A vote for a "DINO" is a vote for Kennedy and Conyers.

Just as abstaining from voting for a "DINO" or voting for a Republican are indirectly contributing to the Bush administration's gross abuse of power, voting for a Democrat in congress would be far more of a vote for John Conyers-Ranking member of the House Judiciary committee, and Ted Kennedy-Ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee than it is for the actual candidate. Electing in Democratic candidates or "Democratic" candidates will almost give no power to the junior Senators and Congressman "DINOs" elected but give a ton of power to guys like John Conyers and Ted Kennedy.

These people have done far more than any other legislators to hold the administration responsible even out of power. Remember, not voting for "anti-choice Casey" and "DINO," Nelson(either of them), will be as much a stab in the back to Kennedy and Conyers as would be being a constituent of either of the two and simply not voting for them. Mr. Casey will have no seniority his first six years in the Senate and will thus have very little and close to no power. The Senate Democrats are already over run by plenty of pro choice lawmakers like Kennedy and Durbin, and Casey will be a small minority. What he will do however, is give guys like Durbin and Kennedy power to turn the country around!

This is, of course, targeted at those people threatening to vote Green or Indy in 06, which would in turn, help add to the Republican majority.

Hold your nose and vote for that DINO!

Please, do it for Ted! ;)

when she comes up.

Won't like it though.

It will be very nice if the Democrats can pick up Missouri. That is still a dream right now, but it really does take holding your nose(for now).

I don't think that one would require too much nose holding.

I'd love to see Talent get the boot and he is scared right now.

Cantwell's in Washington. I totally agree.

but I'll be HAPPY to vote for her against Talent.

Actually, I'm one of the many (I suspect) Missourians who wrote to her to ask her to run against Talent.

I actually hope she isn't as "moderate" as I suspect, but regardless, Missouri NEEDS Talent to go...and it's a small way I can support senior Senators from other states for committee chair (like Ted Kennedy)

..no doubt. Though I think our primary system still has a lot of work awaiting it -there are slightly more important things to fix after we are in power.

Even though Mark Pryor (AR) sometimes disappoints, I don't want Asa Hutchinson in office.

Add in that one should vote for whomever they want in the primary.

Taking back Congress means too much right now. Ordinarily, I'm open-minded about the principled third-party vote, but not now. Vote Dem., no matter who that Dem. is. Congressional majorities mean too much to argue moral fine points.

People like Nelson (D-NE) Bayh (D-IN) are elected in strongly Repug states. If they were not DINOs, they would be Repugs. There is no alternative.

If we are to gain a lead in the Senate (in this case) we are going to have to support Dems of all flavors. The main issue here is a majority in the Senate (and the House). We can no longer afford to let the Repugs have one party rule.

Support all Dems this November, especially the DINOs in Repug states/districts.

keep in mind that many red states are socially conservative but economic liberal.

I always try to look at a candidate's whole platform and entire career rather than any single issue. This is still a stretch with Ben Nelson, but not a complete failure. He's 100% in favor of public education and against drilling in ANWR.

Evan Bayh was a brilliant governor, so was Zell Miller and I suppose Ben Nelson was OK too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Bayh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zell_Miller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nelson

What most DINOs and RINOs have in common is their very broad support among their constituents. Ben Nelson may have a 0% approval rating from DU, but he has 73% approval from Nebraska. Considering how reactionary his state is, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate is actually liberal FOR NEBRASKA!!! If we are going to have a conservative senator from Nebraska, it may as well be someone who will get us one step closer to having progressive committee heads and Harry Reid as majority leader.

raising TONS of money to oust her, you would hang onto her for dear life!!

She is adamantly against drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and therefore, she is PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE to "Ted-Almost-Dead" Stevens !!!

He is raising some serious money for her R-opponent for one reason.. He HATES her!

If you don't vote for Cantwell, you're going to make a greedy old bastard who wants to drill the hell out of Alaska very, very happy..



Go Maria! WIN!

And of course, at their core, people like Cantwell and Casey really are Democrats. When it comes to preserving the environment, holding criminals responsible, getting people jobs, etc...

