home

"Blue Dogs" Planning To Commit Political Seppuku?

Via FDL, The Hill reports that a Blue Dog staffer is saying the Blue Dogs are planning on committing political suicide:

Bruised by a tough vote on climate change legislation in June, burned by fiery town hall meetings in August, and worried about the midterm elections to be held in November 2010, Democratic centrists and vulnerable lawmakers in the party are signaling that they are not happy with Pelosi's plan. "I don't see how we get to 218," said a senior Democratic aide. "The Blue Dogs are ‘Hell nos.’ The people who voted yes [on energy] want to vote 'no' twice."

Is this true? Nah. Gene Taylor and Travis Childers and folks like that of course will vote no. There was never ever any doubt about that. But other so called "Blue Dogs" are almost certain yes votes. From the Hill article:

There are 52 Blue Dogs, more than enough to block a bill. . . . But Blue Dogs aren't unanimous. At the less conservative end, Reps. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.) have voiced their support. Several others like Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) have signed statements that they support a public option. In the middle, Blue Dog Reps. John Salazar (D-Colo.) and Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.) have told hometown media outlets that they support a public option.

Anyone who dreams that Harman, Sanchez, Arcuri or Salazar will vote no on the public option just is not serious. And there are probably 10 more "Blue Dogs" like that. In the end, the REAL Blue Dogs like Taylor, Childers and others get to vote No and make a fuss and really not have any influence whatsoever. That probably works for them politically.

But there are some so called "Blue Dogs" who are flirting with political suicide. 2 come to mind - Jim Cooper (D-TN) and Jason Altmire (D-PA). Cooper is in a 25% minority district that would be 45% minority in a Dem primary. He could easily lose a Dem primary if he votes against a public option. And even if he survives, a depressed Dem turnout in a general election could doom him as well.

Altmire would likely lose a general election if he is faced with a depressed Dem turnout, which he certainly would if he votes against a public option.

At the end of the day, Blue Dogs like Cooper and Altmire are the ones whose political skin is on the line - they are the ones who really need a motivated Dem base. After all, as the Blue Dogs themselves recognize:

One Blue Dog said Pelosi's pledge to include a public option favors her liberal base in the Democratic Caucus. "They're playing to people who can't get beat by Republicans," said the lawmaker, who plans to vote against the bill if it remains in its current form.

(Emphasis supplied.) That's right. They can't. And they should use that leverage against those Blue Dogs that can be beat. The Progressive Block is playing a bit of a game here too:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) co-chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, said liberals face political consequences, too. "Most of my constituents want single-payer," Woolsey said. "If we can't even pass a public option, they could vote me out of office. We'd have primaries. What do they think happens to progressives?"

I am for primarying every single member of Congress always. But Woolsey is just blowing smoke here. But good for her. I like that the Progressive Block has learned a bit about playing the game.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Monday Night Open Thread: Odds and Ends >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    I really have to ask, are these anonymous blue dogs stupid? If healthcare fails, Democrats smell of failure, and THE BLUE DOGS are on the chopping block.

    Some of them are (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:52:52 PM EST
    Taylor and Childers and the REAL Blue Dogs? Nah.

    But the fake ones who run in progressive districts like Cooper and Harman?

    And the ones in lean GOP districts? Who need an energized Dem base? Like Massa and Altmire?

    Puhleeeaze.

    The Blue Dogs do not have the votes to stop it.

    I will say this though - it would be absolutely stupid of Pelosi to make them take the votes if they are not prepared to fight for the public option in conference.

    In that sense, she needs to make sure everyone understands this is a fight to the finish.

    The Senate will cave on this if the House holds firm.

    Obama will cave too. Whoever has the most muscle will win. Obama at this point is a bystander.

    Parent

    "Obama at this point is a bystander" (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:56:38 PM EST
    monumentally sad.  and true.

    Parent
    Agreed and Taylor and Childers (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    were never going to vote for this.

