Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bearshark who wrote (14032)	10/27/2003 12:41:34 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793743

apropos quote from Sullivan: ORWELL ON WAR CRITICS: "It is, I think, true to say that the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people, and that they were more swayed by partisan feelings. The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany. He could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." - from Notes on Nationalism

To: bearshark who wrote (14032)	10/27/2003 2:06:37 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793743

I'm just a Blue-Dog Democrat. Uh huh. SLATE's "Explainer" explained all about you a few years ago. _________________________________________ explainer What Is a "Blue-Dog" Democrat? Emily Yoffe Posted Thursday, December 14, 2000, at 2:52 PM PT "Mr. Bush's advisers believe he can draw support from the Blue-Dog Democrats, a conservative Democratic caucus," says today's New York Times. Just what are the Blue-Dog Democrats, and how did they get their name? The Blue-Dog Coalition is a group of 32 Democratic House members who primarily push an agenda of fiscal conservativism. The group is expected to expand in January when five newly elected members endorsed by the coalition, the Blue Pups, are sworn in. The group was formed in 1995 to push a balanced federal budget. Now that the government is running surpluses, they are turning their attention to reducing the national debt. They also have been active in welfare reform. The group takes it name from a play on the phrase "Yellow-Dog Democrat" which was coined, according to William Safire, in 1928 to describe Southern Democrats who held their nose and supported the party's presidential candidate New Yorker Al Smith. Alabama Sen. Tom Heflin said, "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket." The name also comes from the paintings of Louisiana artist George Rodrigue, who has donated prints of his famous canine as a fund-raising vehicle for the group. On its Web site, the group says that conservative Democrats had been "choked blue" by the party's more liberal leadership. A term you won't hear Democrats applying to themselves anymore is "boll weevil," which is what conservative Southern members of Congress called themselves in the 1950s--it has fallen out of favor because of an anti-civil rights taint. The Senate has its own version of the Blue Dogs, which formed in 1999 and has about 20 members. It is the prosaically named New Democrat Coalition. Next question? Explainer thanks Becca Tice of the office of Rep. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, and Bette Phelan of the office of Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Emily Yoffe is a frequent contributor to Slate. You can e-mail her at eyoffe@hotmail.com. Article URL: slate.msn.com