Dem activists working for a fillibuster-proof Republican majority...

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 08:52 AM Original message

Dem activists working for a fillibuster-proof Republican majority...

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 09:00 AM by Padraig18 I've long since ceased to be even mildly surprised by the numerous 'outrage of the day' Democratic activists's postings here at DU, yet I am always left to wonder if any of them ever stop to consider the logical consequences of their 'defeat Sen. X--- (s)he's a DINO because (s)he voted for Bill Y' messages? Let us consider a few facts, shall we? There are currently 44 Democrats, 55 Republicans and 1 Independent senators in the US Senate. Fortunately for us, the Independent, Sen. Jeffords, caucuses with us. Under the current Senate rules, it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture and terminate a fillibuster. The fillibster is the most powerful tool the minority party--- that would be us--- has for opposing bad legislation and bad appointments, especially judicial appointments; nonetheless, there are many here who would seemingly see our party stripped of this powerful weapon for the sake of some vague and ill-defined idea regarding progressive values. What, you say, I've seen no one advocating that? Actually, you have, although not in those precise words. When one sees posts here advocating the defeat of incumbent Sen. X without mentioning by name a viable, well-funded Democratic replacement, that is EXACTLY what the poster is advocating. If, on the basis of certain non-party-line votes, a poster advocates defeat of a dependable party-line Senator, the are essentially advocating placing that seat in grave jeopardy. It is long past time to see things as they REALLY are, and to discuss the real-world consequences of such posts, should what the poster advocates come to pass. 2006 is perilously close, and the very last thing we as a party should be doing is cutting off our collective nose to spite our face. Thank you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

John_H (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 08:55 AM Response to Original message

1. I'd absolutely love to know how many of these "Dem Activists"

are sitting in gray cubicles at the RNC, laughing their underachieving asses off.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 08:56 AM Response to Reply #1

2. I've harbored those suspicions, too.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

NoPasaran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:13 AM Response to Reply #1

37. I often wonder

How many of these "activists" are actually doing anything beyond furious posting on the Internet. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with challenging an incumbant in the primary to keep him honest.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:43 AM Response to Reply #37

55. Here's what was taught regarding primary challenges

I cut my teeth on Chicago ward politics, and the understood 'rule' regarding primary challenges was 'the primary is wide-open but, win, lose or draw, the loser(s) support the winner in November'; I frankly don't see our 'throw the bums out' activists giving an indiaction that they'd be willingto do that, and therein lies the other problem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

NoPasaran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 11:30 AM Response to Reply #55

66. That's a rule I can live with

I also have the feeling that a lot of our fire-breathing radicals don't actually understand how the House and Senate actually work. If we have more Dems than they have Repubs, then we get to chair the committees, set agendas and call hearings, even if all of or guys aren't 99-4/10% pure on the progressive ideology scale. Some of them would probably be more at home in the collection of Socialist Alphabet Soup Parties on the fringes of the trotskyist movement.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 11:52 AM Response to Reply #66

69. Many of them lack even a basic knowledge of Congress' workings.

If they understod, they wouldn't make so many of the totally bizarre statements they make; some of these same folks also lack a fundamental understanding of how the Constitution works, too. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 11:57 AM Response to Reply #69

70. And if you look at the Harold Ford post, they're basing their opinions on

"facts" supplied by CNN that aren't even accurate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 12:00 PM Response to Reply #70

71. Surely you're not going to be so evil as to insist on factual accuracy???

The next thing you know, you'll want to introduce logic and a working knowledge of Congressional rules into the debate!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

roseBudd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:56 PM Response to Reply #69

203. Like the people who whine, "why didn't Kerry do something?" like what

was he supposed to do, break into all the warehouses and seize the voting machines and ballots? Was he supposed to call the cops and say "I was robbed"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

demwing (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 02:36 AM Response to Reply #203

371. What he could have done, is what Al Gore did do

Edited on Fri Mar-11-05 02:36 AM by demwing which is fight it out in court. Gore fought in the courts till the very last moment. Kerry caved within 24 hours. Theres a quote from the book To Kill A Mockingbird that says something about the meaning of courage: "I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what." I'm done initiating these pot-shots at Kerry, but I'm not ashamed or embarrassed about expressing my feelings that Kerry had let us all down, especially when you hold his actions up in stark contrast to his rhetoric.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

roseBudd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 10:17 AM Response to Reply #371

376. Gore was close enough that an automatic recount was legally an option

The repugs made sure OH was not close enough and Blackwell was complicit in making that happen with the provisional ballots legal challenges.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

demwing (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 10:35 AM Response to Reply #376

377. OK, I see that, but Kerry campaigned on the concept that he was

a fighter and a closer. Then, before the Ohio votes were even fully counted, Kerry dropped. I just think that Kerry could have given a little more to his supporters in the end, or turned down the rhetoric during the campaign. He created a contrast between his action and his words that was avoidable. My last impression of Kerry from campaign 2004 was that he was either had a political glass jaw, or that he was all talk, no walk. I don't want to keep hounding this point. You wont (and don't) see me all over this forum complaining about Kerry. It's done. But I am not forgetting that it happened. I'm not going to ignore history.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AuntiBush (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Mar-12-05 12:29 AM Response to Reply #203

394. I Agree! He showed Dignity. And while we "thought" we was "laying low.."

he was working behind the scenes. Sly like a fox. Maybe. But it's been written by many that he is a man that works alone; a loner, per se. We need to stick together. That much I agree. Granted, I rant and rave at times myself, quilty of that here. But, at the end of the day I am so proud of KERRY/EDWARDS, Pelosi, Boxer, Kennedy, Reid and on and on... There are a few Dem's I sadly am angry at, like Liberman but, what can you say. With more Dem's like him, we'll just be spinning wheels and be left in the dirt. All in all, I'm proud of this party. And am taking a vow never to condemn them again. But again, when I see how many voted on the Bankruptcy bill today and the heavy implications involved gutting out still further what's left of our civil liberties down to our essential ways of life, it's a bit troublesome. 2006 is coming. You're right. Stick together and I still firmly believe Kerry should be sitting on that Hill! If he ran again, I'd vote for him hands-down! And Edwards!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wryter2000 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:02 PM Response to Reply #66

108. First off, I'm not one of those advocates

And I don't demand purity by any stretch. However, what do you do with a "Dem" who's betrayed the most basic of our principles time after time after time? Personally, if Difi doesn't resign, I'll do whatever I can to get her replaced by someone better as our candidate. You may say that's okay (in fact, Padraig has), but as a practical matter, that's replacing someone with a proven electability record with someone who may be more vulnerable running against a repug. Isn't that also putting our numbers at risk?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:09 PM Response to Reply #108

115. It's not *mindlessly* putting the seat at risk.

You pays your money and you takes your chances in Democratic primary politics. At least you'd put enough forethought into a primary opponent to realize that there will be a GE, unlike some here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

NoPasaran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:27 PM Response to Reply #108

140. Sometimes risks are worth running

The important thing is that after the primary, regardless of who wins and who is defeated, all of our factions need to kiss and make up and then go get those repuke bastards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:33 PM Response to Reply #140

152. Let me ask you a question, if I may?

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 03:02 PM by Padraig18 Do you honestly see any indication whatsover that the anti-Lieberman posters here (e.g.) would support Joe, if he were the primary winner? Serious question, because it's a serious matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

NoPasaran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:04 PM Response to Reply #152

259. Not by their words, no

Of course, so far as I know none of them live in Connecticut, so whether or not they would support him is moot. Now in my neck of the woods the feeling is that we Texas Democrats do not have the luxury of fighting with one another the way we used to. We hold zero statewide offices, lost five Congressmen to DeLay's redistricting, and are in the minority in both houses of the Legislature. So you can pretty well bet that any Democrat who wins the primary will get support. Now that doesn't mean that everybody with a D after their name is sacred. In 2004, a couple of our DINO legislators who had stabbed us in the back on redistricting and voted with the repubs on other things were challenged and defeated in the primary... one who is still in office was warned that she would be targeted in the 2006 primary if she didn't mend her ways which seems to have had some good results this session.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:13 PM Response to Reply #259

264. That was very intelligent and pragmatic of you guys.

Nowhere do I advocate keeping someone in office SOLELY because they have a 'D' after their name. I've been in primary fights before--- lost a couple, won a couple--- but at no time did I back a candidate who stood no realstic chance of winning in the GE, nor did I fail to back the winner, even when it wasn't my candidate. If forced to choose, however, I will hold my nose and vote for a so-so, dependably-party-line 'D' over a Republican any time. This all I'm trying to say: Don't throw the baby out with the bath. Peace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

lonestarnot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 08:43 PM Response to Reply #259

352. Well that says it all Texas and I want all the fuckers who voted for the

BK Bill OUT. I don't give a shit if my dogs take their places, but they need to fucking go! Don't give a shit about the numbers we're absolutely fucked in America!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 08:54 PM Response to Reply #352

353. I'm sure the RW Repubs would be happy to give you someone.

But they'll be one HELLUVA LOT worse.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

lonestarnot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:01 PM Response to Reply #353

354. NOT! In some cases, you'd never even notice the difference, just like

this shit today! I'm not taking it anymore! They need to go sorry bastards! Anyone that is not for the electorate in any stance needs to go in my estimation! OUT OUT OUT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:04 PM Response to Reply #354

355. Oh, you'd notice the difference.

On their worst day, the ones who voted for the BK bill are 1000 times better than the best RW Repub freeptard around! :wtf:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

lonestarnot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:10 PM Response to Reply #355

356. In my estimation they are the SAME FUCKERS! JUST ALIKE! n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:12 PM Response to Reply #356

357. No, they're not.

They're not even close to the Santorums, Hatches, Frists, Lotts and McConnells of this world, even on their worst days.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

lonestarnot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:14 PM Response to Reply #357

359. Well today was one of their worst days! I don't give a flying fuck who

they are like or unlike... they need to collect their things and get OUT OUT OUT

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:16 PM Response to Reply #359

361. And be replaced by.........?

I assume there are scads of well-funded, viable, progressive Democrats just waiting in the wings to replace them? Right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:09 PM Response to Reply #359

366. So tell us YOUR plan. And which DINO is YOUR Senator?

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 08:19 AM Response to Reply #356

373. You don't really follow Congress much do you?

Just on these "big" bills...and not on the important, nitty-gritty, "boring" bills. If you did, you would see how sadly misinformed you are on the differences between the voting records of these "DINOS" and conservative Republicans. Oh well, I'm using to dealing with knee-jerks that come in on days like this and SHOUT!!! and use lots of exclamation points and all. You never see those types when the "boring" bills are being voted on, and you certainly never see them when the hard work needs to be done. See you next time a "big" bill happens to catch your attention.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

PROGRESSIVE1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:20 PM Response to Reply #37

229. That's true.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

blondeatlast (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:07 PM Response to Reply #1

261. Too obvious; they inhabit gray cubicles at the Heritage Foundation. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 08:57 AM Response to Original message

3. Thank you.

If you're gonna challenge a Dem incumbent, you'd better have Barack Obama and a Swiss bank account. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:01 AM Response to Reply #3

4. You're welcome.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 09:01 AM by Padraig18 I just had to get that off of my chest, because it's been bugging the crap outta me for some time now. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Tierra_y_Libertad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:03 AM Response to Original message

5. If they have a (D) after their names they are above criticism.

We all know that any Democratic politician works only in the interest of the people all of the time and shouldn't be held accountable for their votes that back Bush, the corporations, the military, or any of the various lobbyists. We must protect our crooks, cowards, sell-outs, collaborators, because they aren't as bad as theirs. No thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:04 AM Response to Reply #5

6. Please point out where my posts says that

Nice straw man, though... :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:34 AM Response to Reply #6

15. your post implies that though

So are you a Zell Miller fan?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:38 AM Response to Reply #15

17. No, my post doesn't imply that.

I chose the phrase 'party-line' deliberately.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

cestpaspossible (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:37 PM Response to Reply #17

165. But it would be so much easier to disagree with you

if you would allow words to be put in your mouth...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:22 AM Response to Reply #5

13. Apparently you don't understand Progressive values...

...and have to resort to the kind of deceptive tactics that the Radical RW have turned into an artform. But thanks for keeping this thread kicked. <LOL> NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:31 AM Response to Reply #13

14. I didn't get an invitation to the meeting where we defined 'progressive'

Did you? ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:48 AM Response to Reply #14

23. No, but I got the book.

"Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff. True Progressives do know the definition in their hearts, but sometimes it takes a Lakoff to lay it all out on the table for us in so many words. If you haven't read it yet, do so - it's just $10, it's an easy read, and it will literally change your life. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:00 PM Response to Reply #23

74. I'm going to order a few copies for the store.

It sounds great. Thanks! :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ChiciB1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:50 PM Response to Reply #23

93. Better Yet... Try Some

Howard Zinn. Not very light reading, but WOW!! I just got turned on to him recently and read 2 of his books! Now, he's a REAL Fascist (tongue in cheek)! I LOVE the guy!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

BamaBecky (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:34 PM Response to Reply #5

