Although I dispise the seeming cowardice of Juliani (cleaning up the
town except for the "few" law-breakers in blue "that reaked revenge on
the majority if they attempted to obey the law and tell on bet bad
cops), I do admire him for being able to cross party-line and support
Democrats when he sees fit.

My first bout with Party-Anilal-disgust, occurred when Mario Commo
gave that address to the Democratic Convention.  Como could not find a
single good word to say about Reagan.

I believe the true virtue of a great pearson is his ability to give
the devil his due, even though you hate the bastard.

I myself as a registered DEM, voted Carter, Reagan, Bush, Bush and
skipped Nixon, Clinton.  No Party-Animal here.  JFK impelled my
attention to the party, but I was not yet a proud American Citizen.
(could not find spelling for Rudy)

When Loyalty trumps fairness, is it a virtue or a vice? (my next
main-line question)

Dear Tough Lover, 

Nice to see you again, with your ever strong opinions. I actually let
this question hang for a while, since I was hoping that some of our
talented commentators would add their opinions before I jump in with
my conclusions.

The issue could be divided into several layers. The first is a moral
layer. To which has a person an obligation - to his voters? to his
conscience? to his party and friends in it?

If a political decision must be always based on the obligation to the
constituent, then obviously, when a politician makes a decision to
break his party line without the consent of his voters, he is
betraying them. On the other hand, if he sticks to a party line when
most of his constituents think that that line is wrong, he is also
betraying them. So, if we regard the politician as a sort of a
representative of a particular group, the question is not whether or
not he is loyal to the party, but whether or not he is loyal to the
constituents.

On the other hand, a politician is not a mere representative. He is
supposed not only to express the voice of those who sent him, but to
serve the whole public, according to what he sees as right under the
circumstances. In this aspect, there is no doubt, that unless he sees
a vital danger to his party in "betraying" its line, he or she should
adhere to their conscience. For example , a Malaysian politician said
on one matter "I cannot vote against the motion because as a
responsible elected representative, I have been empowered by the
people to protect their interests." (Source: "Loyalty to the People's
Needs - or Loyalty to the Party?"
http://www.malaysia.net/aliran/ms/2002/1123.html).

But parties are not here for nothing. As we all know, except for the
ideological frame, they also provide a structure. A politician is,
after all, a human being. They care about their party, and whether it
will win or lose, and the care about their own friends and careers.
Thus, there are other calculations that concern politicians when they
make their decisions.

The second layer is, then, the issue of "practical" or "rational"
decisions. If we analyse such a decision in a "rational decision
making" tools, we might say that politicians (like any other
individual) base their decisions on grounds of gain and lose from
their decision. For example:
- If I act in accordance with my party's decision, I'd get X support
within my voters' body, Y support in the general public and Z support
in my party.
- If I act against my party's guidelines, I'd get A support from my
constituents, B support from the general public and C support in my
party.

For example, John McCain’s decision not to run for elections might
have based itself on these premises (see John McCain's Dilemma:
Loyalty To What?
Filed March 9, 2000 http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/030900.html
)

This analysis, done by each and any of us each day, even if not in
these cold analytical terms, may pose the politician with a simple
calculation: if he'd act in a certain way, his career would gain.

This is not only in adherence to the party, but on the other way
round. It is somehow very popular today to say that someone is
"non-partisan". However, a politician may use that to gain popularity,
knowing that he could do well without the party mechanism (for
example: Jesse Ventura). This is problematic. As much as sometimes the
mundane politics, especially in the American system, is tiring, ideas,
and organisations that support these ideas, should still be at the
centre of the political action. Populism a-la Ventura, can end up very
bad and harm democracy, being based on a person and not on an idea.

Sounds very cold? Very mechanical? Somehow, some people expect their
politicians to be holier than thou. Politicians make decisions like
anyone else.

However, regarding expressing hatred or discontent with someone
*solely* on the grounds of his party affiliation is not only stupid,
but also dangerous. As I see it, it could lead to dehumanisation of
people on the premises of their political affiliation or other
features (colour of their skin, religion, etc.).

And that is the bottom line: sometimes, being a "party animal" is a
rational choice that makes a lot of sense, and expresses the fact that
you're human. In other cases, it expresses the fact that you're
dehumanising others.

I hope that answered your question. This time, for my research, I've
used the term "loyalty to the party". If you need any clarifications,
as usual, don't hesitate to ask.

There is a Catholic Saint--Saint Anthony--who "was much reproved by
the church fathers, because he refused to do right when the Devil told
him to do right." (Winston Churchill)

   A public figure who can see no good at all--ever--in his political
opponents is justifibly suspect of being a mean-spirited human. 
Contrast someone like that, with this:

  An Illinois Democrat found Abraham Lincoln (a Republican), and a
state legislator (a Democrat,) dinning together in a hotel where they
all were staying.

   Expressing surprise that the two men were eating together, Lincoln
said of his dinner companion, "He's an agreeable enough donkey that we
can eat out of the same trough".

   It good, to my mind, to make allowances for campaign rethoric. 
Winston Churchill was beloved among all parties in Britian.   Yet, he
was devastating in his partisan attacks.  Churchill once said he
didn't mind attacks on him--especially considering his own personal
public political comments; "...it's a wonder half my colleagues talk
to me."

You say "could not find spelling for Rudy".  You're far from the only
one, so let me take this opportunity to give you his full name:
Rudolph William Giuliani.

"Giuliani, Rudolph William"
Infoplease
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0820922.html