Her good against that of the country

her seat do the Democratic party trying to make it to majority status?

But I'm rather fed up with her, not that I want a pug in her place, so I hope Perez is going to come through for us and we can dump her. I really dislike how she sided with the military against Gillibrand in the matter of sexual abuse in the military. The marine scandal proves it hasn't gotten any better letting the brass handle these situations.

save their seats...people don't get it...if we had a bad outcome, the GOP could get a veto proof majority. We need to take the Senate and stop the GOP cold.

People tend to forget how much of a DINO she is...

I have to agree with you

Primary this DINO.

and it's Kander

If the Republicans have the majority in the Senate, why wouldn't it be someone worse?

Giving them Gorsuch now is merely delaying the end of the 'filibuster.'

Let them burn it down now, and we'll see y'all in 2018 cycle!

Any chance they get to f**k over Democrats, they do it.

He is pretty damn extremist. They may find someone with his views, but not as slick about covering them up. But that's not worse for us.

with the bizarre rape comments. The Republicans poured a lot of money into her campaign and this was before Citizens United so I suppose they are just waiting, drooling.

Let her be..

for treason and shit?

Huh, how about that? Pretty freakin pitfally if you ask me.

Gorsuch will just sell law and citizenship to the highest bidder. He is actually worse than Scalia; Scalia actually had respect for the Law and the Constitution as he understood it. Gorsuch only has respect for Law and the Constitution insofar as he gets a benefit. He may not be a raging Christianist/Biblical Law asshole, but he has no problems with Fascism.

Haele

a thing about POC wanting equal rights too- it's usually how that plays out.

I just tweeted to Claire and called her St. Louis office (that's the closest one to me!). A real person answered and I mentioned this story a bit and told her it is okay for Claire to keep saying NO. This one is too important and will impact us well into the future.

If they block him and the Repubs kill the filibuster, it is on them. Mitch has already made it clear that they will blow up the filibuster just as soon as any of their supreme court noms are blocked. This one or the next, it doesn't matter. Might as well call their bluff and get it over with.

Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch doesn't change things much. Replacing Ginsburg with someone like Gorsuch would be "dire consequences". There could easily be a couple moderate Republicans in the Senate who might or might not vote for such a candidate... but who wouldn't vote to "nuke" the filibuster to force him through.

Not on supreme court nominations. They like to yap but when it comes time to vote they will all line up. And will dutifully vote to nuke the filibuster

Gorsuch is at least as bad as Scalia. Anyone 'worse' will be to crazy to get anyone to agree with them on the court. So we won't be seeing anyone 'worse'. Any future nominees will be like Gorsuch, wolves wrapped up in oh-so-nice sheep's clothing.

Get it over with, I say, and get the Senate back for future nominees with no filibuster. Then perhaps we can too play the game of putting an unabashed liberal on the court, rather than a 'moderate'

that, if dems "keep their powder dry" this go round, then they filibuster the next one Rs will say, "well, gee, we could completely lock the SC as conservative for the next quarter century by using the nuclear option, but gee, the dems let Gorsich have an up or down vote, so, what the heck, we can let his one ride ..."

She got lucky last time and she's knows her days are numbered in Missouri because the state has become poisoned by hate radio and brainwashed people.

doesn't seem to have hurt the Republicans. Maybe because they are willing and ready to fight, and Democrats, not so much.

She's turning into a weak red-state Dem again!

appeasement- A political policy of conceding to aggression by a warlike nation. Note: A classic example of appeasement is the Munich Pact of 1938, negotiated between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain, the prime minister of Britain, allowed Hitler to annex part of Czechoslovakia to Germany.


Truly heavy sigh.

Sometimes reading DU makes me wonder if people have learned anything.