156. I think we do have some "problems" in DC that are bugging the heck

out of us too! But what I think I hear the original poster saying is putting a true blue Democrat in place of a so so one is soooooo much easier said than done.....and greatly puts the "seat" in jeopardy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 06:46 PM Response to Reply #156

337. Yes, thats part of what I'm saying. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

bowens43 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:06 AM Response to Original message

7. And if that Sen X (Lieberman) votes WITH the

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 09:07 AM by bowens43 republican majority on a regular basis including to invoke cloture and terminate a fillibuster, how exactly does that help the Democrats maintain a filibuster?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:08 AM Response to Reply #7

8. He votes with us on party-line issues.

Our leadership didn't make that vote a prty-line vote; had they done so, I would wager he would have voted differently.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:35 AM Response to Reply #8

16. you mean the leaders have that power?

wow, I ought to take that class again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:40 AM Response to Reply #16

18. What a ridiculous statement!

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:29 PM Response to Reply #18

143. as far as I know

Reps. can vote however they want. A leader may not FORCE a rep to vote a certain way. It's your statement that's ridiculous. It's not out of line to want REAL Democrats in office. What good is a Democrat who's really a Republican, not much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:35 PM Response to Reply #143

160. My statement isn't ridiculous, it's absolutely factual.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 02:36 PM by Padraig18 The leadership sets party-line votes, and that's a fact. The second thing is who gets to decide who is or is not a 'real Democrat'? You? Me? Howard Dean? Bill Clinton? Who????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 08:16 PM Response to Reply #160

350. we all who call ourselves Democrats

just like we all who are in the electorate decide who gets to be president. It may not include those whom we wish, but we have the right to influence what a real Democrat should be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

BamaBecky (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:36 PM Response to Reply #143

162. I agree...we are suppose to be the tolerate folks remember? Why

ridicule someone who wants to learn? Sheesh!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:43 PM Original message

You mean like, "I thought you had all the answers??"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1650893&mesg_id=1651748&page= Real "tolerate." NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:51 AM Response to Reply #8

25. ...and his Republican replacement won't vote with Democrats ever unless

it's to approve funds to repave and upgrade the Groton eixit on the turnpike.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

BronxBoy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 04:17 PM Response to Reply #8

385. Any idea

why they didn't? The issue seemed important and symbolic enough.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

trogdor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:09 AM Response to Original message

9. We should choose our battles.

There are certain things that are non-negotiable and well worth filibustering. As far as I can see, these are: * Social Security reform that involves carving out chunks of it for "private accounts." * Certain judicial appointees that espouse extreme views. and possibly... * Extension of any tax cuts enacted since 2001 that do not affect middle class or poor Americans. Anything else would require careful thought. For one thing, sustaining a filibuster requires some popular support, and I just don't see it with the bankruptcy bill. You're just not going to get any from Delaware, period. It's like trying to convince people in Michigan to ban the manufacture of automobiles. I assume this is one of the main things you're talking about. OTOH, we must not be so willing to "work with" the other party that we forget who we are. Just because we don't think a particular issue is worth mounting a filibuster doesn't mean we support them. I will be curious to see how the actual yeas and nays of the bankruptcty bill break down. I would almost bet a paycheck that both Delaware Democrats will vote aye, no matter how much they have to hold their noses. We just don't have the votes to sustain a filibuster, pure and simple. The Republicans know this, and this is why they refuse to negotiate or compromise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:11 AM Response to Reply #9

11. Exactly.

Choose our battles wisely should be our watchword.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wryter2000 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:05 PM Response to Reply #9

110. What about Separation of Church and State?

Lieberman doesn't think much of that one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Rowdyboy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:11 AM Response to Original message

10. If we can only get rid of Lieberman....

Bayh, Biden, Feinstein, Nelson, Nelson, Conrad, Salazar, Johnson, Clinton and Landrieu we'll have a much purer party of a solid 33 Democrats in the senate! "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" explains it succinctly! Well put.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:15 AM Response to Reply #10

12. To some, it's all about 'purity'

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 09:16 AM by Padraig18 Unfortunately, 'purity', like 'beauty', is very much in the eye of the beholder...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:53 PM Response to Reply #12

99. LOL, no, it's about being able to filibuster. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

blondeatlast (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:18 PM Response to Reply #12

266. And in politics, just about as useful.

But not quite.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

suziedemocrat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:45 AM Response to Reply #10

21. What's wrong with Bayh?

Voted AGAINST appropriations act that was so terrible. Voted AGAINST Confirmation of Condoleeza Rice. One of 13. Voted AGAINST Confirmation of Alberto R. Gonzales. One of 36. Voted FOR Kennedy Amendment of Bankruptcy Bill to provide a maximum amount for a homestead exemption under State law. Voted FOR the Amendment of the Bankruptcy Bill to protect families, and for other purposes. I'm looking at his votes and I like what I see. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm I think REPUBLICAN operatives are trying to smear Bayh because they know he can win Senate re-election, virtually without campaigning, with 62% of the vote in a RED state like Indiana. He is a THREAT to the GOP who would much rather run against Hilary!! Bayh looks like a Republican - Votes like a Democrat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Rowdyboy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:35 AM Response to Reply #21

50. If you listen to some posters on this board, Bayh is Trent Lott with a "D"

after his name. Each of the senators I mentioned has been regularly lambasted here a a DINO, in most cases unreasonably.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

suziedemocrat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:50 AM Response to Reply #50

57. People need FACTS to support the DINO charge. Bayh votes are A+ IMO.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 10:52 AM by suziedemocrat I believed everyone who said he was a DINO - because I live in Indiana and it is a conservative state and he is very popular here. Then I started watching his votes and I got a little angry at all the people who constantly diss him!! Edit - OK - I'm an idiot - I'm just now getting the sarcasm in your first post. I read it much too quickly. Please forgive me!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Rowdyboy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 12:37 PM Response to Reply #57

73. No problem.....and you're certainly no idiot....Its often hard to read.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 12:39 PM by Rowdyboy sarcasm here but, believe me, I don't want to lose a single Democratic senator. I also get a little pissed reading about how awful our moderate Democratic senators are. I'd like to add 8 or 10 to their number. And I like Bayh, I wish he was as solid a liberal as his father was. Sadly, if he was, he wouldn't stand a chance of being elected in Indiana these days.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:29 PM Response to Reply #57

82. Bayh's votes this year make plain the man is planning a presidential run

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 12:15 PM Response to Reply #21

378. Bayh's been a conservative Dem until this year, he's setting up a prez bid

Edited on Fri Mar-11-05 12:16 PM by Hippo_Tron He fully intends to run for President in 2008 and he is setting up his votes between now and then to get Dem base support outside of Indiana. I love him as the Senator from the dark red state of Indiana, but we can do much better for the oval office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

suziedemocrat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 12:25 PM Response to Reply #378

381. He voted for Bkrptcy Bill - so I'm sorry I defended him now!!

He's also has a very boring speech pattern - not dynamic enough to be Pres - maybe VP though. I didn't realize his voting pattern had changed - thanks for the information.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 12:42 PM Response to Reply #381

383. My biggest problem with him is that he's a complete lightweight

He's got family wealth and his father's legacy. I don't think that the guy has had an original idea in his entire political career. Once again, he's pretty good considering the right wing nutballs that Indiana could potentially choose as their senators. But he's definately not presidential material.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:54 AM Response to Reply #10

28. Yep. We'll have 33 purley irrelevant Democratic senators.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

fujiyama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:40 AM Response to Original message

19. I haven't seen

anyone actually saying they want these Dems to lose. All we are saying is they MUST be held accountable. This politics as usual crap is no longer working. I thought the exact same way you did for a while. I didn't like seeing any criticism of Dems, but this bankruptcy thing put me over the edge. Now, Biden really isn't the worst case in this situation. I mean, his vote is wrong, but there is some logic to it. Unlike those who have no credit card industry in their state. Landtriu for example comes from one of the poorest states in this nation. This is a state where people have been hurting economically. Meanwhile companies like Enron and Worldcom can say "fuck you" to its workers, fire them. They can declare bankruptcy, hide their assets in trusts. The worker meanwhile loses the medical benefits...bills then pile up. Voila! He's in debt most of his life. I understand a filibuster wasn't there, but this was so rotten that there isn't an excuse for going along with it. How does this reconnect the party with the red staters? This could have been defined in so many ways. Dems lost a huge opportunity with this one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:44 AM Response to Reply #19

20. You haven't seen posts like this?

They're quite common. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3245533&mesg_id=3245533

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

fujiyama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:51 AM Response to Reply #20

26. I don't see anything wrong with that

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 09:56 AM by fujiyama necessarily though in this case, I found actual factual errors in that website's assessment of Joe - Lieberman voted NO on the tax cuts for the wealthy. Challenging Dems in primaries is a healthy way to express dissatisfaction. Now, if this person were actually advocating kicking the Dem out, then they aren't too bright.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:54 AM Response to Reply #26

29. See post #3...

...cuz if you ain't got that, all you do is weaken the incumbent so the Republicon can sweep in and claim the seat. Hey, I'm all for kicking the ass of the DINOs - vigorously - but if we don't do it strategically, we're just kicking our own selves in the ass. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Arkana (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:35 PM Response to Reply #20

158. Well, personally I wouldn't mind getting rid of Holy Joe

but I agree with you for the most part. Purists here are just as bad, if not worse, than the purists over at FR.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:48 AM Response to Original message

22. Right. If you can't beat them with logic, join them and spread illogic.

That's what I think is going on when I read posts that are more enthusiastic about taking down Democrats than they are about taking down Repbulicans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:52 PM Response to Reply #22

97. How is it logical to support someone who votes with

the Republicans all the time and supports their policies? Where's the logic there?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:02 PM Response to Reply #97

107. Where's the logic in using the line "votes with the Republicans ALL..

the time" when they don't? Please, study some voting records.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:09 PM Response to Reply #107

114. Sorry, I should have said "just on the really important stuff."

I'm sure Lieberman voted for the quarter-million dollars for safer schools in Toledo or whatever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:17 PM Response to Reply #114

122. Important to *whom*? Who gets to decide that?

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 02:18 PM by Padraig18 You? me? The leadership? Bush*? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:25 PM Original message

I dunno, you think this Iraq thing is important?

You think SS is important? I'm just throwing out stuff. Don't quote me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

iconoclastNYC (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:34 PM Response to Reply #122

239. Who gets to decide?

The primary voters! No uncontested primaries EVER.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:23 PM Response to Reply #114

132. If issues like labor, abortion-rights....

...and Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs)interests are not important to you, then I guess that's ok. It does make me wonder why you are a Democrat though? These issues (that a conservative Republican would be sure to vote against 100% of the time) are important to most Democrats. I guess you're unique.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:26 PM Response to Reply #132

135. Alright, so, I guess you're throwing out Bayh and Reid

and others. Well, good for you, I guess.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:34 PM Response to Reply #135

157. No, YOU were talking about Lieberman, remember?...

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 02:35 PM by tx_dem41 I picked three issues I feel that he scores quite well. By the way, let me add gay-rights. HRC gave him an 88% score in the 2004 session. Would you rather have a 0% Republican. I can pull up Bayh and Reid scorecards if you like? They wouldn't be 0% on any of those issues (like you Republican replacement would) and on other liberal issues they would score quite highly. You want to live in an ideologically pure world. Guess what, it doesn't exist and never has. With such thinking FDR's New Deal would have never happened because you would have wanted to throw out all the Southern Democrats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:38 PM Response to Reply #157

168. It's not about purity. It's about LEADERSHIP.

And it's the last time I'm saying that in this thread.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:52 PM Response to Reply #168

196. Oh....well you hadn't said that to me....

all you've been doing is pushing the purity angle. The absolute purity angle I might add.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:30 PM Response to Reply #97

146. How many mistaken facts have supporters of your strategy revealed in

this thread?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:43 PM Response to Reply #146

178. How many Republican votes have you ignored from

these DLC clowns in the past five or ten years?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:52 PM Response to Reply #178

197. Like the "pro-life" votes Dennis Kucinich cast?

The ones where he voted to deny public funding for abortions? Is he a sell out, too?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

blondeatlast (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:27 PM Response to Reply #197

273. Many times I've mentioned that fact, many times I've waited for answers

that never came, and I was a Kucinich supporter who was very uncomfortable about that fact. Funny, I hear crickets; is it just me?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:00 PM Response to Reply #197

296. If taking Kucinich down were likely to result in a Republican getting...

...elected, I wonder if we'd hear more criticism of him from the, um, "progressives" here at DU. I suspect that nobody applies the purity test to the Kooch because his district is solidly Democratic -- which is ironic, because where else would you find a "pure" democrat? Instead, the crticis are so sure they're going to find the super-pure liberal Democrats in places like SD.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Cuban_Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 07:37 PM Response to Reply #296

347. "super-pure liberal Democrats in places like SD"

Nt only are they sure they're going to FIND them, they probably even think they'll get them elected. Purple monkeys will fly outa my butt first, IMO... :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:54 PM Response to Reply #178

291. Find me a Republican senator who votes Democratic more than Joe...

...and I'll follow the strategy to undermine Joe without having a Democrat who can win ready to go.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:50 AM Response to Original message

