• They should be able to keep the list...from republicans. But once a candidate is a certified Democratic Party Candidate in a Dem party primary, then they have as much right to such lists as their opponents. The party, in its own election-running capacity, must be neutral between candidates, in the same way that the government must be neutral during the general election (as Mr. Blackwell of Ohio proves as a case in point).

    So, whether the party can do this is one thing, but whether it is right to do so and whether it SHOULD is quite another.

    The Dems have left the "Let the Best Man Win" position and adopted a "Let the incumbent win" strategy, which might not be what voters want.

    So, on that basis, I disagree that this is some necessary means of party preservation. How can the party be threatened BY ITS OWN ADHERENTS???

  • They are not as powerful as they used to be, and they've been on the wane since at least 2000 when they got Joe Schmoe as VP candidate. And, most, if not all, these "loyalty votes" are taken from the current congress and under the current political climate (in which the political winds are not blowing in the DLC's direction). Thus, their impact is lessened. However, considering these numbers, perhaps we should have taken on the Blue Dogs BEFORE we took on the DLC. Pelosi and the party generally, would be a lot stronger if their power and influence could be diminished.
  • Answering my own question, the Blue Dogs have a website with an "About" page here:

    http://www.bluedogdemocrats.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=8& mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

    Apparently they were formed in response to the 1994 Republican takeover of congress, a congressional democrat "shift to the right" response to a rightward-moving electorate.

    As the party base starts believing we have gone too far right, it is unsurprising that the blue dogs would, like the DLC, find themselves in the crosshairs.

    Also, I can't help but stare in complete horror that they chose a person from this faction to be party whip. I understand why they did (to balance Pelosi at the top), but can't help but see how this could prevent unity on key issues in the House Dem caucus. A whip who only half-heartedly supports party unity on, for example, the bankruptcy bill, can hardly be relied upon to achieve that unity.

  • Forgive me for not being on the up-and-up on every faction and subfaction within the Democratic party, but what are the Blue Dogs? What makes one a Blue Dog?  How was this group originally formed? What principles do they claim to be founded around? Just need more info here before I feel I am able to judge the usefulness of this faction as a part of the Dem. party.

    I understand the disloyalty issue, but I would also like to understand the disloyal group in question before coming to a conclusion about them.


Advertise Blogads