They can filibuster the next Gop supreme court nominee if he is worst or not. Why give the Gop A FREE SEAT that really belongs to Garland. They will only kill the filibuster next open seat anyway and having a stolen seat with no consequences. We could get lucky and get the senate majority back in 2018 and next seat vacancy opens after that. Don't just give them this one, he could easily be there 35 years long after McCaskill IS GONE.

that suddenly all those big money RW donors will suddenly stop trying to oust her?

someone that will do damage 40 years into the future?

than trying to have it both ways. She'll end up with no real support from either side. I'm sure the GOP will go easy on her if she votes yay. She's gonna lose anyway - if she wants to live the rest of her life knowing she voted for Gorsuch then that's on her.

She is wrong. At this stage, and with the conflicts of interest of Gorsuch, along with what they did to garland it is time to push back. It's way overdo

Dark Money rules them, and in the darkness binds them.

It only takes one to start waivering, and then all of those new spines start to quiver...

the Koch Brothers and other big money RWers will stop trying to put a Republican in her spot with a gazillion dollars? She must be nucking futs if she thinks that is the case.

but you're right-- voting yes for Gorsuch isn't going to stop Kochs etc from spending a lot of $$$ to get rid of her.

but, why not take a position that will help turn out those few liberals there are in Montana instead of turning them off?

I guess he's in a precarious position... and can't piss off moderates. But still sucks for us.

If a "pure" challenger became the Democratic nominee, the Republican would win.

(Hooray?)

Why would you want that to happen? (Revenge?)

How does this benefit the party?

People run for office. They run on their ideas and convictions. Citizens vote for who they believe is the best. It's called representative government. If another Democrat decides to run against McCaskill and gets more votes in the primary it's because that's what the people want.

from the majority.

That is stupid.

And at this point, it seems as if there's a wave of Russian trolls ready to interfere with 2018.

from trolls (in general) trying to make her lose to someone with no chance in a general election.

Again, apologies for my poorly worded previous post.

... to put forth a "pure" candidate who will certainly lose the election to the Republican?

all the states as it is.

but you are taking about putting someone in for 40 years who is somewhat illegitimate, and who will have at least a few years to do things like, kill abortion rights. Is she the only person who could run? Can we not at leats have someone who says "Grosuch will kill abortion rights, and that is why I cannto support him?" or is that too far to the right?

... and to make decisions based on the facts-on-the-ground.

Now, it's true... McCaskill would never win an election in Vermont... but it's a bit unfair to be treating her like she's some goober who knows nothing about politics and who's just winging-it and barely getting by.

how about "I claire Mcgaskill, do not want to see someone put on the supreme court that will be able to finally kill roe v wade and broing back the days of the coat hanger."

She probably has a 40% chance of keeping her seat. Not like her probability drops from 90% to 40% if she votes no on gorsuch. Given she is likely to lose anyway, might as well stand on principle and try to get lucky - though another Akin comment from a challenger will probably not be enough to sink that guy after the shitgibbon' rise to power.

I mean, there she is, out there in the middle of nowhere, all alone, a political neophyte, with no state party organization to back her up or advise her or to keep her in the loop. She's just kinda winging-it, isn't she? Poor thing.

I'm interested in knowing more about these statistics and percentages. Are these actual numbers from somewhere reliable that may be of interest to me? There's an awful lot of probably's going on there... so it leaves me with the impression that you're basing the numbers on your feelings.

She would have lost the last election except for Akin's rape comments.

You know full well the likelihood of seeing the same fate as Blanche Lincoln from a neighboring state is pretty high.

Last edited Fri Mar 31, 2017, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

for the Putin Publicans aye?

and if that's too nuanced for you, tell me more about how we are too weak to mount a defense against the destruction of our country. Stand for something or get out of the goddamn way. The pukes show strength and were rewarded. Nobody respects weak "poor me, I live in a red state" losers.

toward what you have expressed. I'm calling her office in Kansas City shortly. We have extended 'family' there. I don't particularly care if I'm not any of these Congress members' constituents.This is a time like no other. Push back! Power to all Dems! ✊

... the ones that smear Democrats and attack the Democratic Party. Weird, huh? It seems so unnecessary. It's like they've forgotten who the "enemy" is. I get that people are angry and frustrated, but "eating our own" is not a winning strategy.

