At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 47 moderate-to-conservative House Democrats, point out that they often represent tough, hard-to-hold swing districts that could easily go Republican, meaning they must build sizable campaign war chests in order to ensure their reelections, even if they look safe right now.
But there is also lingering concern among the Blue Dogs — and resentment, in some cases — over comments made by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) to leaders of the anti-war movement.
In a late-August conference call, Woolsey encouraged the anti-war groups to field primary challengers to any Democrat who does not vote to end the war. While she later moved to repudiate the remarks, saying they were misunderstood, Woolsey’s statement angered many Blue Dogs and led some to withhold their DCCC dues.
And so, you may have noticed a lot of chatter about 'Bush Dog' Democrats over the past few days. That's not an accident. We've been working to identify the group of conservative Democrats in the House who are holding back progressives from being able to effectively govern. These are concentrated in two main caucuses, the Blue Dog Caucus and the New Democrat caucuses. Blue Dogs consider themselves heirs to the Southern conservative wing of the party, and tend to vote for socially restrictive policies and a hawkish foreign policy. The New Democrats tend to be more partisan, but often are key to passing important pieces of right-wing legislation, such as the Bankruptcy Bill. In the last few years, these two caucuses have expanded their numbers, and the Blue Dogs have become the swing vote in the House allowing for effective conservative control of the Congress. We want to put a stop to the embrace of conservative values among House Democrats, and make sure that when Democrats are elected, they act like Democrats.
So who specifically are these people? As Chris Bowers noted, the two biggest defeats for House Democrats so far in 2007 have been the capitulation vote on Iraq, and the vote to allow Alberto Gonzales warrant-less wiretapping powers. We're calling the Democrats who capitulated on both bills 'Bush Dogs', as these are the most likely to capitulate on important fights in the future.
So if the Blue Dogs don't conform to the Kossak and Moveon.org agenda they will be the subject of primary challenges . Yeah that worked so well in Connecticut when they tried to oust Joe Lieberman.
So where does the Democrat leadership stand on this dispute ? I think they feel they need the Blue Dogs much more than they need the Kossaks of the party . David Brooks of the NY Slimes sees it that way too .DLC: The Center Holds by David Brooks
Quote:
In the beginning of August, liberal bloggers met at the YearlyKos convention while centrist Democrats met at the Democratic Leadership Council's National Conversation. Almost every Democratic presidential candidate attended YearlyKos, and none visited the D.L.C.
At the time, that seemed a sign that the left was gaining the upper hand in its perpetual struggle with the center over the soul of the Democratic Party. But now it's clear that was only cosmetic.
Now it's evident that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the "netroots." You can learn most of what you need to know by paying attention to two different groups -- high school educated women in the Midwest, and the old Clinton establishment in Washington.
The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots' self-righteousness and bullying. They also know their party has a historic opportunity to pick up disaffected Republicans and moderates, so long as they don't blow it by drifting into cuckoo land. They also know that a Democratic president is going to face challenges from Iran and elsewhere that are going to require hard-line, hawkish responses.
So will the Democrats put the netroots in their place and run another trojan horse campaign ;or will the Kossaks and Moveon.org crowd assert themselves and seize the party "they bought " ?
yes they will win if the run a trojan horse candidacy like they did in 2006 . The trouble with that strategy as they have found out is that once they do ;they find they can't control the members they bring in. The only reason Hillary is ahead is because she has the full force of The Clinton machine behind her . But the rank and file are not happy campers.
A computer that can't do video? Interesting.
Here's a synopsys:
" Maybe you love Rudy or maybe you hate him. But whatever you may think of him, check out his foreign policy team, because that's the key to knowing what to expect from a Rudy presidency. Especially for candidates with little or no foreign policy experience of their own, the folks advising the candidate are key. And Rudy's team is made up, more or less, of all the guys who were too nuts or too extreme to make the cut with George W. Bush. If you really, really want to go to war with Iran as soon as possible, vote Rudy.
Giuliani's foreign policy advisers, like Mitt Romney's "Jihad" ad, are meant to achieve the same objective: pandering to the party base by, really, overcompensating for their lack of conservative bona fides and moderate records. The results are candidates parading around like cartoon characters based caricatures of what's left of the GOP."
yes I am aware of Rudy's team . I like them .Many of the foreign policy members come from the Hoover Institution.
Charles Hill former diplomat . He has direct Middle Eastern experience - He was political counselor for the US Embassy in Tel Aviv and was director of Israel and Arab-Israeli affairs.
Norman Podhoretz editor of Commentary Magazine has long been one of America's leading intellectuals.
Stephen Rosen is an expert on the military, a professor of national Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University. He has a lengthy list of publications focusing on military affairs .
Actually it was Irving Kristol who was the father of the neocons. But I'll accept that Norm Podhoretz was one of the leading intellectuals of the movement. It is unacceptable for Iran to have nukes. If their program can be stopped short of war fine. But their program has to be stopped before they can acquire a weapon. Even Hillary understands that.
But their program has to be stopped before they can acquire a weapon. Even Hillary understands that.
Hello again, tom:
You say that as though we are in control of the situation, and that if WE simply wish it, it CAN be done. The time when we actually COULD have affected the outcome, is LONG past, however.