I don't know enough about Cantwell, but I do agree with you on Casey. Why should his position on abortion be enough to make him a DINO? Remember Edmund Muskie? He was solidly anti-abortion.

both of them were anti-choice prior to running for president.

In fact many excellent progressives prior to the 1970's were elected because they didn't have to choose a stance on abortion or gay marriage.

isn't Reid "pro-life"?

Not that it matters to your thesis, except that Reid will be Majority Leader. If anyone has a problem with that, then we should have made someone else Minority Leader.

But otherwise I totally agree with you. There are enough pro-choice Dems that I don't think Reid will create problems in that regard.

Not as agressive as Reid is, I suppose, but certainly a good, pro choice Dem.

All the best stuff dies when DINOs vote against it in the full House/Senate. Electing DINOs does not get the job done.

...as sad as it is. The most important thing is holding criminals responsible, right? We need a Democratic Congress to do that, right? Not voting for a Democrat puts the chances of having a Democratic congress in great jeopardy.

Would she really push for impeachment hearings? If she doesn't have the tenacity to call for impeachment hearings now, and then bully the Republicans over their refusal, then why should I believe she'll suddenly grow a pair after the election?

Impeachment starts in committee. With investigations. The person in charge of those investigations would be John Conyers, ranking member of the judiciary committee(if elected, he would be Chairman). Investigations won't happen unless Conyers has the power to subpoena and in turn, investigate. Again, not voting for a Democrat would keep Democrats like Conyers from being able to do that. He's been holding hearings now even WITHOUT subpoena power(as chairman, he would have that power). Investigate, and through investigations(with conclusive evidence), impeach. Does Conyers have the guts to do that? You bet.

to appoint committee Chairman. Has she confirmed she'll pick Conyers? It will be her choice to support impeachment hearings in the full House or not, and clearly the speaker of the House has significant power in deciding what happens in committees. You really think the Speaker has no say regarding what individual committees do?

Realistically, the only way to advance a progressive agenda is to elect progressive candidates.

sheesh

The vast, overwhelming, as in something on the order of 90% of ideas for bills get killed in committee and often on party line votes.

be true now because Democrats are out of power. Back when Dems had control of Congress major bills will defeated by a few votes, thanks to fellow Democrats. Remember Universal Health Care, NAFTA, and the Democrats who didn't back the filibuster of Supreme Court appointments. We can thank Democrats for making Congress go the wrong way on those issues and others.

Health care never came to a vote at all in either house. The filibuster was a stupid, desperate idea which would have backfired. Democratic Presidents would forever have had to have their Supreme Court nominees pass the muster of the 40t most conservative Senator. Gay rights would never happen at that rate, nor any other contraversial social issue.

Karl Rove's job maybe?

Guys like Casey and Lieberman win huge landslide victories because they have such a broad base of support from their constituents. Elitist latte liberals will never understand that. Same thing in John Murtha's district. Some Republican is challenging him for being "soft on homeland security" and "being in Washington too long" but no matter how many wealthy bigshots prop up her campaign, she is never going to beat Big John Murtha. It's just not going to happen because his constituents support him so much.

Having a conservative Democrat or a Republican are not the only two options in most of the nation. You seem to be suggesting an approach that would keep a conservative majority in Congress, even after Democrats take control. A conservative majority is going to adopt a conservative agenda, no matter what party label you put on it.

If a conservative Democrat can ensure their seat is safe by working hard and developing a good reputation with voters, then so can a progressive Democrat. I'm not willing to give up that fight for temporary gains that don't ultimately accomplish the goal of passing a progressive agenda. We could just as easily have a progressive Democratic Senator winning by a landslide in Lieberman's state if we didn't allow party labels to stop us from standing up for what we believe in.

And not all liberals are elitist latte drinkers, despite the desire of O'Reilly and Bush to have us think so.

While it's probably true that having a conservative Democrat or a Republican are not the only two choices in *most* (i.e. more than 50%) of the nation, there are still a great many states where they are.

There are a lot of states where a genuine progressive won't win or will be far less likely to win than a moderate, no matter how hard they work.

only makes areas more conservative, as progressive arguments and voices are never presented. Constantly electing moderate Democrats in an area guarantees it will become more conservative for lack of an alternative voice.
I've seen progressive candidates get elected in conservative areas by having the right message and circumstances. Sadly, most never get the chance due to lack of support from the party establishment.