    The interesting thing about the fake blue dogs is that several are from California. And Pelosi can threaten to have them removed by redistricting in two years.

    Quite an indictment of Obama you've written, BTW.

    Parent

    What else does the evidence tell us? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:59:40 PM EST
    Evidence (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:37:46 PM EST
    About the only evidence there is is what Pelosi did to Ellen Tauscher when Tauscher opposed Pelosi's bid to be minority leader.  Pelosi got her ally (and political machine-mate) John Burton (then California Senate Pro-Tem) to redistrict Tauscher's East Bay district to make it substantially more Democratic and liberal.  Tauscher howled like a stuck pig.  

    Things then went along pretty quietly until Tauscher ran afoul of Markos, the issue I can't remember.  Markos came after her, advocating a primary challenge and asking people to help raise funds for that.  Tauscher folded on the issue and behaved herself much better after that.  A credible primary challenge to Jane Harman had the same effect.

    Whether Pelosi could do in other districts what she did to Ellen Tauscher remains to be seen.  

    That is the critical piece of evidence that is missing.  But Pelosi was perfectly willing to do this to Ellen Tauscher, so I wouldn't put it past her.  She did, after all, learn politics from her father in the bare-knuckle world Baltimore's Democratic machine.  And then she became a cog in Phil Burton's Northern California machine, which produced Willie Brown and Barbara Boxer, as well as Pelosi.

    Phil Burton invented modern computer-driven gerrymandering.  It was one of his (many) contributions to modern politics.

    Parent

    That was me (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    Not Markos.

    And Tauscher straightened up quick.

    Parent

    I've Never Seen the Two of You (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    In the same place at the same time.

    Parent
    I went to dinner with Markos (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:50:12 PM EST
    a couple of weeks ago.

    Seriously.

    Parent

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#45)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 06:04:17 PM EST
    Thinking of going back?

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 08:41:30 PM EST
    No desire, from either side.

    We're just friends is all.

    Parent

    Relieved to hear it. (none / 0) (#58)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:29:51 PM EST
     

    It's good to have all kinds of friends.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:51:08 PM EST
    The issue was funding the Iraq War without a date certain for withdrawal.

    Parent
    Yup, it's a story I know well (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    The "Burtonmander" is legendary.

    Parent
    Hey, I'm not going to disagree (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:00:50 PM EST
    You know I thought they should have passed an "everything" package in February anyway.

    Parent
    I'm curious (none / 0) (#21)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:33:51 PM EST
    when do you think Obama decided to cut his losses and accept anything that would come to his desk?  And what motivated that?

    He did not fight very hard after all.

    Parent

    I never thought that he wanted (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 04:16:33 PM EST
    a public option but then I am cynical and I know who the heath care industry gave all it's money to in 2008.
    So either he never really cared or he gives up way too easy.

    Parent
    Hell if I know (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:39:27 PM EST
    Though I think your explanation is best (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:50:17 PM EST
    The blue dogs at the margins are blowing smoke, and it works for them politically ("stood up to Pelosi and the liberals!")

    Parent
    So long as they vote yes (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:54:29 PM EST
    at the end? Sure.

    Taylor and Childers and their ilk are NO, NO, NO, NO and I never expected anything different.

    Mo need to even think a second thought about them. They are out of the game.

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:25:33 PM EST
    My Congressman, Mike Thompson (CA-1) has written me saying that he supports a strong public option, explaining that it is essential to control costs. Thompson isn't really much of a Blue Dog these days.  I think he regrets his vote on bankruptcy "reform."

    If I thought that the policy represented by (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    the current House bill was worth fighting for, I would love these process arguments, but I am so far from being enthused about the legislation that I can't; there's something about debating how the Progressive Bloc can game the Blue Dogs in order to pass legislation that is - at best -  a sharp stick in the eye of the American public that just leaves me cold.  