We're NOT in control. We've never been more OUT of control than we are now. We don't know who's gonna jump up next and piss on our leg. Our buddy, Turkey just did. The Bush foreign policy is a disaster - an unmitigated disaster.
He's talking about WW lll. He's used the words. He just might be fixin to start it - WITH YOUR BLESSING.
I agree. Iran should never be allowed nukes. But, your dufus fiddled while Rome burned….. Now, I don’t doubt that our carriers can do the job. I do doubt whether, at this point in time, they SHOULD.
Here’s why. The Russian dufus by the name of Putin, who your dufus said was cool, because he looked into his eyes, was just in Iran smiling for the cameras. He told us not to mess around. He LIKES Iran.
HE already has nukes!!! Lots of 'em, and they're STILL pointed at us.
Is your dufus gonna bomb Iran anyway??????? I think he might and dare the other dufus to shoot back.
A computer that can't do video? Interesting.
Here's a synopsys:
" Maybe you love Rudy or maybe you hate him. But whatever you may think of him, check out his foreign policy team, because that's the key to knowing what to expect from a Rudy presidency. Especially for candidates with little or no foreign policy experience of their own, the folks advising the candidate are key. And Rudy's team is made up, more or less, of all the guys who were TOO NUTS OR TOO EXTREME TO MAKE THE CUT WITH GEORGE W. BUSH. If you really, really want to go to war with Iran as soon as possible, vote Rudy.
So does that mean you will appreciate President Bush more? or does that mean GDS will be a more virulent strain than BDS.
Putin in truth is scared out of his whits about Iran with nukes. The last thing he needs is an Islamic state on Russia's border with nuclear capability . Yeah he plays footsie with the Mahdi-hatter and sells them obsolete weapon systems (note how effective their anti-aircraft systems worked against Israeli jets ) , but if it came down to it he would do nothing to stop an American attack .He would just hope we got bogged down doing it .
I happen to think it would be easy to flip Russia on this issue if we weren't pushing NATO to the Russian borders and instead included Russia in the missile shield proposal .
But this posting wasn't about Iran but about the splitting of the Democrat coalition.
So how does the rest of the party think about Hillary growing huevos ? She voted to approve the resolution that called the IRG a terrorist organization and the base went nuts.She called Barack Obama naive when he said he'd meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition. Before that she told the National Jewish Democratic Council that we might have to confront Iran militarily.
I'll say it again .Her candidacy is very polarizing inside her party.
You say that as though we are in control of the situation, and that if WE simply wish it, it CAN be done. The time when we actually COULD have affected the outcome, is LONG past, however.
Exactly the opposite, Excon. Tom is speaking like a person who knows that "wishing" isn't going to accomplish anything. Bombing, on the other hand, has a pretty reasonable chance of successfully keeping Iran from getting nukes any tiome soon.
Seems to me that those who are so dead-set against the posibility of war against Iran are the ones engaging in wishful thinking.
Quote:
He's talking about WW lll. He's used the words. He just might be fixin to start it - WITH YOUR BLESSING.
Excon, we've been in the middle of WWIII for 6 years now. Where have you been?
Quote:
I agree. Iran should never be allowed nukes. But, your dufus fiddled while Rome burned….. Now, I don’t doubt that our carriers can do the job. I do doubt whether, at this point in time, they SHOULD.
Here’s why. The Russian dufus by the name of Putin, who your dufus said was cool, because he looked into his eyes, was just in Iran smiling for the cameras. He told us not to mess around. He LIKES Iran.
HE already has nukes!!! Lots of 'em, and they're STILL pointed at us.
Is your dufus gonna bomb Iran anyway??????? I think he might and dare the other dufus to shoot back.
excon
Interesting argument. However, Putin no longer has the Soviet Union to back up his sabre-rattling. If he launches or even threatens to launch against the USA (or anyone else) he's going to have all of Europe breathing down his neck, and he doesn't have Poland, Chekoslovakia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Latvia, Estonia, Uzbekistan, and the rest of the former soviet bloc countries to act as a buffer or feed him fodder for his army. Even if there was a nuclear WWIII, it would be very short-lived and very one-sided. Putin is not that stupid.
Ahmadinejad IS that stupid, which is why he must not be allowed to get nukes. He's just stupid and crazy enough to use them, even if he knows that it will mean his own destruction.
Plus, Israel just proved that it is possible for a Western power to invade a country that is protected by the most advanced anti-air defense system Russia ever built. Putin isn't exactly in a position to promise protection to Iran when he has to have doubts about being able to protect himself right now.
And finally, if Putin's wish is to restart the Soviet Union, which seems to be his dream, then openly starting a pissing contest with the USA while he's trying to court the former Soviet countries is not a great recruitment move. If he makes himself a target of US ire, why would any of the former Soviet countries (who generally like Capitalism, now that they have had a chance to try it) want to make themselves into targets by joining him? So Putin has to avoid making himself such a target until he gets his power base up and running. That's not going to happen overnight, if ever at all.
So I find the argument that Putin backs Iran and therefore we should take military options against Iran off the table to be a bit lacking. Putin can smile for the cameras all he likes, but there's only so far he can go without endagering himself and his power base. And truly backing Iran against the USA would be stepping over that line and he knows it.
Linear Mode