24. Functionally, the Republicans already have one

There will always be 4 Senator X's... and so long as the DINO's keep making the rounds of the talk shows- which they do constantly, the Dems have no hope whatsoever of becoming a majority party again. The DINO's do MUCH more damage to the overall political dynamic than your analysis touches on. By repeatedly pandering to the Republicans, Dems look weak, unprincipled and, quite frankly, cowardly and pathetic. People see that- and it's a MUCH more important psychological factor to the sheeple types that people realize.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:51 AM Response to Reply #24

27. Which Senators have defected on party-line votes?

I'd like a list, please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:57 AM Response to Reply #27

30. Party line votes? LOL!

Name a party line vote recently.... Therein lies the more serious problem. And before you say "Judicial nominees" -consider the fact that they're sitting on the Bench as we speak under recess appointments.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:59 AM Response to Reply #30

31. That's not an answer to my very straight-forward question.

What party-line votes have Democratic setors 'defected' on?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:08 AM Response to Reply #31

33. That's because your question is a foolish one

there HAVEN'T BEEN and AREN'T ANY recent "party line votes" to speak of. That's the problem! The Dems just roll over time and again. Do you think for one second that, if the rolls were reversed, that the republicans would let their memebers get away with that shit? Hell, no- and that's one of the major reasons why they're the majority party and the Dems are essentialy powerless....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:11 AM Response to Reply #33

35. Okay, so what's your solution?

What are you - personally - doing to fix this? Have you joined your county party? Are you planning to run for an office yourself? Have you identified viable primary challengers in your state and gone over your recommendations with the Progressive electoral groups in your area? Are you truly serious about doing something, or are you just another armchair quarterback? NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:17 AM Response to Reply #35

40. It'd be nice if Dems punished their errant members

like Republicans do- by (among other things) funding serious candidates in the primaries who will toe the idological line. Absent that, I think the Greens need to run serious candidates against them. If that means a Republican to replace, say- Lieberman, so be it. In the long run, getting his pathetic ass out of the limelight will only help other Dems in other places... and show those dINO inclined that there are real consequences for acting without loyalty and integrity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:19 AM Response to Reply #40

43. 'errant' according to WHOM?

This may come as a real shock to some of you, but not all of us are as far to the left end of the party spectrum as you seem to be; in fact, I doubt if anything even approaching 50% of us are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:21 AM Response to Reply #40

44. It'd be nice if I was rich and famous, too.

But I got news for you, Bucky - IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN UNLESS WE MAKE IT HAPPEN. So, I ask again, what EXACTLY are you doing to make your voice heard in the halls of power? Or are you just all talk? NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:28 AM Response to Reply #40

47. Punished them how? By giving their seats to Republicans?

Who's punishing whom when you do that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:34 PM Response to Reply #47

84. Bankruptcy bill is egregious giveaway to banks, credit card companies. If

Democrats cannot stand up for economic justice, they are not worthy of calling themselves Democrats. We let them know how utterly displeased we are that they did not stand up for working people against banks and credit card companies, and perhaps suggest that opposition from a real Democrat in their next primary might give them pause before they case a vote against the best interests of their constituents.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:32 PM Response to Reply #84

151. I totally agree with THAT, but I don't think it's smart to trade Joe L.

for a Republican senator in CT like we did in SD.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:23 PM Response to Reply #151

269. If Liebeman were my senator, I would have written him, too, to let him

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 04:24 PM by flpoljunkie know that his cloture vote helped paved the way for the passage of this egregious giveaway to the banks and credit card companies, and that if Democrats do not stand for economic justice, what the hell do they stand for? However, If there were a progressive Democrat who stood a chance to beat him in the primary, I would support them. Same goes for Bill Nelson, my senator.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

blondeatlast (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:30 PM Response to Reply #151

276. And Joe has pledged on Blitzer to vote no on any SocSec reform from the Rs

I don't like Joe one little bit, but purity gets us nowhere with the neo/theocons in power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:15 AM Response to Reply #33

38. And I see no one advocating a concrete SOLUTION

All I see are the same banal 'let's get rid of Sen. X' posts. Some here won't be happy until the party is 'purified' to their standards; the major problem a lot of is have with that is that their standard of purity isn't neccessarily our standard.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

fujiyama (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:11 AM Response to Reply #31

34. What do you define

as party line votes? Committee votes? Actual legislation? On what? This the problem. Even The New Republic, no lefty magazine there has noted that this is a problem. Neither the Senate nor the House leaders can keep the members in line (that's if the leaders themselves aren't on board with the pukes). The worst offenders are probably Max Baucus, the two Nelsons (FL and NE)...and to a lesser extent Bayh, Landriu, Lieberman, and a few others.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:16 AM Response to Reply #34

39. The leadership sets party-line votes.

*I* don't define them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

suziedemocrat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:58 AM Response to Reply #34

60. Specify why you don't like Bayh. See post #21 for his recent votes. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:59 AM Response to Reply #24

32. Psychologically, it'll be worse when Dems lose seat #40 and Republicans..

...start slamming the New Domestic Order down everyone's throats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:12 AM Response to Reply #32

36. errr hate to break it to you

but they already have been and are.... How much worse do you think it can be? Think social security is safe from the DINOs? I don't- Bush and the far right have pretty much gotten everything that they've asked for.... with the help of Dems (including often enough in the past- John Edwards). Social security won't come up for a vote until fall- and a lot can happen between now and then. Better hope some of it's bad news for the far right....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:17 AM Response to Reply #36

41. What utter nonsense.

Please cite the specific votes and legislation to which you refer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:31 AM Response to Reply #41

49. OK

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 10:32 AM by depakid The son of a poor Millworker voted for the bankruptcy legislation the last time it came up... even while the citizens in his state were suffering from the recession and towns were drying up over... Mill closings! So, it was a little hard to take the whole "two America's" bit seriously.... Let's see, he didn't vote against Porter Goss (that nomination turned out swell for the CIA), At one point, I recall that he had only a 37% score on the League of Conservation voter's scorecard... lower than some Republicans.. And of course, there's IWR... I could certainly find more given time...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:52 AM Response to Reply #49

58. The Senate Dems put a poison pill in that bill that they knew would keep

it from getting passed in the house. I presume that Edwards voted for that bill in committee to make sure that that version got out to the floor and then, to be consistent, voted Y againt to get it accross the hall into the house where it could be defeated. Edwards probably did get a low vote from the league of conservation voters because in America since 1974, single interest liberal groups have been played off one another, and the environmentalists are in direct opposition to labor, and Edwards has built his career around making sure that wealth flows down to people who work for a living. If there's any single interest that he's not going to look good against, it will be environmentalism -- but that's only if you reduce the measure to the most black and white view. Because, one of the reasons Edwards has given for voting against free-trade bills is that he won't vote for a trade bill with country that doesn't protect workers' rights and the environment (because he's not going to force Americans to compete with other countries which set the bar too low on those two issues). The LoCV should give Edwards a ton of credit for that, but they don't. They pick five bills that have to do with the environment, and if Edwards voted to fund the expansion of a runway in NC so that Fed Ex would give more jobs to NC'ians, the LoCV says he's bad. Maybe he'd do better with them if he were less loyal to the interests of labor, like so many other Dems? Do you see how the world is a little more complicated than your extreme reduction to "Lieberman:Bad/Nobody Good Enough" view of politics?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 11:39 AM Response to Reply #49

68. "...Let's see, he didn't vote against Porter Goss...."

That's probably because he was no longer in the Senate when the confirmation was voted on. Is that an example of your understanding of the Senate and the political process in general, or is it just a fluke? :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

GreenArrow (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:38 PM Response to Reply #68

246. actually, Edwards was in the Senate when that vote took place --

September, 2004 -- but niether he nor Kerry cast a vote. He was also in the Senate Intelligence committee that earlier vetted Goss. He apparently did not cast a vote on that either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 07:24 PM Response to Reply #68

342. Errrr...excuse me?

it's usually a good idea to check your facts before you question someone's understanding of process or politics.... Edwards certainlywas still in the Senate at the time of that vote- and the Dems decision not to oppose Goss was yet another instance of where their rolling over to republicans has led to profoundly bad results from any rational perspective.... If you want to see an example of someone making good arguments on this thread- take a look at AP. I might not agree with all of them, but if I were to challenge him effectively, I'd need to take it to another level....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:18 AM Response to Reply #36

42. Rather than expending efforts to defeat our own...

...how about a Newt Gingrinch-style "throw the bums out" campaign to defeat the big-government corporatist Republicons, and replace them with Progressives?? Then, once we outnumber the DINOs, it'll be an easy matter to bring them in line with a more Progressive Dem Party. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:27 AM Response to Reply #42

46. Seriously. If Lieberman's just as bad as a Republican, why not find that R

he's just as bad as and work as hard to get that guy out?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:30 AM Response to Reply #46

48. Exactly. All things being equal, it's smarter to defeat the R than the D.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 10:32 AM by ClassWarrior And when you consider the fact that, in this last cycle, Delay - who is much, MUCH worse than Joementum - was vulnerable, there's NO question where we need to focus our efforts. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:35 AM Response to Reply #48

52. It's funny that some Demcorats felt that it was important to make sure...

that Arlen Specter didn't lose to a far right nut job in PA, yet they'd go after Lieberman in CT even though they'd certainly vote for him over Specter if they ran against each other.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:26 AM Response to Reply #36

45. I'll repeat: when the filibuster is gone, you'll be depressed.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 10:31 AM by AP The Republicans haven't even bothered trying things they know can't get past a filibuster (why send up red flags?). But when it's gone, the world changes. (By the way, Edwards voted against Bush more than any other congressperson who ran for president, including Kucinich, and he voted against the other senator from his state more than anyone besides Hollings & Thurmond -- there weren't many senators who did less to help Bush than Edwards. And I think that it's interesting that you don't know this and you also have such firmly held bad ideas about politics. I don't think that's a coincidence. I think you need to do some hard thinking.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:35 AM Response to Reply #45

51. It's already basically gone and I'm already damned depressed

I've thought about it a lot- and while I like what Edwards morphed into, I didn't see it as very sincere- particularly with respect to the bankruptcy bill. Kerry at least had the balls to vote against that....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:38 AM Response to Reply #51

53. Losing the filibuster is like being pregnant. It isn't bascially gone.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 10:40 AM by AP When it's gone, you'll know about it. At the very least, Republicans have to draft bills that appeal to some dems. When they don't have to do that, they'll be imposing "purity" on Republicans the way you want to see purity imposed on Democrats and that'll be the end of it. Re Edwards: The Senate Democrats crafted a bill they knew that the House wouldn't pass. I'm not going to blame Edwards for voting for a bill with a poison pill. I don't doubt that he would have voted against the bankruptcy bill that's about to become law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:43 AM Response to Reply #53

54. It's not like being pregant at all!

It's like having sex- some married couples do it- and some couples don't. Sure, it's available. It's lying there right next to you- you just don't want it.... And Dems have proven time and again that they don't want it- even for the most egregious legislation and profoundly stupid policies.... You may or may not be right about his motivations about the bankruptcy bill- I'd like to believe you are, but we'll never know that for sure- and either way- it sent a really shitty message....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:45 AM Response to Reply #54

56. Why settle for uncertainty??

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 10:48 AM by ClassWarrior "We'll never know that for sure - but either way it sent a really shitty message??!" Why not get involved in the party and not only KNOW for sure, but have an INFLUENCE on the motivations of our officials?? NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Pepperbelly (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:19 PM Response to Reply #36

312. there is a gop in Edwards' seat now. Do you like that better? nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:58 AM Response to Original message

59. As we talk about this here, it's going on again here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1651039 Notice the pattern: A post not supported by links or even concrete allegations of fact, relying on what someone thought they heard on CNN (yes, let's let CNN tell us how to think about Democrats), and then another cry for the full list of DEMOCRATS we need to work against in '96 (can you believe you're reading a web site called "Democratic" Underground at this point -- should we rename it "Democratic Undermine"?) and then the one lone voice of sanity -- flpoljunkie -- providing the facts. But will people listen?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Toots (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 11:00 AM Response to Original message

61. So you feel we should be happy with Zell Miller or his type

I say you are the one wanting to defeat the party. We can only tolerate traitors for so long and then we need to speak out. I am not a Republican or a democrat. I am a proud Liberal and will do all in my power to get more people with my mindset into power. School board, dogcatcher, mayor, etc.. Enough of this just because someone has a D after their name they should be glorified.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 11:04 AM Response to Reply #61

62. The point is that you should be happier that you have Lieberman than the R

who will replace him if Democrats participate in their own humiliation by working hard to get that Republican in office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 11:08 AM Response to Reply #61

63. And another point is, rather than work AGAINST Democrats, why not work

FOR the Democrat you find who is better than the one you don't like? By all means, find that Democrat in CT who isn't a whore for big business, and the insurance and accounting industries who has a real chance to win (good luck!). Tell us all about why that candidate is so much better than Joe. If you can't find that candidate, then I'm not so sure I'd be tearing down the Democrats we have in order to put a Republican in office who will CERTAINLY be a bigger whore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 11:26 AM Response to Reply #61