    I cannot be the only one who thinks that whatever victory the Democrats claim if - big if - they pass some kind of reform legislation, it will be short-lived.  People who thought they were going to get quick relief from their health care woes are going to be livid when they find out they will be waiting at least three years for it to get underway, and as much as four years for it to be fully implemented.  People who know how bad it is are not going to be motivated to go vote for the legislators responsible for it - why would they?

    I'm still scratching my head over the time and money that went into electing Blue Dogs who were never going to be on board any liberal efforts, and would find themselves in alliance with Republicans to stifle the progressive agenda.  With a Democratic president, what's the difference between not being able to pass Democratic legislation because of Blue Dogs and Republicans, and having to veto Republican legislation that comes out of a GOP majority Congress?  Not much, I don't think.

    Truly a disappointing effort, but not unexpected, given the number of disappointments we saw from 2006 forward.


    Your choice is elect a Blue Dog (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:40:21 PM EST
    or most likely loose the district.

    Parent
    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#61)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:55:01 PM EST
    CA-1 is an amalgam of different kinds of Dems, Greens, Repubs and Libertarians. Most everything east of I-5 is conservative and most everything west of it is liberal. I'm not just talking Eureka and Humboldt either. Napa and Sonoma are huge swaths of land with liberal-minded wine folks. Klamath, right below the Oregon border used to be very conservative (Fox News on all tavern and diner TV's) but I've noticed attitudes are changing there as well.

    Parent
    You may be right locally (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 10:42:38 AM EST
    in fact, you probably are. On a global basis though I think the choice is Blue Dog or Repub..

    BTW - What do we call Repubs who vote more with the Demos??

    Parent

    Extinct (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 11:07:01 AM EST
    perhaps, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    Don't the Blue Dogs realize they really have no option. If they don't do anything on HCR, they're going to lose their seat. The public wants action.

    they've spent too much time listening to rush limbaugh, who swears that the majority of the public is just happy as a clam with the current state of health care delivery in this country?

    on the other hand (thank goodness we only have two hands!), maybe they just aren't very bright.

    Well (none / 0) (#37)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 04:08:10 PM EST
    If they believe that then they deserve to lose. And the Democratic leadership needs a good kick in the a** for not reminding them what the 2006 and 2008 elections were about.

    Parent
    uh, (none / 0) (#39)
    by bocajeff on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 04:19:55 PM EST
    the elections were (and almost always are - with the exception of war) always about the economy. Don't kid yourself into thinking it was a larger mandate. Simply put, if the economy is getting better then the Dems will do fine. If it stagnates or gets worse then they will lose a bit.

    Now, the problem with garnering support for a bill is that the bill sucks! No one knows what's going on, who gets what, how much it will cost, or anything. Even if it passes it will probably end up causing more problems than helping - not to mention that it doesn't take hold until 3 weeks after never.

    Parent

    not quite (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by CST on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 04:34:45 PM EST
    the elections in 2006 were hardly due to the economy crashing in 08.  In addition, the Dems were winning national pols long before the economy tanked in 2008.  So yes, while the economy tanking was certainly the nail on the coffin, it was not the only reason for Dems winning.

    Parent
    Rahm, Rahm (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by joanneleon on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 05:26:31 PM EST
    This is an even bigger mistake than your infamously stupid stand on the 50 state strategy.

    Steny Hoyer, the top Blue Dog, has overestimated his influence this time.

    The fact that Obama is on the same page is really disconcerting.  The man must be between a rock and a hard place.  Has he forgotten how much power he has or is he willing to do anything to keep the Big Health corporate mob off of his back?  Has he signed a deal with the devil?  Can he get out of it?  To get out will mean war with the mob.  To stay in the deal will mean losing the support of his base.  Does he believe that he can talk us into fervent loyalty this time?  I don't think so.  He's going to have to do the thing he hates to do.  He's going to have to take a firm stand and face the conflict head on.

    He's going to have to throw off Daschle, Dole, Baker and Mitchell.

    Will he do it?

