Blue Dog leader says they won't give loyalty to either "leadership"...

[madfloridian]

or at least that is how I read this from The Hill.

For the Blue Dogs, their robust fundraising bolsters a viable political center in an ever more partisan Congress.

“There’s a group of Democrats who aren’t going to give their voting card to either leadership,” Tanner told The Hill in July.

Now isn't that nice? We are expected to vote for them, but they don't promise loyalty. BTW I think this is the main group that got the bankruptcy bill through.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/092606/news4.html

"A number of prime Democratic pick-up opportunities involve conservative candidates the Blue Dogs have endorsed, making it nearly certain that the coalition will expand in the next Congress, perhaps dramatically. The Blue Dogs have endorsed former Reps. Ken Lucas (D-Ky.) and Baron Hill (D-Ind.), as well as Democratic challengers Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Mike Weaver (Ky.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Maxine Moul (Neb.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), John Cranley (Ohio) and Phil Kellam (Va.). In open seats, they are backing Christine Jennings (Fla.) and Charlie Wilson (Ohio).

Blue Dogs already constitute nearly one fifth of the 201 House Democrats, but they are outnumbered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus (64), the Congressional Black Caucus (43), and the New Democrats (42).

Some of those caucuses are likely to grow as well. The CBC has endorsed candidates Keith Ellison (Minn.), Angie Paccione (Colo.) and Les Miller (Fla.). The 11-member Congressional Asian and Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) is backing candidates Tammy Duckworth (Ill.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) through its work with the Asian American Action Fund."

I think this is the group who wants Steny Hoyer to take Pelosi's place. Correct me if I am wrong on that.

Interesting names on the list.

(On edit: I changed the party loyalty in the subject line to "leadership" as the article says. I am very confused how they mean it, and I don't want usual suspects to say I am being unfair. They could mean party, but they could mean party "leadership", as they do not support Pelosi. Shs is having to walk a fine line right because of that.)

[madfloridian]

1. Ok, another way to read it...not sure.

Does Tanner mean not give loyalty to party or not give loyalty to the party elected leadership. The article is not clear on that. I mean like Pelosi or Hoyer or Murtha.

[Ezekiel in Exile]

2. Come January 3, watch out.

Gene Taylor didn't for Pelosi for Speaker last time. The Repubs will be pitching hard to these people if they need a few votes to take the Speakership.

And the Blue Dogs could vote for one of their own and bargain from there.

They will hold the balance of power IF the Dems manage to win any kind of majority.

[madfloridian]

5. Is it Hoyer they are pushing?

I am still trying to figure this out.

How is their stance overall on social issues, I know they are very firm on fiscal responsibility. Do they support privatizing Social Security?

[Ezekiel in Exile]

11. Maybe, but...

...don't think the Repubs won't try to swing some of the blue dogs into their camp to hold on to the House.

Unless the Dems have a 15-20 seat majority, things will get very interesting after November 7. Wilder than 2000.

I've written about it here.

[aquart]

7. Well goody for them.

But all they are capable of is acting in concert with the Republicans and, if all this new Congress can give America is business as usual...........WELL THAT AIN'T WHAT'S WANTED.

Conservatives are NOT in a position of power right now.

[Eric J in MN]

3. What is the difference between...

...the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats?

[madfloridian]

4. I am trying to figure it out.

I think it may be more conservative fiscally, way more conservative.

I don't know the stances on other things.

[Mythsaje]

6. So the choice comes between Republicans

and "Not Quite Republicans."

Woo-hoo...

[lcordero2]

8. might help to search in both these pages

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

http://www.house.gov/tanner/blue.htm

It seems that the overwhelming majority voted for this war. They can't claim to be fiscally conservative.

WAR = WASTE

[Hippo_Tron]

9. n/t

[bowens43]

10. Irrelevant. The good guys will control the agenda.

That's what counts.

[madfloridian]

12. MyDD did some research..Pelosi went after them on bankruptcy bill.

They are out to get Pelosi and replace her with their choice.
So I was right, they were supporting it...that bill that could disabled and ill people without their home because of medical bills.

Pelosi lectured them. This is going to be one hell of a power struggle. I doubt the grassroots figure in to their planning.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/28/122920/723

"Sources at last week's meeting said Pelosi didn't help repair the rift, and perhaps even inflamed it, when they said she accused moderates of selling out to special interests on the bill and betraying the party by urging the GOP leadership to bring the measure to a vote. Several of those sources said Pelosi has an obligation not only to bring Members together, but also to apologize to the moderates.

"Actions speak louder than words," said one source from the conservative wing of the party. "No meeting will undo what she did, and it will take a while for her to repair the damage with Democratic centrists."

So she calls them on supporting a bad bill...and they want an apology.

And Chris goes into some very deep analysis. And as he says...perhaps we have been blaming the DLC for the Blue Dog actions...as least a lot of the time.

I think with the DLC it is about 3 who anger most of us so greatly...Al From, Marshall Wittmann (Bull Moose)..and Will Marshall. Now I see the struggle is going to be real.

[madfloridian]

13. I already voted for all the Democrats...so no lectures.

But this concerns me. There are some who are members that I trust to be fair and honest in all things, but I do get worried about no loyalty to the party.

:shrug:

And this:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/442