64. And a third point:Tom Daschle was not replaced by a liberal Dem.

Tom Daschle is where all this is headed. Lieberman is not going to lose a primary race (especially if all anti-Joe DU'ers do is tear down Joe rather than try to build up an opponent). But he could lose a GE to a worse Republican, just as Daschle did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 11:30 AM Response to Reply #64

67. Exactly!

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 11:30 AM by Padraig18 This type of 'ideological purification' is as mindless as it is apalling!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 11:28 AM Response to Reply #61

65. Nowhere does my post say anything even remotely close to that.

Zell Miller did NOT vote with us on party-line votes, for one, and if one actually bothers to read my post in its entirety one would see that I am plainly addressing the 'take down' mindset, i.e., one in which no viable and well-funded primary oposition candidate is put forth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 12:19 PM Response to Reply #61

379. Zell Miller is different, he endorsed Bush for re-election

He is very obviously a Repuke. Show me another Senator that intends to endorse the GOP candidate in 2008 and not the Dem and I will say that we should show him/her the door.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

mdguss (631 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 12:22 PM Response to Original message

72. Agreed the far left people are the real DINOs

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 12:22 PM by mdguss nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

madfloridian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:34 PM Response to Reply #72

85. Nice way to win friends and influence non-DLCers. Wow.

:silly:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Pepperbelly (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:21 PM Response to Reply #85

315. LOL ... you would not support DLC anyway ...

:D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ooglymoogly (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:02 PM Response to Original message

75. there are degrees

should we then support the zell millers of our party? i think not

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:03 PM Response to Reply #75

77. Nor does my post suggest we should.

Zell didn't vote with us on party-line issues, and my opening post makes that distinction crystal clear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ooglymoogly (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:35 PM Response to Reply #77

86. thats true....

i might be wrong but i sense this is about the infamous 13 who voted with the pugs on cloture. to many of us this bill is an attack on the very foundations of a free society, placing the entire burden of irresponsibility on the citizens of the country no matter who is to blame and i think the senators who simply avoided this issue need to hear the outrage. i don't know of anyone on du trying to bring down tom daschle even though there were the occasional differences. i think most understood he was invaluable to the dems.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

necso (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:03 PM Response to Original message

76. Nice try.

Reality, however, has very little appeal to many -- on both sides. And it is much more self-gratifying to be take a holier-than-thou approach and to scorn anyone that doesn't measure up to one's oh-so-high standards, than it is to deal with practicalities -- particularly when one is not measured in any real way against those standards -- or in terms of (heaven forfend) net effects. Trollery is not the act solely of the witting. The unwitting, the witless, the highly-inflated egos ("I know all") and the immature (etc, etc) have their own little parts to play -- and in which they take great delight. And I dislike the use of the word "Dem" in your subject line. Check out the posts of members who make these sort of attacks -- any number can't help revealing their true affiliations -- it's an ego thing, you know. The words of the immortal Cicero come to mind: "When, O Catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now?" (The rest of the speech is worth a read too: here.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:06 PM Response to Reply #76

78. "...And I dislike the use of the word "Dem" in your subject line...."

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 01:11 PM by Padraig18 Complain to the management about the number of characters one can use in a subject line, then. Furthermore, MY true affiliation is yellow-dog Democrat. As you say, 'nice try'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

necso (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:25 PM Response to Reply #78

80. I think perhaps that you misunderstand me.

My point is that many of those that scream for Democrat heads are not Democrats, as evidenced by their own posts. -- And I am not inferring that you are anything but a solid Democrat. The "nice try" is a reference to your attempting to talk sense and practical politics to those who simply will not listen -- for whatever reasons. Peace, I am no enemy of yours. -- An unwanted ally perhaps, but no enemy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:27 PM Response to Reply #80

81. Sorry for misunderstanding your post!

My apologies, and peace to you, too. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

necso (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:36 PM Response to Reply #81

87. No apologies are necessary.

I have taken no offense. I should have chosen my words with greater care. And I must say that I appreciate your good fight... If only all the others would. Best.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

European Socialist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:07 PM Response to Original message

79. wayward dems

The true test depends on the bill being voted on-does it hurt or help the average person-sometimes it is hard to say. But, a good dem will let the wealthy fend for themselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

madfloridian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:31 PM Response to Original message

83. So there are no consequences when they vote for what harms us?

Like the ones who supported the cloture on the bankruptcy bill, and the ones who have written a letter to Hastert saying they are eager to vote for it. I understand what you are saying, but I also understand that sometimes we lose when we win....see my sig line. I have a feeling I am one of the ones you are referring to in the OP. I would hope not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:38 PM Response to Reply #83

88. I deliberately used the term 'party-line' in my opening post.

Our only hope of defeating any part of the RW's corrupt agenda lies in the strength we can call up, if necceessary, via party-line votes. We cannot use this on every vote, nor should we. The Democrats I am defending are those whose defeat is called for a.) without supporting viable, well-funded primary opponents and who b.) consistently vote with our party when the leadership chooses to make an issue a party-line one. We have several who may be far more moderate, or even moderately-conservative, than some of us would like but who, when our leadership 'lays it on the line', vote with US, and not the Repubs. That's the 'essence' of who I'm defending in my opening post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

madfloridian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:50 PM Response to Reply #88

94. Well, that vote does put it on the line.

And if the DLC is as big a part of the party as they claim to be, and they are advocating for this bill in a letter to Hastert...then I guess this is a party line vote. Maybe I am not sure if I am being criticized or not. :shrug: I do know that in addition to our newly renewed membership in the DNC, we remain an active part of DFA...in fact our DFA Meet-up grew this month. Many are serious about holding our leaders accountable. So I really am not sure what you mean or who is right. The line has been blurred so much that when someone speaks the truth, the party accuses them of heresy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:39 PM Response to Original message

89. COMPLETE, TOTAL, UTTER, BULLSHIT.

If they vote for the republicans all the time, what's the frickin' difference? Don't give me that "dependable-party-line" voter bullcrap, if they voted along party lines "dependably" we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.... If you are a Democratic Senator you vote with the Democratic party EVERY SINGLE TIME ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. PERIOD.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:41 PM Response to Reply #89

90. "If they vote for the republicans all the time..."

The only thing is, they don't; what's more, they don't even MOST of the time. Who, exactly, gets to decide what constitutes 'voting with your party'? You? Me? Joe Lieberman? Barbara Boxer? Who?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:13 PM Response to Reply #90

117. Don't you just love it when people use sweeping generalizations??

That's a tactic that the Radical RWers commonly use. I thought we were above that kind of simplistic b.s. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

cestpaspossible (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:15 PM Response to Reply #90

120. what you are failing to understand is that facts are irrelevant

to those who don't get your point. They are arguing from a purely emotional perspective, you won't be able to change their minds by referencing the facts of reality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:22 PM Response to Reply #120

130. You're right, of course.

Mindless emotionalism is not the exclusive province of the RW freeptards, sadly. *sigh*

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

cestpaspossible (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:26 PM Response to Reply #130

136. But,

I shouldn't be discouraging you. The facts DO need to be repeated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:03 PM Response to Reply #90

213. Who decides what constitutes 'voting with your party'...???

You're joking right? What a stupid bloody question.....:eyes: If it isn't in line with the Democratic Party Platform then you aren't voting with your party.....I'm sorry, was it really THAT confusing? Please answer this very basic question. What is the difference between a Democrat that voted for the Iraq war, or for the bankruptcy bill and a republican that did the same thing? Does the fact that they are from opposite parties make a tiny bit of difference in the final vote tally, or what they voted FOR, or for that matter in the outcome? A Democrat that votes with the republicans in ANYTHING is in my mind no different than a married man that only screws on his wife OCCASIONALLY.... They were voted in there to vote for Democratic ideals, to represent Democratic voters and to defeat the republican onslaught. Who gives a shit if they vote 'along party lines' for the small stuff if they cave for the big stuff? It is NOT acceptable for a Democrat to vote against the Democratic Party's ideals...EVER.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

martymar64 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:03 PM Response to Reply #89

365. Hear Hear!!!

We as a party must tighten up our discipline. AS you said it means voting with the D side EVERYTIME, against the R side EVERYTIME! The primary challenge is a great way to show any turncoat DINO's that they better straighten up and fly right if they want to keep their phoney baloney jobs. The Repugs see this as a war and so must we. NO QUARTER. . . EVER! The Repugs are already running roughshod over the Democratic process in Congress (see Slaughter's report). We as a party need to quit enabling them. The pick your battles line is bullshit. Every vote is a battle, are you going to fight or let the enemy in? The repugs are not our friends, if they had their way, we'd all be in concentration camps. Treat them and all collaborators as the enemies that they are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

bling bling (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:42 PM Response to Original message

91. Thank you.

Thank you for sticking your neck out on this matter but I'm glad to see someone else who feels this way. We can and should encourage them (Dem leaders) to do better and improve or change -- as always -- but to single out one or two specifically and start calling them traitors and calling for their defeat is so counterproductive and dangerous at this point in time that it's maddening.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:53 PM Response to Reply #91

100. I'm all for encouraging them to do better!

I'm even in favor of threatening them with a viable, well-funded primary opponent, if they 'stray' too far afield, but I will not and cannot support the mindless destruction of what little actual power we wield in opposition to the RW Republican thugs in the Senate. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

bling bling (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:05 PM Response to Reply #100

111. Here here.

Again, totally agree. And in the event that some people do call for the ouster of an incumbant Dem, we should all demand that they provide us with the FACTS, presented fairly, regarding that person. For example, when discussing their voting record, it is unfair to only select and broadcast the portions of their record that you don't agree with, without also linking to or providing information that shows the REST of their record. In fact, that type of tactic for persuading people is manipulative and dirty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ChiciB1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:45 PM Response to Original message

92. What You Are Leaving Out Is

that there JUST MIGHT be BETTER Democrats to take their places. We need to find and support Democratic Leaders who think more along the lines of it's Base! Not until we get some Dems in there willing to fight the Good fight will we be able to be more effective. Simply re-electing someone because he's a Democrat who is currently serving doesn't mean THEY are doing the Good work! I say, let's let them know how WE feel, because if Dems won't vote them, who will??? Ya hear me Bill Nelson?????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:51 PM Response to Reply #92

95. I didn't leave that out at all.

Please re-read my opening post, if you think I did. One thing I specifically criticize is the mindless 'take 'em out' scenario that fails to support and fund viable opposition to said senators.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:51 PM Response to Original message

96. Yes- this filibuster power that you speak of- it becomes more and more

impossible to invoke as members of our OWN PARTY keep voting for cloture!! So, yes, I say that replacing those who work with the Republicans to destroy our power is a good idea.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:56 PM Response to Reply #96

102. 'replacing'

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 01:56 PM by Padraig18 That's a key concept many here can't seem to grasp. If we can replace someone we don't particularly like with a more progressive Democrat, great, but please remember this--- Tom Daschle was 'replaced' by Thune. See the difference, BGL? :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:58 PM Response to Reply #102

103. Tom Daschle also campaigned with a picture of himself

hugging Bush. And we didn't run someone against him in the primaries. Maybe if he wasn't such a wussy-ass, he would have won.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:01 PM Response to Reply #103

106. But you do understand the distinction I'm making?

Correct? :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:26 PM Response to Reply #103

137. Oh, now there's a reason to tank ourselves even more - a PICTURE!!

Get the pitchforks, Ma!!! NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:48 PM Response to Reply #137

190. Oh, I know!! All he did was support the Iraq war.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 02:52 PM by BullGooseLoony All he did was support a policy that killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis, 1,500 Americans, wasted well over $300,000,000,000 (SO FAR), tied up hundreds of thousands of our troops, soiled our good name with our allies, strengthened our enemies, enriched corrupt corporations and left us open to more terrorist attacks. No biggee. Edited because I FORGOT SOME ZEROES.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:30 PM Response to Reply #190

235. I'm so glad you were successful in replacing him with a Progressive.

I agree. Daschle was for shit. So now we're in deeper shit. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:59 PM Response to Reply #96

104. Amen! Democrats who fail to stand up for economic justice are DINOS.

And deserving of our contempt. Let them hear from us Democrats, who believe that standing up for the little guy against the ever greedy banks and credit card companies, ought to be what Democrats stand for, if nothing else! Hold their feet to the fire!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:03 PM Response to Reply #96

109. Replace them with what?

The answer in the real world would be Republicans who are much more conservative than the Democrats you want to throw out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:06 PM Response to Reply #109

112. No, the real world, today's political world, says that you have to

show leadership. Republican-lite loses. That's why you run a strong Democrat in the primaries. You don't think a strong Democrat could win in Connecticut? What are you afraid of?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:13 PM Response to Reply #112

116. If you want Sen. Bobby Jindal R-LA instead of

Sen. Mary Landrieu D-LA go right ahead. I'll stick with Mary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:15 PM Response to Reply #116

119. You're underestimating the value of leadership.

This is why Dems lose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:26 PM Response to Reply #119

138. You know nothing about the state of Louisiana...

that's why I'll discount your advice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:28 PM Response to Reply #138

142. What, you're saying they're too stupid to be against the war

if given the leadership to get behind? Too racist to vote for their own economic interests if someone makes the argument for them and gives them a choice?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:38 PM Response to Reply #142

