Blue Dogs Diss the DCCC

by not paying their actual dues.

From The Politico:

A large group of “Blue Dog” Democrats has refused to give money to the party’s campaign committee so far this cycle, underscoring simmering tension inside the Caucus and concerns about the caustic language of at least one anti-war Democrat.

According to a review of Federal Election Commission records, 15 Blue Dogs have given no money to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as of Sept. 30, despite heavy pressure from party leaders.

Rep. Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.), one of the 15, said he had donated on Oct. 1, but his staff would not say how much the congressman gave to the DCCC.

An additional 16 Blue Dogs have not given any cash but were exempt from party-mandated contributions because they are top GOP targets for defeat in 2008, party officials said.
...
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.

“What [Woolsey] said was reprehensible,” said one Blue Dog who has so far declined to hand over any money to the campaign committee.

A Democratic strategist with strong ties to the Blue Dogs said the Woolsey incident is being seized upon by some conservative Democrats, even those who don’t yet have an opponent, as an excuse not to give to the party committee.

“Some of these Blue Dogs are saying, ‘If I have to defend myself in a primary, the DCCC is just going to have to wait,’” said the strategist.

Further proof there are some Dems who would Stollerize (ie. purge those that think differently)
the party. What they either don't realize or care about is that they only have the majority in the house because of the Blue Dogs. In their quest for idealogical purity or party unity they would embrace the tactics of Tom Delay and browbeat/arm twist/and outright threaten those that vote the views of their constituents and ultimately doom the party to a minority in the process.
What's sadder still is that they fail to realize that by using intimidation and coercion they have become their enemy.

Why is it that many who feel oppressed eventually end up adopting the tactics of their oppressor?

The Left Vs Democrats

From the Politico:

Liberal blogger targets 'Bush Dog' Dems

A leading liberal blogger has declared political war against centrist Democrats – the latest move in an intensifying show of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Congress by the once-friendly blogosphere.

Matt Stoller, who blogs at the well-trafficked OpenLeft.com, has compiled a list of 38

“Some of these members may need to face a primary challenge, and it's useful for potential primary challengers to know that there is criticism of these members,” wrote Stoller, who refers to the 38 Democrats as “Bush Dogs.” more House “Blue Dog” Democrats who have voted with Republicans on key legislation, and called on the activist community to put pressure on them – and perhaps challenge them in primaries – if they fail to shape up.

I'd find this both amusing and disturbing. Amusing because the netroots had failed to oust a single Senator so what makes any of them think that they can boot 38 (or even a single) congressmen?

Whats disturbing is that Stoller and others are trying to stifle dissent, debate, and effectively representative government using Rovian intimidation tactics to force others to tow their line.
They are now embracing the very strategies they decried for so long. In essence they have become their enemy.

Whats ironic is that the Blue Dogs haven't even been delivering on on their own promises of fiscal responsibility due to pressure from Pelosi.

From the WSJ

The blue dog Web site boasts that its mission is to "refocus Congress on balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden of debt." If a balanced budget is what they want, the best fiscal option would be to enact what is called a "continuing resolution" budget that would fund all programs at last year's level plus 1% or 2%. Along with rising tax revenues, this could cut the budget deficit roughly in half next year, to well under $100 billion. But Republicans can't do that on their own: they need the votes of these moderate Democrats.

Here's the rub: So far this year the blue dogs have been almost all bark when it comes to fiscal restraint and debt reduction. Thirty of the 48 have voted for every one of the non-defense spending bills their committee chairman have sent them. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is enforcing party discipline, and as a result 28 of the 48 blue dogs voted "no" on each of the 27 amendments that Republicans proposed to cut the costs of these bills. The 13 freshman Democrats who represent conservative districts--such as Heath Shuler (N.C.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Zack Space (Ohio), Nick Lampson (Texas)--have been a particular disappointment; back home these same blue dogs trumpet their "independent streak."

But to Stoller party comes before true representative democracy and therefore country. A sentiment he shares with both Karl Rove and Tom Delay. And should the Stollers of the DNC have their way the Dems will have a similiar fall from grace as the GOP and it would be as equally well deserved.