Trouble in the Democrat ranks

tomder55 · Oct 24, 2007, 11:20 AM

Politico points out that the Blue Dog Democrats have refused to give funding to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC ) Blue Dogs refuse to pony up for DCCC - Politico.com Print View

Quote:

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.

The Blue Dog Democrats are what the moonbat or netroot wing of the party calls "Bush Dog Democrats " . Here is a Kossak rant from this summer Open Left:: Step One in The Bush Dog Campaign: Creating a Public Record

Quote:

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 " ?

Choux · Oct 25, 2007, 02:07 PM

needkarma, The biggest, and mostly only, flip floppers in the Presidential race 2008 are the Republicans, Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney. I will be pointing this out later next near when the election is closer, so you and your friends can learn about it.

The Christian Conservatives have recently threatened to withdraw all voting support for Republican candidates. Big Business' has withdrawn *virtually all* financial support from the Republican candidates. Money had dried up.

Republicans are in big trouble and it is a year until the election.

Dark_crow · Oct 25, 2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choux

needkarma, The biggest, and mostly only, flip floppers in the Presidential race 2008 are the Republicans, Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney. I will be pointing this out later next near when the election is closer, so you and your friends can learn about it.

The Christian Conservatives have recently threatened to withdraw all voting support for Republican candidates. Big Business' has withdrawn *virtually all* financial support from the Republican candidates. Money had dried up.

Republicans are in big trouble and it is a year until the election.

Here is a link that say's it all:

The American right | Under the weather | Economist.com

Dark_crow · Oct 25, 2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choux

needkarma, The biggest, and mostly only, flip floppers in the Presidential race 2008 are the Republicans, Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney. I will be pointing this out later next near when the election is closer, so you and your friends can learn about it.

The Christian Conservatives have recently threatened to withdraw all voting support for Republican candidates. Big Business' has withdrawn *virtually all* financial support from the Republican candidates. Money had dried up.

Republicans are in big trouble and it is a year until the election.

The Republicans have failed the most important test of any political movement—wielding power successfully. They have botched a war. They have splurged on spending. And they have alienated a huge section of the population. It is now the Democrats' game to win or lose.

Choux · Oct 25, 2007, 02:54 PM

Thanks, Mr. Crow.... looks like a super link.

speechlesstx · Oct 25, 2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choux

needkarma, The biggest, and mostly only, flip floppers in the Presidential race 2008 are the Republicans, Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney. I will be pointing this out later next near when the election is closer, so you and your friends can learn about it.

The Christian Conservatives have recently threatened to withdraw all voting support for Republican candidates. Big Business' has withdrawn *virtually all* financial support from the Republican candidates. Money had dried up.

Republicans are in big trouble and it is a year until the election.

Keep repeating that to yourself, Choux. Americans will wake up when they see what the Dems have to offer. A "million ideas" we can't afford, a half-trillion or so dollar tax increase - "higher taxes, fewer jobs, and lower wages" - and lest we forget, Hillary and Bill.

Quote:

Candidate Hillary: The Republican Party's dream

By JONAH GOLDBERG

The most interesting thing to come out of the umpteenth Republican debate Sunday is confirmation that the GOP is dying to run against Hillary Clinton. Like Don Rickles flaying a heckler, each candidate whacked at Clinton as if she were a pants-suited piñata. When they were done with their one-liners, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee deadpanned: "Look, I like to be funny. There's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton being president."

No, but there's something deeply advantageous to having her as an opponent. So far, the commentary about the Republican offensive against Hillary has focused mostly on how it reflects poorly on the GOP (those Clinton-hating wing nuts are at it again!). What's not been fully grasped is how Hillary gives the GOP its best chance at being the party of change.

Newt Gingrich, for one, has been pointing this out for months, using the May electoral triumph of Nicolas Sarkozy in France as an example. A Cabinet minister for the unpopular Jacques Chirac, who'd served as president for a biblically long term of 12 years, Sarkozy ran against his own incumbent party's complaisance as well as his Socialist opponent, Segolene Royal, arguing that she represented a return to a failed past and more of the same.

America isn't France — obviously — but Democrats may be misreading America nonetheless. It seems incandescently clear that voters want a change, and up to now, change meant little more than Democratic victory and no more President Bush. But Democrats got a significant victory in 2006, when they took control of both houses of Congress. And now Congress is even less popular than Bush. In other words, the clamor for change in Washington is much bigger than Bush.

