Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Whipping the bluedogs

Gary Andres:

Walking through the corridors of the House office buildings on Capitol Hill these days, you'll routinely run into the same large poster prominently displayed outside certain representatives' offices. Regularly updated, these placards, which resemble purloined junior-high science fair projects, display the mounting federal debt and your share of it.
Members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of about 35 self-described moderate-to-conservative Democrat lawmakers historically concerned about the budget deficit, conceived the idea -- a kind of fiscal Cassandra on cardboard. But when these lawmakers had a chance to trim the deficit by nearly $50 billion last week as the House voted on the spending portion of the fiscal 2006 budget reconciliation bill, every single Blue Dog Coalition member voted no. Unfortunately, when it comes to actually voting for new fiscal restraint, these dogs are up to some old partisan tricks.
Created 10 years ago, the Blue Dog Coalition was formed because, according to the group's Web site, some moderate Democrats felt they were "choked blue by their party's leaders leading up to the 1994 election." No doubt the tax-and-spend policies of the increasingly liberal Democratic leadership over the past decade in Congress did not play well back home for these representatives. For example, President Bush carried 22 of 35 Blue Dog districts in 2004. The coalition aims to allow these lawmakers to differentiate themselves rhetorically from the national Democratic Party and talk about issues in a manner more popular with the folks at home. But when it comes to fiscal restraint, "talk" is about all they do.

...

Pelosi's party discipline is likely to cost these Democrats who survive in conservative districts by talking the fiscal conservative game, but like the vote on the war they show fiscal cowardice when challenged by their leftwing leadership.