Far too dumb, in fact for Greenwald. Purge the party? What a blandly reactionary sentiment.

The thing is, when politics gets more ideological than rational, the combative atmosphere feels unstable. And in an unstable climate, people behave proportionally more conservatively.

If the Dems were to implement a policy of excluding blue dogs from the debate, rather than fixing the democratic debate itself, and not only will the Dems be aiding the cause of the Karl Rove's of the world but they will be contending for moral equivalence with them.

The bottom line: this country is literally on the verge of sinking into long term, decline. Dems can either focus their attention on actually fixing it, or they can focus on angrily debating ideological partisan points. I am disappointed to the point of near disgust at the side of this equation that Salon.com and its readers seem determined to come down on.

Ideological purity is not the solution to the Democrats challenge of governance. We have long been a "big tent" sort of party. The challenge is complicated by the fact that the Republicans have already engaged in their own pogrom, forcing out any kind of moderate from their ranks.

Historically, moderates of both parties acted as a braking mechanism to the more extreme elements of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Regrettably, a "moderate wing" no longer exists in the Republican party.

It is not in our best interests to be applying purity, it is in expanding the party. Do I like what so-called Blue Dogs do on some issues? Heavens, no. Should they be run out because I don't like everything they do? Again, heavens no.

Purity doesn't govern. Governance is about compromise. While we may not want to compromise after the last eight years of insanity, we cannot stoop to the conduct we despise. We're better than that, as Americans, not just as Democrats.

Throw the blue bums out. They are less than useless. You can't win a fight when there are weasels behind you.

I vehemently disagree with the first two posters. These Blue Dogs do not represent the traditional values of the party, values which the vast majority of Democrats still support and believe in. Why should they be permitted to continue to represent us as Democrats? I agree wholeheartedly that there is no tangible loss in booting Blue Dogs out of Congress. Whether you have a Democrat voting like a Republican or a Republican voting like a Republican, what's the difference? We need Democrats that will behave in a united, confident manner. The Blue Dogs are undermining the ability of Democrats to function as a cohesive party. They need to be ostracized and marginalized from the party. The notion of "including" these people for no apparent rational reason is silly. Short of murder or child-buggery, a Republican operative infiltrating the Democratic party and acting to disrupt its functioning could not do better than the Blue Dogs.

Enough is enough. By letting the Blue Dogs make the bad votes we both fail to win on those issues AND also fail to have anyone to hold accountable. At least if we let a Republican make those bad votes -- ALONG WITH OTHER BAD VOTES AGAINST THINGS LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY -- then we can use it against them and hold them accountable for ALL their votes. By allying with the Blue Dogs we just have to capitulate and shut up about it. What's more, the Blue Dog just gets more firmly ensconced in their seat ensuring even more bad votes in the future that we are expected to not hold anyone responsible for.

Insetad, let's let Republicans make those bad votes and then use those bad votes against them to replace them with real Democrats, not game playing weasels.

Let the Inquisition begin!

Blue Dog: "Cover me while I take out that neoconservative machine gun nest"

Blue Dog sez: "Well, I might cover you or I might shoot you in the back depending on the issue, but you go buddy."

Somehow I don't find that scene inspiring, do you?

You go 'progressives'! Split the party you think you own into fractions.

If purity is an issue, American socialists should organize their own party, the US Socialist Party, or the Social Democratic Party Of United States. It is cowardly to hide behind an old, established, and, in its majority, not sharing socialists views party.

Historically, moderates of both parties acted as a braking mechanism to the more extreme elements of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Regrettably, a "moderate wing" no longer exists in the Republican party.

Really? Can you name an example of when moderates in either party have acted as a "brake" to prevent some kind of egregious railroading? I personally can't think of a single instance, but I'm asking honestly, not sarcastically.

Glenn poses the question, "What is the difference -- specifically -- if Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel have a 43-seat margin of control rather than a 56-seat margin? " The answer should be obvious - the Blue Dog caucus comprises 47 members. 43 is less than 47; 56 greater. A large enough margin of victory, especially if it comes as a result of picking off a few of the Blue Dogs, gives a Blue-Dog-Proof majority in the House. That's worth fighting for.

Look you bunch of weaselly assholes: it ain't us that's splitting the party, its the Blue Dogs. They regularly vote against the majority of the party. THEY are the ones splitting the party.

Well fuck that. What we progressives are saying is its either THEM or US. Take your pick. You don't get both. We're ready to go to war over this. Bring it on, assholes. Bring it on. We've had it with your self-fulfilling prophecies. We've had it with your "ingenious" tactics. We've had it with your election losses.

We're gonna flush the Democratic toilet. You better get out before it starts to swirl.

Anyone who says Glenn is wrong on this has no place to complain about their party. The only way to make the Democratic party better is to elect better Democrats, and the Blue Dogs are lousy Democrats, if not lousy Americans.

It's not about "purity," it's about Democracy.