Project Logic Ga

I am confused on some level about the fairness or lack there of involving southern congressional politics.  First, the biggest indicators of public sentiment are elections and when members get 68% or better of the vote, that is saying something about what the people in that district want.  A very vocal minority in an area should not be misconstrued as a better indicator that the election.  Of course, some would say that the winner beat a weak opponent but the fact that more suitable opposition did not set up again tells you something.

When the conservatives took over the White House and Congress in the 1990s, the Democrats responded by accepting the public sentiment and accepting a subset of their party that was near the center.  Georgia always had Democrat congressmen who were conservative called Dixiecrats.  So Democrats learned to understand that Blue Dogs worked with the Bush White House because a sizable part of their constituency wanted that cooperation and dialog.   The fruits of that labor include agreements on veteran, defense and agriculture issues. 

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, why are some from the Right attacking the same Blue Dogs who were respectful to President Bush and his policies that even other Republicans now question?  I can understand  “getting at” the city liberals but why disrespectful fuss at those who have been kind to your cause in the past.  After the “interesting” Gore v. Bush election, most southern Democrats accepted the results without the ugliness we see now.

Another thing: please put a members actions in it’s proper perspective.  I personally appreciate members on both sides of the aisle who listen to both sides of the issues.  If a member is from a district with a balance mix of political views, his votes should be equally mixed.  I would not expect Rep. Kingston, Rep. Linder or Rep. Westmoreland to make many liberal votes nor would I expect Rep. Lewis or Rep. Johnson to make conservative votes.  For the Blue Dogs in the Georgia delegation, the situation is complicated because they have both rural and urban areas; Democrat and Republican; and conservatives, liberals and moderates. 

If you have a hypothetical government program and half of your congressional district wants to fund it at $100 million and the other half wants it funded at $300 million, do you compromise at $200 million?  Those type decisions trouble House Blue Dogs and their staffers daily.  If you think about it, southern senators often have similar concerns because they represent the whole diverse state.  While Georgia has conservative senators, liberal-to-moderate metro Atlanta has more people than the whole state of Alabama.  It’s a balancing act. 

What about the Blue Dogs who appeased the Right during the Bush years but are reluctant to lift a finger to help the Obama White House.  What would you do as a member of congress if you realized that part of your support base was flat wrong?  Would this situation be similar to the southern members of congress who courageously voted for the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s when the possible backlash was apparent?

They should think about Texas Rep. J.J. Pickle and the other six southerners who voted for the Civil Rights Act because it was the right thing to do.  For all the glamour of the Kennedy brothers, where were they when people could not drink from a public water fountain, ride a bus or order a slice of pie at the lunch counter in Woolworth’s?  They were trying to avoid alienating the whole South.  LBJ was the arm twister who got it done after the unfortunate loss of JFK.  JFK, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and President Obama are maybe too nice to deal with the far-right and/or rogue Democrats.  I am beginning to think that Michele Obama and Hillary Clinton have that certain LBJ toughness to get things done—talk about some women who don’t play.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/19/AR2005061900885.html