Charlie Cook: Arguably The People They Would Lose Would Be The Blue Dogs, Who Aren't Voting With Him Anyway

Digby took note of this segment on Hardball, and I agree with her assessment about what it would mean for the President if he lost some Blue Dog Democ
up

Digby took note of this segment on Hardball, and I agree with her assessment about what it would mean for the President if he lost some Blue Dog Democrats in the mid-term election.

I would love to hear anyone tell me why I shouldn't be cheering for that outcome.

Cook said it would "reflect on" the president, but from my perspective it would reflect well on him. And if it happens because he rammed through meaningful health care reform instead of some watered down bucket of warm spit and the administration managed to get unemployment down, I think he will very likely have Morning in America in 2012.

To hell with Rahm and his appease the Blue Dogs at all costs strategy. What good is it if the president fails in 2012? If Cook is right and the Dems maintain their majority while losing a bunch of these reactionary wingnuts, I couldn't be happier. And the Democrat should be happy too because it means they can pass successful legislation for a change.

It wouldn't break my heart either. These Blue Dogs and Liebercrats do nothing but vote against the President anyway, and they give the media an excuse to bring them on to undermine the progressives in the party.

About Heather

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.