167. Don't project your stereotypes about Louisianans on me, thank you...

...No, quite the contrary. They are smart and complex enough not to be knee-jerk single issue voters. They also are not the hard-core liberals that you wish them to be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:41 PM Response to Reply #167

174. You're the one saying it, not me.

I'm not a hardcore liberal, either. I'm a moderate who knows fascism when he sees it and is sick of the cowards in our party who are unwilling to stand up against it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:53 PM Response to Reply #174

200. No, I'm not saying it. Um, you said it, remember (a post or two ago?)

If you had read MY post, I said the opposite. Please, let's stop with the intellectual dishonesty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:58 PM Response to Reply #200

206. I have faith in them. You don't. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:02 PM Response to Reply #206

212. I am one of them. You aren't.

I have more respect for them. You have shown that you don't. I know nothing of Illinois Democrats and admit to it. Why do you presume to know anything about Louisianans?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:07 PM Response to Reply #212

214. I haven't said anything disrespectful about them. I'm saying

that they're good people who will vote for a good, solid Democrat who shows leadership. You're the one saying that they're lacking something or other.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:08 PM Response to Reply #214

215. Where did I say they were "lacking something or other"?

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 03:10 PM by tx_dem41 There you go again. Do you have a tendency to falsely put words in peoples' mouths? Oh, and as an exercise...what is a "good, solid Democrat" to a Louisianan. Tie your answer into the top 3 or 4 state industries, the state taxing structure, and the current state of the economy? Also, tie it into the demographics (religion in general) of the state. Thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:17 PM Response to Reply #112

123. Why not run a strong Democrat in New Hampshire?? Maine?? Pennsylvania??

What's this about, doing the right thing or gut-level revenge? NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:21 PM Response to Reply #123

128. This is for much more practical reasons than revenge.

And if someone in NH is as bad as Lieberman, I say hell yeah, replace him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:25 PM Response to Reply #128

134. I'm guessing you haven't done a stick of research on this.

The "moderates" in NH are WORSE than Lieberman - and trust me, I'm no defender of Joementum. But we need to have priorities. And mine isn't forming a lynch mob on one of our own just because he's an easy target. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:29 PM Response to Reply #134

144. Research? We've had 10 years of losses in both houses

of Congress under the DLC. What else do you NEED???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:30 PM Response to Reply #144

145. Accurate facts.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:31 PM Response to Reply #145

149. I just gave you one.

Here's another- 8 years of the Bush Administration.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:33 PM Response to Reply #149

155. How about knowing someone's record before you trash him or her??

"And if someone in NH is as bad as Lieberman, I say hell yeah, replace him." Not very Progressive of you BGL... NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:36 PM Response to Reply #155

163. Hey, did you know that Lieberman voted for the IWR?

Did you also maybe hear that he's totally undercutting us on this SS thing? Say, have you given any thought to THAT part of his record? You know, this REALLY HUGE recent stuff that we're are fighting TOOTH AND NAIL against, while he's goes around getting kisses from Bush? Or do you just have some kind of mental white-out going on? This is OK with you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:39 PM Response to Reply #163

171. Anyone can cherry-pick. Again, those are Radical RW tactics.

I thought we were above that kind of shit. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:41 PM Response to Reply #171

175. Those are the two biggest issues we've come upon in the

last five years. That's not "cherry-picking."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:43 PM Response to Reply #175

179. So how do you feel about people who only vote on the abortion issue?

You're saying you're a two-issue voter? NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:45 PM Response to Reply #179

182. There's plenty more where that came from.

And, yes, if I had a choice between a strong Democrat and a coward like Lieberman, you can be damned sure that I'd vote for the strong Democrat, if that's what you're asking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:47 PM Response to Reply #182

188. I would too. But you DON'T have a strong Democrat - and that's the point!!

So you do live in Connecticut? NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:47 PM Response to Reply #175

186. So where's the evidence on Lieberman's SS vote?

???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:54 PM Response to Reply #186

201. *crickets* n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:56 PM Response to Reply #201

204. Seems all we're missing is facts and plans!!

<LOL> NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:58 PM Response to Reply #204

205. Details, schmetails!

Why let those get in the way of an ideological suicide mission, right? ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:14 PM Response to Reply #204

220. Hahahahahahaahahahaha!

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 03:14 PM by BullGooseLoony Hilarious!! Why not just read the thread? Alternatively, FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME: 1) Find someone with leadership skill that isn't afraid to stand up for Democratic Party principles. 2) Raise 10 million dollars for him. People like me, and there are many of us, would gladly give. 3) Give him some public appearances with Howard Dean and John Edwards and Barak Obama-types. 4) Defeat Lieberman in the primary. He's a coward. Shouldn't be too hard using huge issues like SS and the Iraq War. 5) DESTROY the Republican in the G.E. by ATTACKING, ATTACKING, ATTACKING. There's your five-step plan. I call it "Bringing back integrity to the Connecticut Democratic Party."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:18 PM Response to Reply #220

224. HEY EVERYBODY!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Now get off your computer, get out there, AND DO IT!!! NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:19 PM Response to Reply #224

227. Well, are you gonna help, or are you gonna be a perpetual

Lieberman apologist?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:22 PM Response to Reply #227

231. No, I'm going to defeat "Puffy Jim" Sensenbrenner (R) in Congress.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 03:25 PM by ClassWarrior That also means I WON'T be campaigning FOR Lieberman's soulmate Herb Kohl (D). But again, I won't work to defeat a Dem, either. At least not till we have the leisure of a majority. That's just suicide. And by the way, don't EVER presume to call me "an apologist" for anyone. Again, I thought we Progressives were above using Radical RW smear tactics. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:09 PM Response to Reply #186

216. I think that would be difficult to come up with, considering that

there hasn't even been a vote. In any case, have a look at this TPM regarding Lieberman's evolution. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_02_27.php It's pretty fascinating. That's what us crazy "purists" do for our party. What can I say? It's just leadership.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:16 PM Response to Reply #216

222. Agreed. Joementum's a disaster. All I'm asking you to give me is...

...a VIABLE PLAN FOR REPLACING HIM. This of course assumes you're in Connecticut, since you didn't answer my question earlier. SO WHAT'S THE PLAN??? NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:18 PM Response to Reply #222

225. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO GIVE YOU THE PLAN????

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:19 PM Response to Reply #225

228. You already gave me the plan. Now answer me whether you live in Conn...

And then get off your tuckus and get working that plan!!! NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:25 PM Response to Reply #225

232. Well, that's certainly a demonstration of fine leadership skills!

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:06 PM Response to Reply #109

113. Exactly!

The Republicans will throw as much money as they possibly can to a RW candidate, as soon as they smell blood in the water. The most dangerous thing we can do is to cripple one of our own who may be less than perfect, and let someone far, FAR worse take his/her place. South Dakota--- need I say more?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:14 PM Response to Reply #96

118. Why not work to replace... hmmm... Republicons instead??!

Wow. What a novel idea, CW!!! NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:16 PM Response to Reply #118

121. No, a REALLY novel idea is replacing everyone who votes like one.

It's so simple. It's brilliant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:18 PM Response to Reply #121

124. Okay, share your "brilliant" plan...

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:28 PM Response to Reply #124

141. I'm waiiiiting...

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:30 PM Response to Reply #141

147. It's been said about 20 times in this thread. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:32 PM Response to Reply #147

150. I've heard lots of fevered talk, but no plan.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:45 PM Response to Reply #150

183. Still waiiiiting...

If you can show me a VIABLE plan for replacing the DINOs with Progressives - not to mention a list of exactly WHO you consider DINOs - I'll be your biggest champion. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:20 PM Response to Reply #121

127. That works ONLY if they are v-i-a-b-l-e

Well-funded and VIABLE. If they don't win the GE, their ideological 'purity' isn't worth a pound of cold rat shit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:22 PM Response to Reply #127

131. Leadership IS viability. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

That, and that when Lieberman goes around undercutting our own policies, he makes EVERYONE less viable, as Democrats. I can't believe you'd even defend him. You're defending someone voting with the Republicans. Listen to yourself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:24 PM Response to Reply #131

133. No, I'm defending a party-line senator.

And once again, who decides what 'our policies' are?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:27 PM Response to Reply #133

139. That's ridiculous.

And, as to your question- well, I guess Bush does, huh?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:31 PM Response to Reply #139

148. No, it's not ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is taking down a party-line voter with solid progressive values regarding civil rights, education, labor, the environment, etc., without being able to put forth a viable, well-funded primary opponent. It may come as a shock to some here, but the vast majority of the party is composed of moderates and slightly left-of-center people--- the VAST majority.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Guaranteed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:33 PM Response to Reply #148

154. Our party supports SS. Our party constituency was AGAINST the Iraq War

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 02:34 PM by BullGooseLoony and any other pointless M.E. aggression. TWO HUGE ISSUES right there, and Lieberman is on the wrong side of both.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:35 PM Response to Reply #154

159. So have you told him so?? Have you joined your county party??

Have you made a visit to your own Senator's office?? NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:37 PM Response to Reply #154

166. Point out where he's 'wrong' on SS, please.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 02:38 PM by Padraig18 I'm sure you have a vote he's cast to back up your assertion, don't you? Oh, wait--- the vote's not been taken on that yet!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:31 PM Response to Reply #166

236. *crickets* n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

iconoclastNYC (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:57 PM Response to Reply #148

256. The vast majority....

First of all how do you even figure that out? Its not really possible....whats the far left position on social security versus the moderate left view of social security? whats the far right view of environmental protection versus the moderate left? How many people in the party know the issues well enuf, let alone where on the spectrum thier position on the issue falls? I'm far left (who would identify with that, knowing the stigma?) How many decmocrats get all coy when you ask if they are a liberal and want to use the term progressive instead? The issue here is that sometimes you have to accept a short term loss to realize a long term gain. A lost Senate seat is acceptable if helps position the party for the future. A bad democrat is worse then a republican in a seat, because the republicons can claim bi partisanship, and 10 or twenty different reasons. The cons didn't win by making appeals to the middle, and neither did Bush. This DLC mushy-middle triangulating centrism is killing our party, aided and abetted by people like Joementum. Its time to stand up for our principals and may DINOS think twice about selling out the party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:36 PM Response to Reply #133

281. The vote against cloture ought to have been a "party-line" vote. That it

was not, unfortunately, tells us a lot about what our party is willing to fight for.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:38 PM Response to Reply #281

282. That, then, was the leadership's fault.

It is up to them to decide what is a party-line vote.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Inland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:53 PM Response to Original message

98. it's the "let me tell you the democrats I'll never accept" post

It's tough to even mention a nationally known democrat without a slew of calumny about how they are traitors or trying to appease righties.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wryter2000 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 01:55 PM Response to Original message

101. True enough, but

If the Dino is going to vote for whatever crappy legislation the pugs are foisting on us, how is that Dem helping to filibuster? They're not even voting "no," let alone filibustering.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:00 PM Response to Reply #101

105. Senators are just as diverse as the people they represent.

Not every Democratic senator is going to agree with every other Democratic senator 100% of the time on every issue. To label a senator a 'DINO' simply because (s)he sees and votes on a given issue differently than does someone else is silly. If the leadership makes Bill X a party-line issue, then we can begin assigning the DINO label to those who do not 'toe the line'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wryter2000 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:19 PM Response to Reply #105

125. Labelling someone a Dino

I won't abandon a Senator or Rep because of one vote, although one vote may really p*ss me off. But once the person has made several bad votes, I have to wonder if they're worth keeping. Biden is a prime example for me. I have very fond memories of how he handled the Bork hearings. At a time when he was personally under fire with the bogus plagiarizing charges, he handled those hearings like a pro, and -- I believe -- kept that disaster of a man off the Supreme Court. Then, he'll turn around and tell Gonzales "I like you. You're the real deal." Then, he'll turn again and vote against the creep. Then, he'll do another 180 and vote for the bankruptcy bill. I'm not in favor for getting rid of him, but hokey smoke! Someone needs to have a serious talk with that man. As to what folks say here. This place is so huge you can find someone to espouse any bit of idiocy if you look hard enough.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:19 PM Response to Reply #105

126. If Dems weren't bought and paid for by the banks and credit card companies

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 02:20 PM by flpoljunkie too, this would be a "party-line" issue. The dirty little secret is that too many of them are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:22 PM Response to Reply #126

129. I'm sure Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer would be glad to know...

...they're bought and paid for by the banks and credit card companies. Care to prove it? NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:42 PM Response to Reply #129

177. Never said all of them were bought and paid for, just too damn many!

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 02:43 PM by flpoljunkie

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:49 PM Response to Reply #177

191. "If Dems weren't bought and paid for..." seems pretty clear to me.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 02:52 PM by ClassWarrior NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:51 PM Response to Reply #191

194. Perhaps you ought to read my entire post. Sometimes there is not enough

room in the subject line to make your entire point clear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:53 PM Response to Reply #194

199. So why let that stand in the way of a good slam, right?

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:59 PM Response to Reply #199

207. Democrats who voted for cloture of this bill deserve to be slammed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:01 PM Response to Reply #207

