Did the vote on the Bankruptcy Bill Highlight the Schism within the Party?

When I say within the Party, I'm not talking about the voters themselves, but rather, elected Democrats.

More didn't vote for it than did, but 19 Senate Democrats joined the GOP in voting for the Credit Card Industry-written bankruptcy bill.


I think today illustrated, more than we care to admit, that there is a real division within the Democratic Party, between the old line, working class supporting Liberal Democrats, and the new, third way, corporate Democrats.


Is it time for some blood letting to decide what the future of the Party is going to be, or is nothing wrong and we should just continue as is?

But with only a few exceptions, the usual suspects were in favor of the bankruptcy bill.

thanks

Lincoln (D) Yes.
Pryor (D) Yes.
Salazar (D) Yes.
Biden (D) Yes.
Carper (D) Yes.
Nelson (D) Yes.
Inouye (D) Yes.
Bayh (D) Yes.
Landrieu (D) Yes.
Stabenow (D) Yes.
Baucus (D) Yes.
Nelson (D) Yes.
Reid (D) Yes.
Bingaman (D) Yes.
Conrad (D) Yes.
Johnson (D) Yes.
Byrd (D) Yes.
Kohl (D) Yes.

Jeffords (I) Yes.

At least we now know who is for the small person

Senator Clinton didn't vote.

She was absent. Not sure if she went golfing with George Bush Sr, Barbara Bush or if she's visiting her old man in the hospital.

The revolution starts...now

it is time to get NEW blood in charge of the party

card companies to any Democratic who voted for this piece of shit. There are just no up sides to this legislation for a Democrat unless they are looking for or have received cash from the wonderful folks who wrote this legislation (yes, the credit card company lawyers wrote this legislation). I, for one, will not support ANY Democrat who supports this crap, and will actively work for their defeat at the polls. They are a DISGRACE!!

against have safe seats. Most of those who voted for, are in vunerable seats. Democratic senators from Maryland can be as liberal as they want to be and still keep their senate seats. Democratic senators from Arkansas face a whole different scenario.

their house due to hospital bills, they are not going to be comforted by the fcat that a Sen from AK had to keep his seat! That is just vile!

people like Bill Frist charting the agenda. Liberal Dems got snarky in 1968 and let Nixon win. Then, again, in 1980, they were pissed off and let Reagan win. Then, in 2000, just enough deserted to Nader to let Bush win. When does the message get through? When Republicans control the White House, they control the agenda. When they hold congress too, they control everything. But people here seem to prefer raising hell at the Democrats instead of our real enemies, the Republicans?

difference is there? I am really disappointed in this vote. I thought we were going to work together. There really isn't a good reason for a Democrat to vote for this bill. Many conservative Dems are also anti-choice . Put it all together and what are they supporting that I believe in? These votes make much of the other stuff unimportant. This wasn't an ordinary vote. This was a big one, impacting everyone. This was bad> I am sorry for the good donkeys who tried to carry the frieght.This isn't fair to them.

Who sets the agenda? It ain't the Democrats. I understand local politics....although I cannot see why voting against this legislation is a loser for any Democrat. Lots of reasons to vote against...

But the bottom line is that this legislation does come to vote if Democrats are in the majority.

Until then, I plan to blame most everything bad that happens on the people in charge-Dick Cheney, Dennie Hastert, and Bill Frist. Oh, yeah, and George Bush too....

Sure ya will. What is the agenda of the national Democratic Party on the bankruptcy bill? Did the new leader of the Democratic Party, John Dean, speak out clearly against the Bush enabling legislation?

I don't think so. His job is to raise big bucks and keep his mouth shut on hot button issues.

He's Howard Dean, BTW, but that must be very confusing to you. You obviously dislike Reid and other Democratic senators because of their votes.

One might reasonably question if someone who dislikes both liberal and moderate Democratic senators really has the best interests of the party at heart.

Democrats are in charge.

But I have to agree with Atrios on this....Pelosi lost a great opportunity to have nationalized this issue for 2006 by the defection of a few Democrats. Republicans can, once again, hide behind a "bi-partisan" vote....meaning that the casual a-political voter will assume there's not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans. Sad, but true.

:mad: :argh:

slandered....maybe they've targeted him.

Yeah, the state is definitely trending Democratic but Bingamon, or any Western Democrat, is by no means a shoe-in.

That said, I agree that it wasn't the smartest move on his part.

It merely illustrated the money game that ALL of them play, Republican, Democratic, all of them. What we saw today was just another in a long line of illustrations that portray that old adage of well; He who pays the nickel, gets to call the tune. Well, back in the last election cycle, the credit and banking sector paid out a lot of nickels, and today we got to see who they were calling the tunes for. Next week, we'll get to see who has been bought by another corporate interest.

And this my friend, does highlight where the split truly lies, between our so called represenatives in Washington and elsewhere, and the rest of America. There is really only one solution to this problem, let our so called leaders know that their constituents aren't on K Street or Wall Street, but on Main Street. Tell them that the only candidates you support are those who don't take corporate lucre. Kucinich ran his entire campaign last year without one dollar of corporate cash. Dean showed us how to use the 'net to bring in small donations. Next election cycle, if we could get thirty million people committed to donating ten dollars each, guess what? WE COULD BUY THE CANDIDATE!! Gee, government truly in the hands of the people. What a novel concept.

who will be voting this way, right? (I forget exactly how many Dem reps there are these days....the "New Democrats" (52 or so).

How is that "keeping the caucus together" that I hear Pelosi is doing so well??

...between the inside-the-beltway and outside-the-beltway Democrats.

Is there anyone in the latter group that thinks this bill is anything other than a disaster? For that matter, is there anyone, Democrat or Republican, among the "ordinary people," who supported this? From what I understand, comments on Freeperville were as opposed to it as here on DU. It was clearly understood that this was a bill that would have no other effect but to empower the financial-services lobby and royally screw ordinary working people. Yet, it passed relatively easily.

Molly Ivins often writes that the division in this country isn't left-and-right, but up-and-down. This was as clear-cut a case as possible where a bill benefitted those in the "up" group and constituted a disaster to those in the "down" group. As it stands, all Republicans and Independents, and 43% of the Democrats, sided with the powerful over the rest of us.

I'm beginning to think that, more and more, a purge is needed of those at the entrenched level of national politics -- those who have stopped thinking about their constitiuents, and only exist to serve their donors. Such a purge might knock the Democrats way down in representation -- but, otherwise, I can't see how we're going to have a chance to establish ourselves as an "opposition party" (with a chance of becoming a majority party in the future) as long as Democrats can be seen as complicit in the worst of the G.O.P. class war on the common people. As of now, "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

:grr: