litmus test for all 2006 and 2008 candidates . . .

House, Senate, and President . . .

"Will you support repeal of the 2005 Bankruptcy Act?" . . .

(posted in GD, and someone suggested I re-post it here . . .)

a new progressive populist movement.

No one but the rich support the act. We have nothing to lose in fighting the good fight.

And no one who would'nt vote to repeal something like this could be a real Democrat, anyway.

I think its ridiculous to judge candidates by their stance on a single issue.

I have a feeling if the Dems retake power there is going to be several things repealed.

we hit hard on any front we can win. once we take power, then we get passed what we need to get passed. or repealed what we need to get repealed

I think we all have to take a long hard look at the things that need to be emphasized in order to WIN! After we get into power, we can make the necessary changes. Remember, you can't do ANYTHING from the minority seat.

issue positions that i require of any candidate i could support. This bill, while i fucking hate it and question why any Dem voted yea, is not one.

That's the alpha and omega of policy issues: domestic, bankruptcy bill; foreign, IraQ. For those who answer the wrong way, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Excellent post!

As far as I'm concerned, and democrat who caved and voted for this doesn't deserve to wear the label "democrat" as either a senator or a representative.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

Even Lieberman voted NAY on this one!

Biden voted YEA. Some much for his rumored presidential ambitions...

It's much easier to repeal congressional legislation than it is to repeal an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If a candidate is willing to roll back the worst parts of the Bankruptcy Bill, and remain opposed to FMA, I will give him/her a look.

Litmus tests are wrong minded. We need to back up our politicians and act that they sometimes vote for things we don't agree with. They might get a lot of pressure from their constituents, any number of things come into play. Sure it sucks sometimes when we see them voting for things we might think are wrong minded, but that doesn't mean they haven't done good and viable things while in office.

You also can't compare a candidate's voting record to one who may not have a voting record. One can never assume how someone would have voted, so it's unfair and biased to judge one candidate on their voting record and have another candidate who may not have one.

there has to be SOMETHING that defines the Democrats as a party . . . there are certain things that are just so egregious that supporting them should disqualify anyone from claiming to be a Democrat . . . the Debt Slavery Act is one of them . . .