210. The Republicons who shoved this puke down the throats of the people...

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 03:09 PM by ClassWarrior ...deserve to be slammed!! Who's the enemy?? Joe Lieberman?? Or the Radical RW?? Should we be fighting them?? Or ourselves?? Mind you, if your Dem Senator voted with the enemy on this one, YOU HAD BETTER DAMN WELL LET HIM OR HER KNOW IT - just as I've let Herb Kohl know it. And I made sure he knew that my vote wouldn't be guaranteed next time. But I'm not going to waste my time and energy campaigning against him when I could be spending it wisely to defeat "Puffy Jim" Sensenbrenner (R). NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:27 PM Response to Reply #210

233. Why bring up Lieberman when I did not single him out in any way.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 03:28 PM by flpoljunkie Here is the link to the cloture vote and the 13 Democratic enablers who voted AYE and set in motion the inevitable passage of this bankruptcy bill. And I wrote Senator Bill Nelson the day of the cloture vote to express my utter disappointment in his cloture vote. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00029 YEAs ---69 Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) DeWine (R-OH) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Salazar (D-CO) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:32 PM Response to Reply #233

237. I used a rhetorical device - sorry if I confused you.

I should have said the 13 DINOs. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:34 PM Response to Reply #237

240. Who's confused here? Not me, I assure you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:35 PM Response to Reply #240

242. I know you are, but what am I?...

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 03:38 PM by ClassWarrior <LOL> By the way, Sam Sedar just said it was 17 DINOs. Someone else on this thread said 14. So who's confused?... NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:38 PM Response to Reply #242

245. Just who are you fighting for anyway, "ClassWarrior?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:40 PM Response to Reply #245

248. Who do you think I'm fighting for??

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 03:42 PM by ClassWarrior (This is starting to sound like a scene out of "Dodgeball." <LOL> ) NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:50 PM Response to Reply #248

252. Those who defend Democrats who vote against the interests of working

Americans must ask themselves, what is indeed, worth fighting for? Stopping this egregious bankruptcy bill ought to be at the top of every Democrat's list. Obviously, we disagree on this, and perhaps further discussion is pointless.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:54 PM Response to Reply #252

254. Thanks for totally distorting my position.

I thought only the Radical RW had to distort people's opinions to win arguements. I guess I was wrong. Go back and read ALL my posts. I NEVER ONCE DEFENDED ANY OF THE DINOS. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:26 PM Response to Reply #254

272. Had a chance to read thru my posts? Ready to retract your accusations?

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:59 PM Response to Reply #254

295. "I'm sure Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer would be glad to know...

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 05:16 PM by flpoljunkie ...they're bought and paid for by the banks and credit card companies." This is distortion. Feingold and Boxer did not vote for cloture. "Who's the enemy?? Joe Lieberman?? Or the Radical RW?? Should we be fighting them?? Or ourselves??" Answer. Both. We need to hold Democrats' feet to the fire if they vote against what ought to be bedrock Democratic principles of economic justice as well as fight the totally bought and paid for corporate tools--the Republican party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:02 PM Response to Reply #295

297. I know they didn't. But you were implying that all Dems did.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 05:08 PM by ClassWarrior Ever heard of irony? <LOL> Nice try. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:19 PM Response to Reply #297

313. For those who did not bother to read my entire post, yes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:50 PM Response to Reply #248

253. C'mon - that's a leading question. You wouldn't have asked it if...

...you didn't have an opinion yourself. So c'mon - tell me who you think I'm fighting for. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:43 PM Response to Reply #242

286. I stand corrected. I believe the count is 14 voting Dems for cloture.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:56 PM Response to Reply #210

294. The Republicans could not have "shoved this puke down the throats of the

people" without the help of Democrats who voted for cloture. They needed 60 votes, they got 69. These Democrats ought to hang their heads in shame for selling out working people. They may not be able to count on us voting for the "lesser evil" if they keep voting against what ought to be the bedrock of democratic issues--economic justice. If there were a viable progressive candidate for any of these folks, I would definitely consider supporting them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:03 PM Response to Reply #294

299. I agree. IF THERE WERE A VIABLE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE. Got one?

More importantly, are any of the DINOs your Senator? NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:24 PM Response to Reply #299

317. See post 269.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:55 PM Response to Reply #317

327. Then we agree.

"If there were a progressive Democrat who stood a chance to beat (Herb Kohl) in the primary, I would support them." The key words being "Progressive" and "stood a chance." In fact, I'd say "stood a GOOD chance." NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:59 PM Response to Reply #327

328. I agree, too.

Especially about the key words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

cestpaspossible (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:35 PM Response to Reply #126

161. 14 of them voted for cloture

Biden (D-DE) Byrd (D-WV) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Salazar (D-CO) Stabenow (D-MI) http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00029 Let's not apply that broad brush to anyone not on this list, ok?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:33 PM Response to Original message

153. screw em, no more tolerance for SOLD OUT DEMOCRATS

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 02:34 PM by hnsez i've never voted repug in my life, one thing i know FOR SURE, I WILL NEVER FOR A REPUG IN DEMS CLOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:37 PM Response to Reply #153

164. THAT BILL AMOUNTED TO ALOT MORE THAN 1 VOTE!!!

ITS TRASHING 100 YEARS OF DEMOCRATIC IDEALS

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:38 PM Response to Reply #164

169. ALL OF US KNOW IT HAS TO GET WORSE

Before America wakes up to the BS the MSM is spewing out

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:39 PM Response to Reply #169

172. I would prefer if they LEFT the democratic party

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:39 PM Response to Reply #153

170. Who decides who is or isn't a 'sold out Democrat'?

I'd like someone to answer that for me. PS--Your Caps Lock sees to be broken.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:40 PM Response to Reply #170

173. you must know NOTHING about the bill they voted for

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:42 PM Response to Reply #173

176. BECAUSE THESE DEMS WILL SELL US OUT FOR SS

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:44 PM Response to Reply #176

180. We need to TARGET these DEMS for what they DID

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:44 PM Response to Reply #180

181. The REPUGS sure as hell wont hold them accountable WE DO

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:46 PM Response to Reply #181

185. All you MODERATE DEMS will stand for is NOT holding someone accountable

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:46 PM Response to Reply #173

184. I know a great deal about it.

Would you be so kind as to answer the question I asked?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:47 PM Response to Reply #184

187. It is OBVIOUS that the DEMS who voted for this ARE DINOS

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:48 PM Response to Reply #187

189. AND is is US who will hold them ACCOUNTABLE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:50 PM Response to Reply #189

193. IF they sell us out on SS or not doesn't matter, they just SOLD us out

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:49 PM Response to Reply #187

192. Obvious to whom?

Please answer the question I asked you originally. Thank you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:51 PM Response to Reply #192

195. Obvious to anyone who knows that this bill stunk like Corporate Greed

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:53 PM Response to Reply #195

198. Who decides that?

You? me? Who?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

hnsez (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:54 PM Response to Reply #198

202. MY VOTE, MY HUNDRED HOURS OF CAMPAIGNING, MY CONTRIBUTIONS

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 02:56 PM by hnsez you can do whatever you want with yours, and yes, one of them represents me that pathetic Bill Nelson thats who

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:01 PM Response to Reply #202

209. Well, do my hundreds of hours campaigning and my contributions...

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 03:06 PM by Padraig18 ... weigh equally with yours? If they do, and we disagree on a given issue, which one of us is 'right'? Is it possible that neither of us is right OR wrong, but simply hold different opinions on the matter at hand?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 02:59 PM Response to Reply #198

208. I know Pad!! I know!!

:hi: The people who GET OFF THEIR AMPLE BOTTOMS AND GET INVOLVED IN TAKING THEIR PARTY BACK do, Pad!!! Do I get a gold star? <LOL> NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:01 PM Response to Reply #208

211. You do, indeed!

LOL! :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

BamaBecky (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:10 PM Response to Original message

217. Many of us are idealists, some of you are "chess players", and

strategists. It will take all of us coming together working for the greater good. Don't call us ridiculous for being upset with a senator. We are not wrong because we have a higher vision and higher expectations and you are not right just because you have settled in for "the way things are in Washington".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:13 PM Response to Reply #217

218. Wow, you just went from wisdom to trash-talk in 3 sentences.

So just because I think we need to be smart about cleaning up this shit rather than marching off torch in hand to form a mob, you assume I've "settled in for the way things are in Washington?" <ROTFLMAO> NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:18 PM Response to Reply #218

226. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:14 PM Response to Reply #217

219. We need to come together.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 03:16 PM by Padraig18 My post doesn't deride disagreement; what it derides is the wanton and mindless destruction of the less-than-ideologically-'pure', party-line, Democratic senators. FWIW, I am FAR from 'happy' about the way things are in Washington. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:16 PM Response to Reply #219

221. You mean the ones that vote republican on the important issues?

Yeah, those folks really need our support..... :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:17 PM Response to Reply #221

223. Who gets to decide what is or is not 'important issues'?

I keep asking that question, but no one seems willing to answer it. Will you be a brave soul and become the first?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

BamaBecky (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:21 PM Response to Reply #223

230. I was under the impression that you had all the answers...n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

safi0 (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:34 PM Response to Reply #230

241. Do Republicans do this

On Free Republic are there people saying that they should get rid of Olympia Snowe or Lincoln Chaffe

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:36 PM Response to Reply #241

244. Actually, everytime I slum thru there...

YES...all the time. Lots of RINO talk.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

BamaBecky (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 07:28 PM Response to Reply #241

343. Do what?...n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:32 PM Response to Reply #223

238. How about authorizing an illegal war for starters?

Or voting for an Act that decimates Civil Liberties? Or one that removes protection from predatory lenders forcing people into the poor house? You know, insignificant little things like that...Sort of the basic principles of the Democratic Party....You know...."important"....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:47 PM Response to Reply #238

250. That's not an answer to the question I asked.

Nice soliloquy, but a non-answer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:55 PM Response to Reply #250

255. What is it about the phrase "basic principles of the Democratic Party"

..that you don't twig? Your 'argument' about 'who decides what's important' is bollocks in and of itself, but it should be fairly obvious to most, exactly what constitutes 'important' and not so 'important'....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:00 PM Response to Reply #255

258. That answer is what's bollox.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 04:00 PM by Padraig18 The question is very simple and straight-forward, and I would think that anyone so well-versed in whatever is 'fairly obvious to most' should have no trouble answering it. Just to refersh your memory, the question was this: "Who gets to decide what's important?" Thanks in advance for your answer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:10 PM Response to Reply #258

262. Your question is bollocks. That's the problem.

No-one "decides" whether an issue is important or not, they simply are or they aren't. Authorizing an illegal war is important, bickering over grazing rights is not-as-important. Installing an AG that thinks that torture is okay is important, arguing over rasing or lowering the national speed limit is not-as-important.... I'm glad you feel okay supporting people that vote against your interests. I don't. It's as simple as that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:15 PM Response to Reply #262

265. Would that it were that simple.

Sadly, the last time I looked, not all Democrats agree on every issue; therefore, my question is not only NOT 'bollocks', it is quite to the point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:27 PM Response to Reply #265

274. No, it's a strawman at best...

Because you already know that there is not one entity that decides what is important and what isn't... Hence your question is in fact, total bollocks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:30 PM Response to Reply #274

277. Hold up a second!

It was you who injected the phrase into this debate; how, pray tell, is it a straw man for me to ask exactly who decides 'what's important'?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:39 PM Response to Reply #277

283. Can I answer?

It's a personal decision on what "is important". True Democrats realize that no one will possibly share all of their own choices or priorities. Thus, they realize, to maintain political power for the Party, certain compromises must be made. How was that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:41 PM Response to Reply #283

285. That's a good answer.

:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

martymar64 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:27 PM Response to Reply #283

367. Fine , compromise us right into Fascism

n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 08:22 AM Response to Reply #367

374. Wow...quite an informed and informative post.

Edited on Fri Mar-11-05 08:22 AM by tx_dem41 Stellar argument. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:27 PM Response to Reply #221

234. Lieberman for example has a fine voting record...

on labor, public interest (PIRG), and gay-rights issues. Are these issues not important to you? They are to most Democrats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:35 PM Response to Reply #234

243. Yeah, he just buckles when it comes to non-important stuff...like Wars..

..removal of civil liberties, voting for an AG that approves of torture...You know, the little stuff.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:39 PM Response to Reply #243

247. I can assure you that the conservative Republican that many say...

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 03:40 PM by tx_dem41 ..would be "just as good as Joe", would vote against all your issues, major and minor. I am all for someone challenging him. Rest assured, if they win, I am sure they will be lucky enough to be villified on DU one day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

nolabels (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:42 PM Response to Original message

249. Yea like our posts will change a whole lot

The DINO's get chided for the sell outs that they are then you come here to tell People at DU that it's wrong. Maybe we should just celebrate that they are selling us short :think:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:48 PM Response to Reply #249

251. Maybe not all of us agree that they're DINOs.

Did that thought ever occur to you? :think:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

nolabels (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:19 PM Response to Reply #251