    Why wouldn't he? (3.00 / 1) (#42)
    by BigElephant on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 05:45:09 PM EST
    The fact of the matter is that Obama has a fight regardless.  The second he decided to take on health care he had a fight.  Pick your position, and you will have to fight for it.  

    He has taken a particular position that the T.L. doesn't like, but it's certainly not a conflict free position.  

    The right question is NOT why will he not fight or take a firm stand.  But rather, why has he chosen to fight the fight that he has.  Of course it's easier to build vitriol with the former question.  

    Parent

    what has he FOUGHT for (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 08:08:37 PM EST
    please explain.

    Parent
    Steny Hoyer a blue dog? (none / 0) (#53)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:33:08 PM EST
    He's from a very liberal district in a very liberal state.  How does this make him a Blue Dog?  

    Parent
    Blue dog (none / 0) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 12:33:05 AM EST
    is a state of mind.  Steny Hoyer has always had it.

    Parent
    Oh I see, (none / 0) (#65)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 03:20:52 AM EST
    He just can't vote like a Blue Dog or he'll lose his seat.  

    Parent
    They are in a bind (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by catmandu on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    The  Democrats will be loosing seats in the next election.  Each politician is trying to do what will get them re-elected.  Its the only time a politician will listen to their bosses---the voters.
    Most Americans want to know more about this plan for Med reform. We've been burnt too many times to buy a pig in a poke from the gov't.

    The problem is (none / 0) (#50)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 07:17:45 PM EST
    due to the division among Dems and lack of leadership on healthcare, many of the "bosses" don't have some essential facts, as the public discourse has been dominated by the right and the insurance/pharma lobby.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:58:03 PM EST
    David Scott was on the news the other night saying that he couldnt wait to get back to Washington. I guess to escape his constituents is the impression I got.

    Reading and Understanding (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    I thought they were going to play Sudoku.  I moved to Woolsey's District in January.  Got to love her.  

    Sounds very good to me (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    Lifts my spirits

    Honestly, who cares? (none / 0) (#12)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:05:02 PM EST
    This bill sucks.  The so-called public option is a cruel joke.  How absolutely pathetic that Democrats are proposing to pay for their big taxpayer subsidies to insurance profits, by cutting subsidies to private insurers through Medicare. And, the wheel goes round and round.  In the mean time, what should have been reform ONE, government using it's buying power to negotiate drug prices for Medicare has been dropped from the agenda.  I don't understand, is the liberal position, do anything totally effing stupid, wasteful and against the people, as long as somewhere in there there is a shell of a public option?  What a waste.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    This post is about politics rather than policy.

    But organizing a primary challenge to your Congresspersons based on your views is something I strongly endorse.

    Parent

    Yes, process... (none / 0) (#15)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    Gotcha.

    Parent
    Are they still going to not allow (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:17:39 PM EST
    the reimporting of cheaper drugs from Canada and other countries too?

    Parent
    no information (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:19:09 PM EST
    but from what I am reading about the money big pharma is spending to by congress critters

    I would say yes, they will not allow it.


    Parent

    Lowdown and Dirty!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:21:18 PM EST
    Filthy dirty done to our seniors counting out their pennies every month!!!!!!

    Parent
    heck with the seniors (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    what about my recreational Adderol perscription?
    250 bucks for 30 from the drug store without insurance.  

    if I lost my job it would be cheaper to buy meth.

    ;-)


    Parent

    If you are 50 or older (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 07:07:40 PM EST
    you can check out joining AARP ($12.95, I think) and its various prescription drug plans. Might help bring your cost down.

    Parent
    oh (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:58:36 AM EST
    thanks
    I was just being a jacka$$.  I have good insurance and can totally afford the copay.

    just clumsily trying to make a point about the runaway drug costs that people not lucky enough to have insurance that pays for drugs have to deal with if they take medication.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#69)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 01:49:17 PM EST
    my prescription "plan" has been getting progressively more expensive

    Parent
    And You Can Make Your Own Meth Even Cheaper (none / 0) (#26)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    There's a new shake and bake method that can make a personal use amount of crank inside a large plastic soda bottle from just a few pseudofed tablets.  

