Nominee Poll: Stand On Principles Or Count Votes?

That seems to be the question of the day.

Do we oppose Bush nominees on principle or take a vote count and let them have it without a fight if we do not have a lock.

Where do you stand?

is to create a picture of one side roll over. i think it is very appropriate for the dems to ask the question, make the public aware of what type of sc he is and how it is going to effect the country and even vote no to the man. educate the public on what we create by having repugs. remind them of schiavo. loss of civil rights. use it as a platform. without going ballistic.

is without a doubt part of that fight.

:toast:

We should contest EVERY issue that goes against our principles, irrespective of whether we can win a vote on it. And irrespective of what it might "take off of the front pages".

One of my great dissappointments with the Democratic Party is that the will to fight is weak. We seem to always compromise, waver, turn against each other, or otherwise give in to the Repugs. They don't compromise, they are playing for keeps.

Further, I would claim that our reluctance to battle them is reflected on election day. Most people believe the Repugs would be better at defending the country. Why is that? Because they will fight tooth and nail for what they believe in. Even if the people don't actually like what the Repugs are fighting for, they are impressed by the fight. The Democrats are seen as being too willing to cave--and are thus viewed as weak and unreliable.

We can change that.

Right now, we stand for nothing...

here we go., diss a little more. that is right, this is the attitude we promote. because you got a sc you dont like, because repugs have the right to nominate, we the dems

stand for nothing

that is a reality.

not a correct or factual reality, but one you promote strongly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4145332&mesg_id=4145332

I offer many concrete examples of Dems rolling over. And offer the results of that. I also offer up a case (one of those you refere to when you go off about how much fighting we have done in the past few months) where we foiught and won.

Anyone that can offer an example of a time we did not fight and won anything has no ground ion which to stand.

You are welcome to try and find one. No one on the other thread has...

Whatever people think is the safest political move overshadows all else. Playing it safe has already nearly killed the Party, but people can't see that for some reason.

It's sad to see, but even here on DU, which is supposed to be progressive, there appears to be a majority who say we have to carefully pick our fights: we can't fight this thing because "they have more votes", "fighting will weaken us", "fighting on this distracts from that" or "this isn't so bad...".

I'm depressed.

DU spends a huge amount of time talking about how much we appreciate the Conyers' and Boxers of the world because they fight.

But, when a fight comes up, we act like Lieberman.

WTF???

and maybe that isnt so far out there. and maybe i do have a reason to be on this planet and it isnt yours to so easily decide what i am made of. maybe i see my way as more productive. and seeing that it is a given this man will be voted aye, exemption of unforeseen. i am looking at the next step. what do we do. how do we use it. lets get to work. maybe i I dont see that as rolling over or giving up

i am tired of this attitude on this board, if i or other dems dont walk exactly liek you want,......we are this or that, whole dem party useless. i am walking away. they do nothing. they stand for nothing. at the least, word it factually instead of hyperbole, before attacking me. stand for nothing. i beg to differ. i bet i can prove this statement worng. they stand for nothing.

this is a post, in a thread that can actually be productive

and quit calling me names




"create a network of availability to abortion.

give dems position of opening discussion of abortion in reason instead of the emotion the repugs do. it would become a reality for many that havent thought it through, but have allowed a nothing thinking conditioning of religious murdering a baby be their picture.

it would give dems a strong foundation of what to fight in 2006. and the necessity of binging back balance to washington. in senate and house

many people are opening eyes to this. they saw it with schiavo. this is a continuation of that

also, i think we should bring in the gay thing and hash it out right here and now too. challenge what america wants to be. discriminative and unchristian, or....dems position......christian, wink, humane loving righteous individual right civil right.

sometimes, it has to be shown, what people are wanting to really see the repercussion and it really is not a word they want

will also give dems the strong platform of demanding all these babies, mouths to feed. pump up welfare. minimum wage, family cant feed the children. get wage up. make wage livable. create the health care. if we are demanding all these fetuses come to fruition, then a network has to be created. i will not be barbarian and demand this fetus step into a world of hunger.

you use it. all the way. it is what religion and repugs and holier than thou have been demanding. it is what they point and me and say you murderer. you arent christian.

this si the reality they want. lets talk this reality

always in conversation with catholic friends on abortion, and others, i ask them, so you out law it. now what. none can answer. well now is time to start that debate. now what. you tell me the repercussion and what we are going to do. this is your day of reckoning, you have to answer

we use it

that is how i see you fight. "

"turn against each other"

kinda like this.

nice of you to dismiss all the fighting the dems have been doing since bush second term. totally dismiss it, as this party the underdog has in my opinion, done a kick ass job fighting. continue to promote the weak. continue to ignore the fights they have taken on and been successfull at

being competitive in sport most my life, this attitude about creates loser

not how you inspire success

so do tell me how all of us are suppose to battle

asks all the hard questions and makes this guy sweat, but keeps it civil. They should let their surrogates and outside groups get nasty. I think the chimps man will get in, so lets use this to court public opinion. I really hope this doesn't turn into an abortion brawl - I think the GOPpers will score points if it does, the Democrats should keep to underlying issue - the right to privacy. People of all kinds of political spectrum's agree with us on that and womens rights are an off shot of that. We need to frame the debate for once, not let the GOPpers do it for us.

Good to have some mnore fighters!:toast:

We need to concentrate on the right to privacy, the Griswold decision, etc. I would ask him about the Roe decision though and why he wrote it was "wrongly decided". That's in the record, so he's got some explaining to do.

I would also go after him on the importance of precedent. Show that he is a radical like Scalia who would overturn any prior decision he felt like.

DA, by the way - what does "kick" mean? I see it all over this board. You'll have to forgive my ignorance - I'm old and hanging in chat rooms hasn't been my thing as of yet in this life.

It took me a while to get that myself. Some use punt as well.

Also common:

IMHO (In My Humble Opinion)
ROTFL (Rolling on the floor laughing)
N/T (No Text in the mesage)
EOM (end of message)

I'm sure there are plenty of others. But, those oare the ones I was confused about.

Always feel free to cntact me with questions. You'll find me ready and willing to help.

DA

carefully pick our battles. This is one we probably can't win unless someone digs down very deep and finds something in Robert's past that would immediately disqualify him. Otherwise, we don't have the votes and aren't likely to get him. To me, this Rove thing is so huge and so important that we have got to stay on message here and I don't want to see us veering off topic on that one to fight a battle we can't win when we are in sight of achieving our goal re Rove. Eyes on the Prize people.