The Blue Dog Democrats are a cover group intended to help liberal politicians from red states - like Rep. Earl Pomeroy who hails from my home state of North Dakota - convince their constituents that they aren’t like the far-left, big-government, tax-and-spend types from California or Massachusetts.  It lets them pay lip service to the principles of fiscal restraint, low taxes and national security so they can campaign on those things without actually having to support them.

Unfortunately, being “Blue Dog” means more than just laying claim to that label.  You must do more than talk.  You must actually oppose spending increases, support spending cuts, promote national security and vote in favor of lower taxes.  Otherwise you’re just lying to yourself and your supporters.

When it came to a recent vote on a FISA bill, the Blue Dog Demcorats - up to and including Earl Pomeroy - showed themselves for what they really are: Partisan, liberal Democrats who are just trying to hide behind a title.

The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill that would grant immunity to the phone companies and is backed by President Bush. In January, 21 “Blue Dog” Democrats in the House even sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi that said the Senate FISA legislation “contains satisfactory language” and that “we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change.”

Ms. Pelosi’s reply was to force the signatories to take a vote that repudiates their earlier position. . . .

Mr. Bush has promised to veto the bill, which is actively hostile to the intelligence gathering necessary to fight terrorists in the 21st century. In addition to leaving phone carriers exposed to billion-dollar lawsuits, the legislation strips away the “state secrets” privilege for any entity that cooperated with the U.S. intelligence community. What this does, essentially, is ensure that the dozens of suits already pending against carriers would, at the very least, reach the merit phase of litigation and possibly drag on for years. Such legal exposure makes it that much more difficult to gain private cooperation in national security emergencies going forward.

Put simply, Rep. Earl Pomeroy and the rest of his “Blue Dog” Democrats voted in favor of the interests of trial lawyers instead of the interests of national security.

Which, at least in Pomeroy’s case, perhaps isn’t that surprising given how much political money his state party receives from trial lawyers.