268. There are so many different opinions here that lots of things occur to me

People call them out because of the way they vote. The biggest reason the derogatory goes on is because after they do the the dirty they don't ever come back and inform anybody why they voted that way. They just ignore everybody and act like that it never happened. If that is not an indication of an agenda that is different than the one of serving their constituents I don't know what is. Their backbone stand-up-ishness is a result of is how much they let people stand up for them. I am finding it hard to stand up for most of them. Mike Milloy said well just last night. He giving merit to Republicans. He was saying even though they are Neo-Nazis theologically at least you know where they stand. This is akin to the idea that is better to have rattle snake in front of you than at your backside. The Byrd sellout out on the bankruptcy bill just recently should be a good reference to you about what I am getting at.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 03:59 PM Response to Reply #249

257. Yeah, 'cos no-one can define what's 'important' and what isn't...

Funny how no-one has explained to me how a Democrat that votes for republican issues is any different than a republican that votes for republican issues is.....apart from the obvious point that the Dem gets Democratic money to vote against his/her own party...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:04 PM Response to Reply #257

260. Ummm....I'll take a stab at that...

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 04:05 PM by tx_dem41 because they most often do not vote for Republican issues? Do I win? Oh, on a few high-profile issues they may vote "Republican", but most often on the nitty-gritty issues (that a lot of Democratic "activists" are too bored to follow) they are quite liberal. Are you one of those activists that suffers from ADD?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:11 PM Response to Reply #260

263. No, I'm one of those activists that likes it when Democrats act and vote..

..like Democrats and not part-time republicans....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:18 PM Response to Reply #263

267. So, I take it you would vote for Lieberman in the general election

against a Republican if you lived in CT? Also, can you name a Democratic senator that votes your way ALL of the time? Just name one, please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:25 PM Response to Reply #267

270. No. I would vote for neither.

All the time? Senator Wellstone was pretty bloody close. Same with Senator Durbin.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:30 PM Response to Reply #270

278. Well, thank you for going on record on that.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 04:31 PM by tx_dem41 Durbin? He didn't even vote against the electoral vote! Sheesh. Talk about a core issue! You look past that???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

nolabels (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:45 PM Response to Reply #267

287. Barbara Boxer almost does, I am from California

I can only remember two actions of hers I disagreed with her. The first time contesting the first fraud election of * (she made up for it last time though). The other is voting for the Patriot Act (think she along with a few other got snookered on that one)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:55 PM Response to Reply #287

293. Barbara Boxer is a great Senator. Did you know that Joe Lieberman...

had a higher rating from the ACLU in 2003-2004 than Boxer? http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0105103

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

LittleClarkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:26 PM Response to Original message

271. All I gotta say is if the "oust Liebermann" campaign works

There damn well better be a DEMOCRAT in that seat when their done or I will be MIGHTY pissed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:29 PM Response to Reply #271

275. I think you're missing the point...

..if Lieberman is ousted, and the replacement ISN'T a Democrat, as far as voting for the war, for Condi Rice, for Alberto Gonzales, for the bankruptcy bill, what, exactly would be the difference?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:32 PM Response to Reply #275

279. Yeah Clarkie - what's the difference!? Let's all just go home and let...

...the Republicons have the whole enchillada!! <LOL> NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:32 PM Response to Reply #275

280. Party-line votes, for one.

And Lieberman consistently votes with Democrats on party-line issues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:45 PM Response to Reply #280

288. Except for little things like wars, civil rights and financially ruinous..

..legislation, right? You know, I'm a big fan of the wild-eyed three-eared spotted owl and all, but if you measure his sucess on the "little" things like saving owls as being more important than when he stabs his own party in the back on things like war, torture, and usery then I suggest you need to re-calibrate whatever tool you are using to measure value... You are either with the party or you are against it. All or nothing. Using your logic a man that only screws around on his wife 'occasionally' shouldn't be thought of badly, as long as 'most' of the time he didn't..... Talk about screwy logic.... You are either a Democrat or you aren't. You either vote with the party or you don't. You cannot be 'a little bit Democratic', just like you can't be 'a little bit pregnant'. You take from the Democratic trough then you bloody well better vote like you did. All of the time. You know who else thinks likes this? Republicans. And you know what they did? They took over our government. You want it back? Learn from your enemy's playbook and execute the same plan. In spades. Because if you don't then you'll wind up with a bunch of panty-waists that don't have a spine between them. Oh wait, that's what we have now.......

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:47 PM Response to Reply #288

289. "...You either vote with the party or you don't...."

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 04:48 PM by Padraig18 Once again, who decides what that phrase means? I'm tired of homilies and feel-good platitudes, and would like a direct andswer to a direct question.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:51 PM Response to Reply #289

290. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:55 PM Response to Reply #290

292. No games at all.

I'm sorry that my asking a simple, direct question with an answer that's 'obvious' has upset you so. I had just innocently assumed that someone would be willing to put down in black and white what is so 'obvious'. Silly me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:03 PM Original message

Your original "question" was 'who decides what's important?'...

I answered that above. Then you changed the "question" to be 'who decides what that means'....To which I respond thusly, 'Do you mean in the literal sense' as in "who" decides what that phrase means? Or in the sense of 'who decides what that phrase "means"'....' Your second question is actually more redundant than your first one, so yes, you're playing games... BTW..nice dodge around my analogy though....And TOTAL non-response to any of my points...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:07 PM Response to Original message

302. Actually, you DIDN'T answer it.

Your post was some nonsensical platitude, while my question was a concrete one not answerable with platitudes. You then skipped on to another subject, without having answered the first question. Again I ask, who decides?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:12 PM Response to Reply #302

307. Actually I DID answer it....

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 05:14 PM by truebrit71 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1650893#1651920 Also in post 262. So that means I answered your question not once, but TWICE. Next?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:16 PM Response to Reply #307

309. That's an answer?

Looks more like a slam, to me. Hmm... :shrug: Glad you agree with me, at least, that no one entity gets to decide. Isn't diversity wonderful? :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:03 PM Response to Reply #288

298. Lieberman's "DINO" voting scorecard (2003-2004)....

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 05:04 PM by tx_dem41 NARAL (pro-choice) - 100% Humane Society - 100% Americans for the Arts - 100% ACLU - 83% (Higher than Boxer's 78% - there goes your civil rights charge!) Human Rights Campaign (gay-rights) - 88% NEA (Education) - 86% Family Research Council (fundie group) - 0% UAW (labor) - 100% AFSCME (labor) - 100% Yep, even a Republican would be no worse than Joe! :eyes: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:05 PM Response to Reply #298

301. Yup, let's see...

Voted for Condi Rice 100% Voted for Gonzales 100% Voted for the War in Iraq 100% Voted for the Patriot Act 100% Voted for the Bankruptcy cloture 100% Yup, you're right, I TOTALLY see the difference between his votes and every single republican....:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:08 PM Response to Reply #301

304. Well, if you can't. I can't help you.

May I ask what you are doing to help raise a challenge to Joe in '06? You seem pretty passionate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:15 PM Response to Reply #304

308. You mean actually DO something instead of just whine??

Awwwww... C'mon, tx... I have my soaps to watch!! <LOL> NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:16 PM Response to Reply #304

310. I will support ANY Dem that runs against him.

He is a DINO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:19 PM Response to Reply #310

311. He's a DINO *in your opinion*

We don't all hold that opinion, love.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:20 PM Response to Reply #310

314. Well good for you.

Its fun to be involved in doing volunteer work in primaries. The phone banks, precinct walks, and the mailings can be tough but emotionally rewarding if your side wins. Glad to hear you'll be making the effort!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 06:11 PM Response to Reply #310

334. So you live in Connecticut, brit?

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Lone Pawn (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:33 PM Response to Reply #301

321. Those were three bills he had bad votes on.

Moreover, let's look at it realistically. Condi, Gonzales, IWR, and Patriot, if I remember right, all had a plurality of Democrats voting 'yes.' Look at bills where the vote splits D-R, and you'll see that Lieberman is almost always on the D side.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:44 PM Response to Reply #321

324. I believe that many posters would rather see about 15 "pure"

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 05:53 PM by tx_dem41 Democrats in the Senate and no "DINOs", than have a majority mixed with "pure" and "DINO" Democrats. That seems to be their perfect world. Unfortunately, their truly perfect world of having a majority of "pure" Democrats has never existed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:51 PM Response to Reply #324

326. You 'believe' so?

Hell, I know so! :P

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

LittleClarkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 04:39 PM Response to Reply #275

284. No, you're ignoring the rest of his record

He has some of his more progressive moments here and there. The worst Dem is better than any Republican.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:03 PM Response to Reply #271

300. A big clue there won't be is that the Oust Joe campaign doesn't have...

...a candidate. It's not about being for anything. It's about being against someone. It's not about winning anything. It's about making sure somebody loses. If there were a good candidate, I'd take a look at him or her. But if there's no candidate, I'm not interetested. I'm not interested in tearing down any Democrat if it's only going to mean the Republicans are going to win as a result.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

LittleClarkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:08 PM Response to Reply #300

303. Right on

He's not perfect. But Joe's better than any Republican. And unlike Zell, I still consider him a Dem. Which is why I'm on "Dem Party Back Watch" on his behalf. Let's not self-destruct people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:12 PM Response to Reply #300

305. Couldn't have said it better myself AP. And that "tearing down" bit...

...strikes me as decidedly contrary to Progressive values. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:12 PM Response to Reply #300

306. Let's have a hearty 'Amen!'

Well said! :thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

DancingBear (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:24 PM Response to Reply #300

316. Oh fer goddness sakes

i've tried to stay out of this thead, but really.... NOBODY is looking to oust Holy Joe and put a Republican in his place. What we ARE looking for is a progressive Democrat to challenge him in the primaries. If said person doesn't come forward, then i'm pretty sure a bunch of us progressives are not going to go skipping to the polling station going "I'm voting Republican, I'm voting Republican...." This "if you vote a Dem out a Republican takes his place" is the mother of all red herrings. Why don't you guys try and argue how much good this "you don't know how politics truly works" stance has done us in the last 6 years? Oops, nevermind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:27 PM Response to Reply #316

318. "If you vote a Dem out, make sure you replace him with another Dem"

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 05:27 PM by Padraig18 That's what I was taught in Ward 1 in the City of Chiago, where I cut my political 'teeth'. Quite a few here don't agree with that, since their plan is solely limited to defeating Democrat X. I would point them out, but that woud be 'calling out', and it's against the rules.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

DancingBear (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 06:11 PM Response to Reply #318

333. Get off this train, my friend - it's on the wrong track

People are mad at Lieberman et al. for not staying true to Democratic core beliefs. If they are screaming they want him out, it is either a) out of frustration or b) the well-known "visitor" is making his/her opinions known. I think your saying that their "plan" is only to rid the world of Holy Joe is a bit too strident on your part. If you can, try and make a case as to why the status quo ("real world", in your terminology) is viable. I have seen nothing over the last six years to make me believe it is. This is a very smart and astute political board - people know that the only thing one replaces a bad Democrat with is a good Democrat. They want a real Dem in CT, and who knows... You don't even have to be from Chicago to get that...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 06:17 PM Response to Reply #333

335. Are YOU from Connecticut??

It seems as though there are a lot of people speaking for Connecticut, but none of them will own up to living there. NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 06:46 PM Response to Reply #335

336. Hellllllooooo???...

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 06:57 PM Response to Reply #333

338. After almost 2 years here, I must sadly disagree.

I've seen far too many absolutely vile, hate-filled, vitriolic, die-in-a-glorious-cause posts to believe that a substantial number of such posters give a handful of cold rat shit about anything except defeating Lieberman/'DINO X'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 07:01 PM Response to Reply #338

339. BTW, Lieberman voted against the Bankruptcy bill....

according to another thread.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 07:02 PM Response to Reply #339

340. Damn him for not feeding my prejudices!!!

<LOL> NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 07:08 PM Response to Reply #340

341. How DARE he not live up to his stereotyped DU image?

;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:46 PM Response to Reply #316

325. "NOBODY is looking to oust Holy Joe and put a Republican in his place."

