Greg, I appreciate you posting the full text of the letter and, based on my own knowledge of the issues, I support the Blue Dog Coalition. However, I do think you added something that wasn't there by saying that they "demanded" that Pelosi keep Harman on as Chairman and saying that Pelosi may face a revolt. The letter was much more careful and respectful than I anticipated from your summary (and yes, I know what goes into phrasing letters that are intended to be leaked to the public).

There is already a media effort to try to build up internal conflicts among democrats into something that will impede the party's ability to govern effectively. While I can understand the interest in promoting a strong opposition to the changing of the Chair of the intelligence committee, the only evidence of a "revolt" is in your description. All I see is the normal political process of a transition to power and the allocation of roles and responsibilities within the party.

That would be Alcee Hastings ... maybe Alice is his sister?

... never mind, it's been corrected in the text now.

I lived in Peterson's district for the first 24 years of my life. (Until 4 months ago!)

You remove Peterson this district goes red for 30 years or you find some incredible candidate who has 6 years to spend building up the infrastructure in the district. Now if you still want to do this, this is fine you have every right to hurl a primary challenger at him but understand the consequences.

I swear to God this is true.

It holds true for Pomeroy as well and Pomeroy is a better guy than Peterson.

A choice between Alcee Hastings, an impeached former Federal Judge & Jane Harman, AIPAC stooge. The Democrats in the House seemed a lot more attractive when they were the minority party. No, no, I'm glad we won & all, but these people are making it pretty damn hard to admire them. And that goes for the earmark king John "ethics reform is crap" Murtha too.

Look it's very simple.

Dems have a choice we can bend over for AIPAC much as republicans did and face an enormous back lash in 2008, or we can stand up and say NO. If 20 dems feel like they should throw themselves under the bus for AIPAC so be it, just everyone else make damn sure it's clear to EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY who they are doing this for. I would be very surprised if in ANY of these 20 districts you could find anywhere near a majority of constituents that want them to advocate the AIPAC line. Even among the evangels there is much rethinking going on behind closed doors. Especially given the Haggard revelations. Now is the time for radical change not the I want to be a republican. Lead stop imitating.

Let's remember a little history here folks. The "Blue Dog" Democrats are the people who inherited the long time role of the southern Democrats which was the watering down and more or less wrecking (or attempted wrecking) every progressive and sensible Democratic initiative that came down the pike for decades (unless it benefited their region in which case nothing was too liberal or expensive, etc..). As most of the southern Democrats like the lovely Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott morphed into the modern Republican a few less racist conservative/moderate Democrats remained and now call themselves "Blue Dogs". If it weren't for the cowardly conservative and moderate Democrats we might have never experienced the long walk in the wilderness that just ended. It was the milquetoast crap coming out of the Democrats that made them vulnerable to the Republicans. The "Blue Dogs" are nothing but self serving pols who are out to protect themselves and their incumbency and the Democratic Party be damned. They have always been willing to cooperate with the Republicans in scuttling progressive laws and programs as long as it was good for them. Our object must be to increase the majority in the house be enough that on most votes the "Blue Dogs" votes are unnecessary. That way they can be ignored as it should be. Only when they have enough votes to tip the balance do they have any real power.

I sincerely hope that Pelosi shortsheets ALL the machinations against her by appointing Silvestre Reyes.

TPM backed Hoyer over Murtha, now Harman over Hastings. What's next? A guest commentary from Carville about why Dean should be dumped?

While the Blue Dog's letter is moving up in the queue for the media's next "the Democrats are sooooooooo fucked up, especially Pelosi" chortlefest, let's take note of who, exactly, seeks to undermine her.

My my, it's "conservative" Dems like Slate's Timothy "Dump Pelosi" Noah, "Washington insiders" and:

"Pelosi’s support for Hastings has drawn fire from the New Republic, a Washington magazine which speaks for centrist and liberal Democrats. The magazine said in an editorial that Pelosi’s choice of Hastings was
“both substantively foolish and politically tone-deaf.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15741999/

This is all about showing Pelosi and the upstart fringie nutroot dummies who runs the show in the Democratic party.

SOS, ya'll.

Alcee (the ethically challenged) Hastings

You really should be careful of your spelling, Ron.

I can see why the Blue Dog Democrats might be concerned about having one of the ethnically-challenged chosen in place of their own but then some of us are more concerned about ethics than ethnicity.

I suspect if a Blue Dog had been wrongfully convicted like the ethnically-challenged Judge Hastings, that would be a mark in their favor.

Just guessing you understand.

Let's imagine Pelosi loses again standing up for justice and decency against another Bush war stooge. Will not Pelosi again be a winner?

Best, Terry

matt le w @ 5:31PM--Do yoy have a link for the "olive branch/power grab" offer the Blue Dogs made to the "moderate" Rethugs?

Who is (or is there more than one?) the last moderate Republican?

Thank you.

Big tent! Nancy Pelosi isn't Speaker without the 44 or so Blue Dog Dems.

What positions of the Blue Dogs do you disagree with? I think they are generally pretty mainstream Dems.