The Democratic Party Has No Room for "Conservative Democrats" Right Now

Not if "conservative" means supportive of Bush's terror policies, and especially not if it means supportive of Bush's terror policies because keeping their jobs is more important than doing their jobs.

Reid and Pelosi promised last week that they would at least confront the president next month over his wiretapping program, with Pelosi taking an uncompromising stand in a private conference call with House Democrats. When lawmakers return in September, Democrats will also push legislation to restore habeas corpus rights for terrorism suspects and may resume an effort to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But conservative Democrats and some party leaders continue to worry that taking on those issues would expose them to Republican charges that they are weak on terrorism.

…"The most controversial matters are the ones that people use to form their opinions on their members of Congress," said Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), who voted for the administration's bill. "I do know within our caucus, and justifiably so, there are members who have a real distaste for some of the things the president has done. But to let that be the driving force for our actions to block the surveillance of someone and perhaps stop another attack like 9/11 would be unwise."

A real "distaste." Yeah, nothing leaves a bad taste in the mouth quite like the leader of a democratic nation who behaves like a bloody dictator.

And, seriously, Davis should be kicked out of the party just for parroting the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" horseshit that the Democrats who want to take on Bush's policies are only doing so because they dislike Bush and, if they have their way, we'll have "another 9/11." It's like Davis' staffers are briefing him with excepts from Michelle Malkin's website.

The worst part of it is his temerity to suggest that the Democrats who want to restore the rule of law, even for—gasp!—suspected terrorists (emphasis on suspected), are doing so because they have no principles. They're just motivated by having "a real distaste for some of the things the president has done," you see, unlike the principled "conservative Democrats," who vote with the administration lest they be branded as "weak on terror" and lose their pretty jobs.

If they were even half as concerned about retaining their integrity as they were about retaining their jobs, the rest of the Democrats might not be "angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center."

Hilzoy has more.