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 05:46 PM by tx_dem41 Ummm...I would suggest you review this thread. Several have said that a Republican would be no worse than Joe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

DancingBear (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 06:00 PM Response to Reply #325

329. Yes, I always take hyperbole at face value n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 06:03 PM Response to Reply #329

330. I take what people say at face value.

I appreciate hyperbole, but after its said over and over and over...I start to believe it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 06:06 PM Response to Reply #330

331. That does seem to be the Radical RW's modus, doesn't it?

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 06:09 PM Response to Reply #330

332. So do I.

At some point after someone has said "I'm going to burn your house down some night when you're asleep" time and time again, I think it's not unreasonable of me to assume that they may, in fact, be intending to do just that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Mar-12-05 12:17 AM Response to Reply #316

392. Go tell Tom Daschle.

Some DU'ers demeaned and rediculed Daschle for an entire year right up to election day. Nobody built up a more progressive alternative. All they did was tell people how useless Daschle was. A very conservative Republican has his seat now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

w4rma (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:42 PM Response to Reply #300

369. The Oust Joe campaign has up to 6 potential candidates.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 10:43 PM by w4rma ... Connecticut Democrats dissatisfied with U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman want to mount a primary election challenge to the three-term incumbent in 2006 and say they are debating the merits of as many as six alternative candidates. ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1300446&mesg_id=1300446&page= It's still early but hopefully one of them will turn out to be a strong alternative to Lieberman. And it is important to note that this is Democratic PRIMARY battle, not a general election/third party battle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 08:24 AM Response to Reply #369

375. Will one of them be a formidable opponent to

Nancy Johnson or Chris Shays? You do know who Nancy Johnson and Chris Shays are, don't you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Mar-12-05 12:27 AM Response to Reply #369

393. That sort of makes my point. They haven't even picked a candidate....

...but there definitely ABL. That strategy didn't work with Bush.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

MikeG (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:29 PM Response to Original message

319. And what would you save his vote for? This "Democrat"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:31 PM Response to Reply #319

320. What? n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

MikeG (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:33 PM Response to Reply #320

322. Don't be obtuse along with condescending.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 05:36 PM Response to Reply #322

323. I'm not being either, so please refrain from so insinuating.

I don't understand your incredibly vague reference.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Cuban_Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 07:28 PM Response to Original message

344. Our party has ALWAYS included moderate and conservative Democrats

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 07:29 PM by Cuban_Liberal Not every state is identical, and it logically follows that the Democrats sent to Washington to represent those states will be just as diverse as the states that send them. This whole 'litmus test' for who is and isn't a 'real Democrat' I see all too often here at DU mimics almost word for word the intolerance shown by the right wing Republicans. If we don't wake up and realize that we need to EXPAND our party to reclaim those voters we've lost, both left AND right, what we currently think of as 'insufferable' will look like a walk in the park when the RW solidifies control of this country and brings us into a REAL hell on earth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

bread_and_roses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 07:35 PM Response to Original message

345. So we defeat the Radical Right by supporting those who vote WITH them?

I have been hearing the same since Reagan took office. I have also been hearing since then that those who argue else wise are naive/ignorant/quislings/uninformed/purist/lazy spouters who don't bother to work on campaigns/ivory tower/and now I can add Trolls. Look where it's gotten the Dems. The best they've been able to do is a moderate Republican - Clinton. Well, I don't think those adjectives fit me: I understand how the Senate works, I work hard on local and State campaigns. And I understand that "the Party" is not going to hold its' members accountable if the voters don't. I also understand that every time the Dems vote WITH their opponents on THEIR OPPONENTS AGENDA they legitimize it and make it that much less likely that they can win on any issue on which they oppose the Rs. In thirty+ years, we've not only seen no progress in poverty, inequality, racism, and peace - things have gotten worse. Because of the strategy of supporting anyone with a "D" behind his/her name the efforts of Liberals/Progressives around the nation are totally engaged in harm reduction - fighting the same battles over and over to get a few more people health care or to keep abortion safe. A yes vote on "Torture" Gonzalez or "Death Squad" Negroponte legitimizes Bush, aids and abets his agenda and by extension the campaigns of his minions - ie, helps them defeat the Dems. It's a losing strategy - amply evidenced, I would say, by the current make-up of the House, Senate, and WH. I am not a Dem. I don't vote in Dem primaries, though I have worked on Dem primary campaigns. The hardest working people I know in real world politics echo the "purists" here. For myself, I will never vote for any politician who undermines choice- that's my life, and the lives of my Sisters on the line. Nor will I ever vote or work for any of the current crop who've voted for Rice, Gonzalez, Negroponte. Or for the current Bankruptcy legislation. Or who speak or vote in support the savage, evil murder of civilians in Iraq via this Imperialist war. In response to the condescending, confrontational language used in this thread to describe those who don't agree with the OP, I could say that those demanding we support the Dems who vote with the Rs must be in favor of increasing inequality, assault on the poor,labor, and the working class, oppression of people of color, and endless war. Because that is where that strategy has landed us. But I don't say that, because I believe them to be sincere in trying to counter the Radical Right. However, I also believe they are mistaken.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Cuban_Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 07:50 PM Response to Reply #345

348. I suspect a lot of what we're hearing is extreme frustration

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 07:50 PM by Cuban_Liberal As a populist Democrat--- to some that would be moderate, to others it would be left-of-center--- I don't know ANY Democrat from ANY part of the party who is happy with the increase in RW Republican power: classical liberals despise Bush, populists despise Bush, even conservative despise him. Where the fly gets into the ointment, it seems to me, is what do we do about it? I have no problem with targeting certain intolerable senators and congressman, provided that we target the intolerable Republican ones first, and the intolerable Democrats second. I'll be blunt--- I will take a 100 Dacshles or Liebermans before I'll take 1 Thune. The solution is not to throw the baby out with the bath.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 12:24 PM Response to Reply #345

380. Did we have any real wars under Clinton that even compare to Iraq?

The answer is no. And that's why I refuse to call him a Republican.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

IndianaGreen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 07:36 PM Response to Original message

346. This is the usual crap one hears from the partisan wing

For lack of a better term, the partisan wing is the group of people that are tribalist by nature. They want their "D" tribe to beat the "R" tribe. Nothing wrong with that, given the fact that the "R" tribe is truly wicked, but, and there is a but, there is another group of people that are not interested in partisan tribalism, but have a passionate interests on issues revolving as to what sort of society we want to live in. A perfect illustration is Hillary Clinton. To the tribalists, Hillary is great by virtue of her poll numbers and strength in focus groups (according to some of the pro-Hillary postings one sees around here). To the issue-oriented group, Hillary is a disaster because she is a female Joe Lieberman. Hillary will not end the war in Iraq, she will not buck AIPAC or the Religious Right, and she will endorse an invasion of Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. All of the arguments we hear in DU are based on the fact that one group of people believe that to change things one must change personnel, while the other group feels that changing personnel without changing policy is a lite version of the other tribe. Neither side will change the other side!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Cuban_Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 07:56 PM Response to Reply #346

349. Until we get power, policy is just words.

Just as labor is neccessarily antecedent to capital, so too is power antecedent to policy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 08:27 PM Response to Reply #349

351. and until we stand on our own feet again, we will not have power. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 10:31 PM Response to Reply #351

368. Nice platitude. What does "standing on our feet again" mean?

Undermining the few Dems we have in power?? Or replacing Republicons with some new, more Progressive ones who can teach the DINOs how it's done?? NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 12:36 PM Response to Reply #346

382. The problem is that we are LITERALLY in the trenches right now

Edited on Fri Mar-11-05 12:45 PM by Hippo_Tron You're right, beating anybody with an "R" next to their name and replacing them with anybody who has a "D" next to their name is not a long term solution to rebuild our party or to get a progressive agenda enacted. The problem is that Bush is literally 5 senate seats away from being able to let all hell loose in this country, at least moreso than he has done already. As much as you may disagree with me, you can't honestly tell me that the country wouldn't be much worse off if there were 3 more Scalias on the SCOTUS. We do need to think in the long term and I think that our new chairman Howard Dean is doing a damn good job of that. However, we also do have to look at the harsh reality that is right infront of us. We are in a sense at war with these people and as far as I'm concerned, people like Ben Nelson and Joementum who vote to give us power and don't vote to give the GOP power are our allies, no matter how reluctant they may be or we may be willing to have them. BTW I think that we could solve a lot of our problems by getting a strong LEADER into the oval office like say, Russ Feingold.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

jonnyblitz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:12 PM Response to Original message

358. anyways.

interesting thread to sift through, Paddy. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:14 PM Response to Reply #358

360. Glad it was entertaining for you.

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

jonnyblitz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:38 PM Response to Reply #360

362. LOL

it wasn't for you (entertaining)? over 300 responses!!! quite a read. I am surprised you found my post in all of this to respond.!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:42 PM Response to Reply #362

363. Oh yeah, I've enjoyed it enormously.

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 09:43 PM by Padraig18 Have you ever gotten to the place where you just HAD to get something off of your chest? Well, this thead was my catharsis for a long-simmering irritant. I always look for posts from my friends, jonny! :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

jonnyblitz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-10-05 09:59 PM Response to Reply #363

364. I always look out for my friends' posts also..

Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 09:59 PM by jonnyblitz even if I don't always agree with them. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

amjucsc (195 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 01:10 AM Response to Original message

370. Damn straight...

Of course the Democratic Senators from places like North Dakota and Nebraska are DINOs. They need to be in order to survive in heavily Republican polities. Just be glad they caucus with us, and can ocasionally afford to cast truly progressive votes...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Cuban_Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 04:53 AM Response to Reply #370

372. Too many just don't understand that.

They expect Average Democrat X from Mississippi to be just as liberal as Average Democrat Y from Massachussetts. We know that, in the real world, the odds of that actually being true are slim and none.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

PATRICK (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 02:06 PM Response to Original message

384. Becoming skilled at focus

Edited on Fri Mar-11-05 02:08 PM by PATRICK Back in 2000 even Zell Miller was important to crafting some bulwark against the horrors since unleashed. Despair and defeat freed many to want to take those miserable impure heads but that did not help the focus of the problem at all. In fact it "freed" Miller to fully join the Dark Side. Although whether we lose by two or twenty-two votes seems irrelevant, part of building for the future means using what you have today. Our focus for real activism should be new grass roots and new leaders and a new political landscape while remembering it is a crime situation we are dealing with as much as a "hearts and minds" political discussion. If the old chaff seems ripe for burning it is also irrelevant and harmful to do recklessly. The real focus is rightly on the grass roots so that when Rep. X or Sen. So and so imperiously descends to be renominated there is no blank check or assured renomination meekly waiting for them, no cringing before name recognition and money. Gradually better and more fit representation can be raised. Other than revenge or fear of progressive weakness what can be gained by trashing the remnants of the DLC retreat? In fact, examining the voting records and basic sincerity and competence of Dems in general one must reluctantly(even fearfully) admit that most of our worst are qualitatively light years ahead of their "best", at least when the votes are counted on critical measures. In this instance one can quickly see that it is the system failure that counts, not dressing up the good guys in shinier white that counts. Historically infighting is more vicious than attacking one's real enemies and is incredibly self-defeating. Here at DU, ultimately, the masses are becoming better at getting to the best focus and self-criticism. It is the only way to counter the delusions fluttering around our eyes and is the best building stone for democracy. As for other arguments, they are becoming superseded by crises that will not await long term rebuilding and scorched earth idealism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 08:45 PM Response to Original message

386. Kick for pure orneriness

;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Radical Activist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 08:49 PM Response to Reply #386

387. lol

Ok my next post will be ornery as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 08:51 PM Response to Reply #387

388. Sounds fair.

:pals:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Radical Activist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 08:54 PM Response to Original message

389. You have to take the long-term view

How many seats have we lost by not defending basic Democratic values? How many seats have we lost because we allowed our message to be compromised by corporate money? How many seats have we lost because we ran bland, conservative candidates who don't appeal to anyone but the big money contributors in New York? When we fail to stand for progressive values we allow the Republicans to keep shifting the nation to the right. Endless compromises of principle for practical political concerns is exactly why we don't have a majority today. If we had the courage to run candidates with a progressive economic populist message in places like Tennessee and Kansas then we would be talking about how to get a filibuster proof Democratic majority.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Lone Pawn (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 10:12 PM Response to Reply #389

390. I think the time for starry-eyed idealism

Edited on Fri Mar-11-05 10:12 PM by Lone Pawn is when we aren't five seats away from a filibuster-proof Republican majority. Because if you're just a little bit off on what Topeka wants to hear--if you don't quite understand the importance and implications of class identity (and it's more complex than 'what's the matter with Kansas' would have you believe)--then we suddenly find ourselves purer, but utterly without power. As for how many seats we've lost? Good question. Here's one: How many seats have the Republicans lost by running conservative candidates compromised by corporate money? How important is 'purity' to anyone outside of DU? Are you living in an echo chamber?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Radical Activist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Mar-12-05 01:03 AM Response to Reply #390

395. Right, because

the DLC corporate sell-out approach we've been taking for the last 8 years had been working so well for us hasn't it? Look how much Democrats have gained! Claiming that we have to either hold to progressive ideals OR win elections is a false and ultimately destructive choice. We tried the spineless approach and it didn't work. Showing conviction and principle wins elections. It worked for Bush and it can work for Democrats. I think the DLC crowd that keeps telling us we have to be more moderate as a party to win elections is far more starry-eyed and unrealistic than what I'm arguing. Republicans win all their elections by taking corporate money because they are the party of corporate America. Democrats have been losing since we stopped providing people with an alternative to that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Vinnie From Indy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-11-05 10:29 PM Response to Original message

391. What Makes Rove Laugh About This Post

He chuckles and laughs at all of us. This thread is music to his ears. Until Dems address "fair" voting they will always be the minority party. Teresa Heinz Kerry knows what happened and so do millions of other people. The vote was stolen and BUSHCO. has ANOTHER 4 years to rape, steal and pillage. Pretty much all discussion outside of fair voting and media reform/building is just so much bleating. Until Dems stop and exclusively focus on these two issues, the corporate fascist states of America are just a few years away! Cheers!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Jax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Mar-12-05 01:19 AM Response to Original message

396. Thanks for your post

Edited on Sat Mar-12-05 01:23 AM by Jax I agree with nothing you say on these forums. Have never agreed with any of your posts. My voice/choice while I still have any voice/choice. Jax

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Mar-12-05 08:26 AM Response to Reply #396

397. Cheers!

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 08:20 AM Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top