Besides, Bush is leaving no matter what. And unlike every other election since the 1920s, there's no White House-approved candidate in the race. Any Republican will start with 40 percent to 45 percent of the vote in his pocket once he gets the nomination. The question is whether the critical 5 percent to 10 percent of swing voters will think Hillary Clinton represents the sort of change they want.

To wit: Most independents and swing voters want an end to the acrimony and bitterness in Washington — and a candidate they like. Whether that's right or not is irrelevant. That's what they want.

Which Democratic candidate would be most likely to give those voters what they want? Not Hillary, it's safe to say.

Right now, she can get away with boasting about her tenure in the Clinton administration. Party activists are drunk with Clinton nostalgia. On the stump in Iowa, Bill Clinton responded to the claim that Hillary was "yesterday's news" by saying, yeah, but "yesterday's news was pretty good."

In the general election, audiences will remember Whitewater, Travelgate, illegal fund-raising, bimbo eruptions and impeachment. If they don't, you can be sure Republicans will remind them. Fair or not, the Republicans' intense dislike of Hillary will underscore the idea that a vote for her is a vote for more of the same rancor.

Hence the irony of the Clinton candidacy. Liberal activists keep saying that they want a candidate who is pure, speaks from the heart and refuses to "triangulate" on core principles the way Bill Clinton did. But Hillary Clinton is Clintonian in more than just name. On national security in particular, she has been alternating between reflexive anti-Bushism to bouts of outright hawkishness. Desperate to win, Democrats have been willing to overlook that — so far. But such shifting costs her credibility and passion.

It's all deeply reminiscent of how John Kerry wound up as the nominee in 2004. Once Howard Dean, the conviction candidate, experienced the political equivalent of spontaneous human combustion, Democrats immediately cast about not for another principled politician but one they deemed electable. Bizarrely, they settled on the left-wing senator from Massachusetts who synthesized Ted Kennedy's politics with Michael Dukakis' charisma while bragging about his service in a war he built a career denouncing.

If Democrats could get out of their bubble, it might dawn on them that virtually all of their other candidates are better positioned to run as champions of change. Hillary Clinton has shrewdly tried to trim the differences between her and the competition by claiming that any of them would be better than George W. Bush. From a liberal perspective, that's obviously true. But that perspective won't necessarily dominate come next fall, particularly if conditions in Iraq continue to improve.

Is it really so obvious that, say, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney represent "change" less than the ultimate Clinton retread, complete with Bill as "first gentleman"?

That's how Democrats are betting right now, and they may be bitterly disappointed — again — when it comes time to collect.

iamgrowler · Oct 25, 2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choux

needkarma, The biggest, and mostly only, flip floppers in the Presidential race 2008 are the Republicans, Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney. I will be pointing this out later next near when the election is closer, so you and your friends can learn about it.

The Christian Conservatives have recently threatened to withdraw all voting support for Republican candidates. Big Business' has withdrawn *virtually all* financial support from the Republican candidates. Money had dried up.

Republicans are in big trouble and it is a year until the election.

And you aren't the least bit concerned about the complete and utter failure of the Democratic agenda that launched them to control of both houses in the last general election?

Seriously -- Name me one single talking point/campaign promise that won the DNC their majority that has come to fruition.

Seriously.

Perhaps you aren't aware... But the Senate and the Houses approval ratings are in even worse shape than the Mental Midget in Chiefs.

Given the abysmal approval ratings of both branches, I'd say the odds are 50/50 for either party at this point.

ETWolverine · Oct 26, 2007, 06:31 AM

One point that is clearly missed in this article is the fact that the Dems keep bringing up their own weakest points.

They keep bringing up the immigration issue. Poll numbers consistantly show that the nation favors enforcement over amnesty and the Conservative agenda over the Liberal on immigration. The Dems keep bringing this achiles heel to the forefront of the national political framework. 80% of American favor border enforcement and over 70% are against any sort of amnesty bill or any sort of granting of legalized ID to illegal immigrants. But the Dems keep pushing those ideas.

Similarly, they keep pushing an agenda to pull out of Iraq immediately, when polls clearly show that 60% of Americans (even among those who are against the war) believe that a precipitous pullout would be bad for America and Iraq.

As long as the Dems keep bringing up and pushing hard for issues that the American people consistantly disagree with, they are going to continue to lose elections.

Elliot