    Just be careful not to blow yourself up.

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:53:28 PM EST
    I would love to google that but I am afraid I do I would have the same experience kdog described in the open thread without the happy ending.


    Parent
    That's funny (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:56:27 PM EST
    FWIW, you should be able to get generic Dexedrine for even less than Adderall. (They're both off patent in instant release formulations).

    Parent
    Medicare part B? (none / 0) (#54)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:34:43 PM EST
    Wasn't that supposed to help seniors pay for prescriptions?  

    Parent
    Medicare Part D (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:21:53 PM EST
    is the plan for prescription drugs. Medicare participants purchase partial coverage for drugs from the insurance industry through this program.
     

    Parent
    All you need is the Internet (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:37:19 PM EST
    Most pharmacies require a Rx from a Doctor, that is the legit ones do.

    Of course many "seasoned citizens" ;-) don't have a computer although that number is becoming smaller every day.

    Parent

    From what I understand, (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 03:52:37 PM EST
    not allowing importing cheaper drugs from Canada etc. was part of the $80B deal Obama made with Pharma.

    Parent
    I've heard this but seen nothing (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 03:55:04 PM EST
    finite in print.  Does Obama have the power to do that alone, doesn't Congress have any say?

    Parent
    Of course congress does... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by BigElephant on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 05:49:06 PM EST
    Obama's say in this matter is really rather limited.  The fine print is that the Obama administration would allegedly block any legislation regarding this.  

    I'd really like to see him try.  If it's a good idea, get your congressperson to push this.  It would be intersting to see how Obama blocks something that comes to his desk with 60% support from both chambers...

    Parent

    Reid is making (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 07:08:57 PM EST
    noise about the $80bn pharma deal, and saying he's not gone along with any such deal.  We'll see what happens....

    Parent
    Reid has a track record of making (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 12:23:11 AM EST
    the most "noise" right before capitulation.

    Pardon my skepticism about Reid standing firm on any issue.

    Will definitely have to see it to believe it.

    Parent

    I'm with you (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 06:31:47 PM EST
    Blue dogs don't walk in lock step (none / 0) (#13)
    by The Last Whimzy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    That's good news.

    I don't see any option (none / 0) (#33)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 03:08:13 PM EST
    Don't the Blue Dogs realize they really have no option. If they don't do anything on HCR, they're going to lose their seat. The public wants action.

    If they back the Pharm. and Ins. industries, they're still going to lose it. Right now these two industries are running neck and neck with the banks in public distain.

    The only choice they have is to get on board and put a bill together that satisfies the Democratic base.

    I wish they would lose their seats, but (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 05:57:18 PM EST
    I won't believe it yet.  If Obama campaigns for them, for example, that will get out the first-time voters to be second-time voters. . . .  If the pols get other party support, the big bucks, they will be able to blitz any competition, etc.

    The party put them there in just these ways, and the party can keep them there.  It all depends upon what the party wants them to do, which means what Obama wants them to do.  And that, we do not know.

    Parent

    The public wants this? (none / 0) (#55)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:39:36 PM EST
    Unfortunately, that is not what the polls are showing.  Congressmen pay attention to the polls in their districts.

    I heard Mara Liasson say on NPR that no blue dog will lose his seat by voting against the public option but some will lose their seats if they vote for it.  She did not sound optimistic about the bill.  I hope she's wrong and that the polls are wrong too.  

    Maybe Obama can still turn this around.  

    Parent

    Mara Liasson has little credibility (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:58:29 PM EST
    Not with me, anyway. She's a total villager.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 12:31:13 AM EST
    She's a totally co-opted idiot who still occasionally makes enough of the right noises to obscure the fact.

    Parent