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 " ?
Tom I think you know that there is much more to the blogosphere than the Moveon.org crowd; and the annual Yearly Kos convention drew all but one of the Democratic presidential candidates. The bloggers are an increasingly significant constituency inside the party but it is not a matter of one or the other; I think the Dogs and the Kogs will get along just fine when they reach the ballot box, until then it’s just politics.
I as a Republican I can second that motion. MoveOn.org is not to be relied on for real information.
That being said, though, I DO think the Democrats are risking pre-election comfort in thinking that there are alot of idiots out there who will, in the next Presidential election, vote "against Bush".
I fully expect another Trojan Horse campaign. The 'public' pandering to the Kossacks and co. will be pulled way back after the Dems have a nominee. They'll trot out the Blue Dogs and rein in the rest, dust off their bibles and "no ways tired" speeches and hammer on supporting the troops, how the GOP has abandoned children and how we're less safe since Bush, etc. and keep their agenda as closely hidden a secret as they can.
I'm sure there will be plenty of MoveOn hit jobs that will have their tacit approval, but any trouble in the ranks is going to be covered to the best of their ability. It'll be a rally around Evita good ol' time.
Face the facts ;there is real dissatisfaction with the front runner and there is a growing movement in the "progressive" wing to derail the Evita train .
RickJ is right. The Democrat hatred toward Bush disguises the tensions in the ranks . Steve is also right . I can guarantee that in the general election Evita will try to appear more hawkish than whoever the Republicans nominate;which will rub the San Fran Nan wing (who actually does represent the main-stream of Democrat policies ) raw.
I am sure the Republicans will try to widen that gulf. Does Evita approve of Madam Mimi's attempts to run foreign policy from Capitol Hill ? Will she support an across the board war tax hike like Rep. Jack Murtha has put on the table ?
Yeah, they hate each other. But, that's not new. They always have. Unbelievable as it sounds, they are gonna come together to elect Evita.
HOW they're going to do that, is understandably, a mystery to you guys. See, the Democrats, for the most part, are able to negotiate and come together as a unit, in SPITE of their hatred.
That's something that doesn't happen with you guys. You operate as though the other side is the enemy and you'll never, ever talk to them. You even make negotiation harder when you call them names and question their patriotism.
By the way, I'm gonna change the wording I used above. I used "hate" because you guys get that word. But the truth is, they don't hate. They just don't agree. YOU guys are the ones who hate, so you assume (wrongly) that the other guys do too. That's a bad assumption, and it's gonna cost your team BIGTIME.
excon
PS> (edited) The reason they’re going to win is NOT because they have good policies and NOT because they’re good governors. They don't and they aren't. They’re going to win soley because your side blew it sooooooo bad when you had the chance. And, I mean really, really bad – and everybody knows it.
Needkarma . I do not have video capabilty on my computer . But if it is a question about Iran frankly I see little difference between Rudy's and Hillary's stated policies.
Linear Mode
