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 (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CF01E1BF-3048-5C12-00AB01E6FB9129B8)


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 (http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=917)


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 (http://dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254449&kaid=85&subid=65)


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 a lot 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.

The Democrats could dig up Saddam Hussein's corpse and run it for President, and they would still beat the Republican-Fascist candidate in 2008.

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 .

Daily Kos: How anti-war is Hillary? (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/8/15728/1624)

Daily Kos: Democrats Headed For Trainwreck With Hillary Clinton (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/22/204826/61)

Prairie Weather: Why not just admit it: Hillary is a Bush Republican. She's our next Katrina. (http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_blue_stem/2007/10/why-not-just-ad.html)

RealClearPolitics - Articles - We're Not in 2006 Anymore (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/were_not_in_2006_anymore.html)

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 ?

Hi Tom,

The options out there are indeed slim. The scary frontrunner is Rudy in my opinion:

No matter what the question is, Rudy says 9/11
No matter what the question is, Rudy says 9/11 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/07/2007-10-07_no_matter_what_the_question_is_rudy_says.html)

Why Giuliani Is the Scariest Possible Candidate
AlterNet: Blogs: Video: Why Giuliani Is the Scariest Possible Candidate (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/65435/)

Even New Yorkers hate him
Daily Kos: State of the Nation (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/10/105530/63)

Who's left? Ron Paul?

You must have missed watching this:
Why Giuliani Is the Scariest Possible Candidate
AlterNet: Blogs: Video: Why Giuliani Is the Scariest Possible Candidate (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/65435/)

Trouble in the Democrat ranks Hello tom:

Yeah, they hate each other. But, that's not new. They always have. Unbelievable as it sounds, they are going to 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 going to 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 going to 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 solely because your side blew it sooooooo bad when you had the chance. And, I mean really, really bad – and everybody knows it.

You do too, doncha?

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.

Excon

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 (http://rightsfield.com/2007/10/13/mitt-romneys-jihad-gasm-ad/), are meant to achieve the same objective: pandering to the party base by, really, overcompensating (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/romney-guantanamo/) for their lack of conservative bona fides (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/056126.php) 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 .

The whole group looks impressive to me. JoinRudy2008 :: Rudy Giuliani Announces Foreign Policy Team Members (http://www.joinrudy2008.com/news/pr/416)

Sorry, my computer can't access websites.

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 going to 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 fixing 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 going to bomb Iran anyway?? I think he might and dare the other dufus to shoot back.

excon

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. ;)







Grace and Peace

I don't know what gds and bds mean.

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 naïve 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.

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.

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 time 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.


He's talking about WW lll. He's used the words. He just might be fixing to start it - WITH YOUR BLESSING.

Excon, we've been in the middle of WWIII for 6 years now. Where have you been?


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 going to 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.

Elliot

Needkarma, The biggest, and mostly only, flip floppers in the Presidential race 2008 are the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani 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.

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.
http://economist.com/images/20070811/D3207FB1.jpg

Here is a link that say's it all:

The American right | Under the weather | Economist.com (http://economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9619083)

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.
http://economist.com/images/20070811/D3207FB2.jpg

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.

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

needkarma, The biggest, and mostly only, flip floppers in the Presidential race 2008 are the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani 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 (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1679.cfm) - "higher taxes, fewer jobs, and lower wages" - and lest we forget, Hillary and Bill.


Candidate Hillary: The Republican Party's dream
(http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5239711.html)
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.

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.

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 consistently 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 consistently disagree with, they are going to continue to lose elections.

Elliot