LOL! The Dems Haven't Even Won Yet, and Already They're Calling for a Purge
(Hat tip: Donald McClarey via email)
Glenn Greenwald is ready to give the "Blue Dogs" the boot.
What an incredibly stupid thing to propose in a year in which the Dem nominee for President is having problems attracting "Blue Dog" type Democrats (you know, the folks "clinging" to "God and guns"). Threatening to "boot" such folks from the Democrat Party is sure to win them over to Sen. Obama's cause.
Never mind that the ONLY reason the Dems are in control of Congress right now is because they were smart enough in 2006 to run a whole lot of "Blue Dogs" (as well as a whole lot of folks who pretended to be more conservative than they really are) for congressional seats in districts that are fairly conservative.
But if the Dems are stupid enough to believe that there is a "progressive" (i.e. left-liberal) majority in this country that will keep them in power without the "Blue Dogs", far be it from me to stand in their way as they purge their ranks of moderate-to-conservative members.
Good luck retaining those red state seats, by the way. Not to mention winning the White House.
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
In Flag City USA, False Obama Rumors Are Flying
Obama the Egghead Professor is Bound and Determined to "Explain" All Us Red Staters and Our Unwillingness to Support Him
Democrats Fail to Learn Lessons of 2004 - Part 2: Why Red Staters "Vote Against Our Interests" [UPDATED]
"Rats Is Stupid"
Democrats Fail to Learn the Lessons of 2004
Attention Super-Delegates: Obama Cedes Ohio Valley?
Obama Disses Blue Collar Voters Again: Says They "Cling to Guns or Religion" Because They Are "Bitter" [UPDATED]
Obama's Problems in Pennsylvania Mirror His Problems in Ohio
Obama Attributes Support for Reagan by Blue Collar "Reagan Democrats" to "Anger Over Welfare and Affirmative Action" [UPDATED]
Labels: Democrats
posted by Pro Ecclesia 7:34 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Go ahead. Make our day.
BTW, I thought Gleen(s) was a "conservative."
We need to only stand back and enjoy.
I would interpret Greenwald's piece in a different context. The Salon.com blogger is not a political analyst looking at how best to maintain a Democrat majority in Congress. Greenwald's principles overrule his party loyalty. His chief concern lately has been the evisceration of civil rights by an unaccountable warfare state. I know of no blogger more diligent in shining a light on the grave harm of warrantless eavesdropping powers than Glenn Greenwald. And he's is miffed because Democrats, even when they controlled the Congress, and including Senator Obama, have given in to President Bush's requests for additional wartime spying powers.
Sorry, Kyle, but when conservatives talk about driving the RINOs from the Republican Party for being insufficiently attentive to social issues, we're called "extremist" and "divisive" and "wingnuts".
The fact is that the so-called "Blue Dogs" are the closest thing to sanity in the Democrat Party. They tend to be more attuned to traditional family issues like abortion, the sanctity of marriage, the role of religion in the public square, etc. If the Democrat Party is EVER going to recapture its former role as the party of the traditional family - if the Democrat Party EVER has a prayer of becoming pro-life once again, it is only going to happen with the help of the Blue Dogs.
Whatever the legitimacy of his civil libertarian concerns (and I doubt they trump such issues as the sanctity of life and the santity of marriage) I'm afraid Greenwald shows himself to be a bit of an extremist by calling for the Blue Dogs' ouster.
My interest was in where Greenwald is coming from in wanting to “purge” the more conservative Democrats from the party. Whether he’s an extremist or whether his civil liberty issues objectively trump family social issues is irrelevant to my post.
That being said, from the standpoint of building a culture of life, Greenwald’s proposal may be a very bad one, and his passion for defending civil liberties under the oppressions of the warfare state no doubt place him in the minority – even among those concerned about the warfare state.
Right or wrong, his is not a position geared to winning votes, but rather to protecting rights. Some rights, anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home