If you encounter any discussion among the punderati regarding the political dynamics of healthcare reform in Washington these days, it would be difficult not to acknowledge an important fact. The word "bipartisanship" may be tossed around, but in reality, when trying to get anything done, it is the dysfunction of our tri-party system that will be staring you right in the face – when not kicking you right in the gut.

There are actually three distinct entities in the US legislature. There are Republicans, who believe less is more – and that doing nothing is the highest form of patriotism. There are Democrats, who are still fighting to ensure that a robust public option is contained in the eventual healthcare legislation and have fought for everything from equal pay for women to legislation to combat global climate change.

And then there are Blue Dogs, a largely rural band of theoretical Democrats who only represent 3% of the US population at best and can be counted on to consistently attack, apologise and otherwise run away from their purported party label while seeking the best deal possible for their corporate benefactors.

In a way, this behavior is almost understandable, as in no real sense are Blue Dogs Democrats. They are largely southern, where the Republican party still has a 50% approval rating (contrast that with the northeast and midwest, where they sport 7% and 13% approval ratings, respectively, rendering them slightly less popular than scurvy). And they are personal vacuums for contributions from the most noxious, consumer-screwing industries that exist. They are not "moderates", as they are often called by the clueless commentators on cable television, but ultra-conservatives on social, foreign and economic policy.

Now, let me walk back a step from indicting the entire group. There are a few genuinely moderate and productive Blue Dog caucus members among their lot, such as Mike Arcuri of New York, Loretta Sanchez and Mike Thompson of California and Mike Michaud of Maine. On key votes, such as Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan, you can usually count on them to support progressive, good-government legislation. There are also a half-dozen (perhaps even a few more) additional adherents of the 52-member group, who are still relatively moderate and more often than not vote for the good for their constituents, party and country.

But most of the rest of these never-bite-the-hand-that-feeds-your-campaign-cash-stash Blue Dogs do nothing but embarrass progressives and moderates, kill the Democratic party's brand and continually wreck any chance for it to become a lasting majority party. For these reasons, good Democrats and all progressives should actively root – with their time and wallets – for the worst of them to lose in the 2010 midterm elections. Even if it's to rightwing Republicans.

Now, thankfully, that is not always the only option. First, there are some districts, such as those of sell-out John Barrow in Georgia and healthcare-reform-terminator Jim Cooper in Tennessee, where the aforementioned economic royalists/social-issue Attila the Huns are way to the right of their districts, and installing a progressive via a primary challenge is a promising possibility. In addition, there are newly open districts, such as that of Republican Adam Putnam in Florida, where a rightwing Blue Dog, Lori Edwards, is taking on progressive, Doug Tudor. Real Democrats should get in early behind Tudor, to replace a terrible Republican with a progressive, as opposed to an equally dreadful "Democrat".

Yet, there just are certain locales where, quite frankly, the Democratic party and progressives would be better served without faux-Democratic representation, whatever the alternative. Uber-reactionary Blue Dog Parker Griffith of Alabama not only has the worst voting record of any House Democrat, but has stated publicly, that if re-elected, he will vote against his own party's leader, House speaker Nancy Pelosi. Meanwhile, in the case of Mike Ross of Arkansas, we have a "Democrat" leading the fight against the public option, after magically having his Tennessee property bought for substantially more than its apparent value by a drug store chain. Are the gods generous, or what?

It is reactionary and corrupt Democrats such as these that make insane Republican legislation appear reasonable and "bipartisan" with their support, good Democratic legislation that is hugely popular seem "leftwing" with their gratuitous insults and opposition and the will and organisation of the Democratic party seem weak. Their very existence hurts our party and the country.

If you think that a loss of 20 seats would be too severe, even though we'd still hold a strong majority in the House, I have an answer for you. Put progressives in Putnam's seat, Barrow's seat and Cooper's seat, and lose the 22 next-most extreme Blue Dogs to Republicans, and you'll have a more reliably progressive House than we do now. In fact, a progressive PAC, Blue America, realises this and has already started an effort to accomplish this very goal.

In the end, I would hope we replace as many Blue Dogs as possible with real Democrats. Yet, when it comes to the reactionary and venal in our midst, I know how I'll handle their losses on election night, even to Republicans. I'll start a fire, roast some marshmallows and take a swig of champagne to toast their every defeat – by any electoral means necessary.