About the 19 Democrats who voted against Pelosi yesterday .....

[hedgehog]

Let's postulate that in this case, Nancy Pelosi stood for a program with the overwhelming support of elected Democratic Representatives.

In order to enforce and enhance party unity, should the national committees sponsor primary challengers to these 19 during the next election cycle?

It can't be a solid rule, because another rep voted for John Lewis, presumably in honor to the man.

But the 19 reps made it clear they opposed the program.

Keep in mind a little bit of history - back in 1968 the Democratic Party leadership still supported the Viet Nam War.

[stray cat]

1. And if a voter doesn't support the dems on an issue they should not vote democratic

[hedgehog]

2. -?- I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Is it enough to elect

someone with the label "Democrat"? IMO, Obama has been hamstrung more by Blue Dog Democrats than by the Republicans.

[xchrom]

3. you don't reward turncoats. nt

[Recovered Repug]

4. Independent thought has no place in the Democratic Party.

They must be gotten rid of.

[harun]

5. We can't trust a committee, the people (us) need to sponsor primary challengers.

[Laelth]

6. A bit of a push-poll given the wording.

Pelosi was guaranteed to win. I have no problem with 19 people making a symbolic vote in opposition to her for varying reasons. That doesn't mean they should be primaried. Nor do I think that local districts should be left entirely alone. I'm all for primarying blue dogs, for example.

I didn't see an answer here with which I could entirely agree.

-Laelth