest of you, you might look up more recent designs than 15-year old designs with similar names.

It was from your link, shithead.

The proposed (bold) design produces no waste and uses waste that exists now.

And a pony!

Gregory: It was from your link, shithead.

The design that was discontinued 15 years ago was not the same design. A pony? Sometimes new technologies work, sometimes they don't. Shall we wait until the Chinese and Indians test it? That wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, but it would be timid, and you asked for bold.

Sometimes new technologies work, sometimes they don't.

Then it's pretty dishonest of you to make affirmative claims about it.

Of course, you're always bold about posting your bullshit here.

...such as claiming it produces no waste when the linked site only claims it produces minimal waste.

Yeah, Marler, you're bold. A bold liar. But we knew that already.

Shame on you.

Yeah, Marler, you're bold. A bold liar. But we knew that already.

Gregory, this is not different than the time Marler claimed we shouldn't worry about water shortages in California because the Carlsbad Desalination plant was creating 10 millions gallons of drinkable water a day -- and in reality the plant wasn't even been built yet and STILL hasn't been built, and that was in 2008.

Or when he said that the glaciers in Greenland had stopped melting, when, in fact, their output had increased, or when he said that insurgents were "not attacking the infrastructure in Iraq" ostensibly because they wanted to "take over" the country with none of the pieces broken.

Et al.

Someone with a modicum of human shame wouldn't show up after having been caught in all these falsehoods, and yet he still shows up. It's humiliating to watch.

The sad conclusion, trex, is that in addition to his other serial dishonesty on behalf of the Republican Party, Marler seems to want to be perceived as knowledgable, but fails because he has the same inevitalbe poor command of basic facts as any other conservative (reality having a liberal bias and all).

Such a shame.