Does anyone really believe the voters will care how she voted for Gorsuch? I would think she would get more financial support from Dems if she votes with them.

McCaskill has to go!

Any "populist" Dems in MO. who could defeat her in a primary?

They would. I hope she is not primaried. We need her in our caucus.

Stop being naive.

moderate conservative and not a liberal judge at all so if it worked for the Repugnants the Dems need to return the favor plus the Dems have a more legit reason to oppose this guy than the Repugnats had as Obama had zero skeletons in his closet unlike Trump with his potential Russian ties.

I thought that if Gorsuch doesn't get confirmed, the next nominee might be worse. All the nominees for that slot are going to be pro-life conservatives who they think might decide like Scalia would.

principle
[prin-suh-puh l]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct:
a person of good moral principles.
2.
a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:
the principles of modern physics.
3.
a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion:
the principles of the Stoics.

scrupulous
[skroo-pyuh-luh s]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
having scruples, or moral or ethical standards; having or showing a strict regard for what one considers right; principled:
scrupulous about defending human rights.
2.
punctiliously or minutely careful, precise, or exact:
a scrupulous attention to detail in their performance.



scruple
[skroo-puh l]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a moral or ethical consideration or standard that acts as a restraining force or inhibits certain actions.
2.
a very small portion or amount.
3.
a unit of weight equal to 20 grains (1.295 grams) or 1/3 of a dram, apothecaries' weight.
4.
an ancient Roman unit of weight equivalent to 1/24 of an ounce or 1/288 of an as or pound.
Compare as2(def 2).
verb (used without object), scrupled, scrupling.
5.
to have scruples.
verb (used with object), scrupled, scrupling.
6.
to have scruples about; hesitate at.

mantra, it is another, when they are doing ACTIVE HARM to the cause!

one that is not obscure by your blah blah blah.

Mr Gorsuch has been anti abortion for years. This is not new

http://time.com/4705897/neil-gorsuch-anti-abortion/
https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/laws-policy/federal-government/neil-gorsuch/
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/civil-wars/articles/2017-03-21/5-rulings-that-show-neil-gorsuch-wont-defer-to-abortion-advocates

If you are against defending abortion, you are hurting the cause, and this fellow is the one bullet needed in the gun to kill roe v wade, which is why he was picked. Did that simplify things? I do not want Claire to resign, I want her to stop trying to allow someone who will bring back the days of the coat hanger and back alley.

but suppose gorsuch fulfills his promise to kill roe v wade, and is the process does years of damage as only a supreme court justice that is to the right of clarence thomas can do. the people hurt will not care that you say "well, it's complicated".

let me ask this, did she have to come right out and support him, or wait and give the official soundi9ng "let me wait until he he finishes speaking?"

You can go ahead and say she does not want this, but she has the power of the pen, and you, nor most democratic women, have any illusions about what 20 years with gorsuch being the winning vote will do. Throw all the venom and sarcasm you want, but Calaire knows that there will be women born today that will have to deal with this man, and I hope to god she can look them in the face after roe v wade is killed and say "I'm sorry, I was in a red state"

Nothing matters to these politicians except money.

Hey, I've got an idea... as punishment, why not "primary her" to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that a Republican Senator takes her place. The hard left is demonizing the wrong person. This is not McCaskill's fault. I know there's a certain element that will always "hate" her because she's "not-Bernie-enough" for them, and because she's a "convenient" target... but seriously, they are wasting time and effort. She does represent Missouri and that's just reality. People like that should learn to accept reality.

is confirmed to not be doctored or quoted out of context??

trump now?

back.. and hiedi, don't give the treasonous trump any power.

and his tools, we lost all chance to choose who gets SCOTUS vacancies.
Infighting over whether particular Senators are willing to sacrifice their seats for the sake of purity is not what Democrats should be doing. IMO That helped put the psychopath and his Congress in control.