I applaud liberal challengers like Ned Lamont, John Tasini, and Chuck Pennacchio for standing up for what they believe in and fighting the good fight. I voted for Chuck Pennacchio because I support the progressive ideals that he stands for and for the fact that he's not beholden to any special interests, not even liberal ones. Senator Chuck Pennacchio would be the Paul Wellstone of PA.

But Casey still won a solid majority in every county in PA including Philadelphia and he got more votes than Rick Santorum who ran unopposed in his primary. In 2004, Casey got more votes than any candidate for any office in state history. If every DUer sat out the election or voted third party (I would strongly advise AGAINST that btw) Casey will still destroy Santorum in November.

Sure, I disagree with him on abortion, death penalty, and the Iraq war...and the fact that he's not consistently "pro-life".

But most DUers will agree with him on gay rights, unions, minimum wage, social security, health care, education, agricultural policy, lobbying and ethics reform, fiscal responsibility, and many more of the issues that directly affect our lives every damn day. That's why a conservative Democrat on his worst day is still much better than an Opus Dei Republican on his best day.

Besides, Casey wants to reduce abortions like a Democrat: Head Start, better education, contraceptives, family planning, health care, strong economy, living wage, programs for working mothers, etc. and views Roe v. Wade as the law even though he disagrees with it.

If a progressive Democratic president appoints progressive judges, does anyone seriously think conservative Dems will vote against them? There's no need for Sam Alito to even be considered for the Supreme Court if Gore or Kerry were president.

then accusing progressives of doing what they just did.

cool!

I think her support for Iraq and her inaction with Alito was great. I am very proud she is my senator. I hope she supports Bush again with an invasion of Iran too! I will back her all the way with that. :sarcasm: :eyes:


Some stinking choices we have these days!


John

or had the power to prevent Alito from being confirmed (which would have happened, filibuster or no filibuster).

:kick:

:)

and start investigations.

It is not nearly so important at this time whether or not Pelosi or anyone else has committed themselves to impeachment. What is important is investigations of abuse of power. With progressive Democrats like Conyers in the position to do this - we can start getting somewhere.

If the Democrats take the House this November

10 members of the Progressive Caucus would become chairmen of committees

John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

Even a vote for a conservative Dem is a vote for Conyers and the 10

https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute

:shrug:

items will get somewhere and most of the worst aspects of right-wing demagoguery will be hobbled.

No it won't be the same as if we elected a solid progressive/liberal/left majority.

That will have to wait for some bright November day in the not so distant future.

But one thing at a time.

Alright, maybe I'm not in a position to lecture anyone, I'm in Rush Holt's district and he's about as good a Congressman as I could wish for but imagine these important congressional committees being taken over by old Democratic warhorses like Kennedy, Conyers, Rangel.

Isn't that worth voting for even if your Democratic Congressman is a total hack?

If I were living in Connecticut, I would support a genuine progressive in the primary, but if Lieberman won the nomination I would vote for Lieberman, because even Lieberman counts toward the Democratic majority we want to establish.

after a few years of betrayal concerning the most impeachable executive branch any of us will see.

are ever so right... But we must stay focused!

:)

this horrible fascist/corporatist republican regime, there is no practical alternative. We have to remove the fascists from power.

We'll put the Dems that are in the corporate pocket under a microscope after we take back Congress. It will be easy to see who the traitors are when Dems have a small majority in the House and/or Senate. The DINOs will vote with the republicans to prevent any legislation that is for the people and contrary to the interests of the economically elite.

They will never hold office, (at least not as a Democrat), again after their term is up.

Refresh my memory - will they automatically gain those positions, or must they face a vote?

And if they face a vote, isn't it possible that DINOs WON'T vote for them?

I don't know, which is why I ask.

because he will be governor of PA in 2010. Not even a wooden stake can stop that. But if electing him now gets rid of Santorum, and therefore end his inevitable Presidential campaign (on the Opus Dei platform), then I'll be just fine with that. Meanwhile I hope Chuck Pennacchio builds up a decent support base and gets some experience so he can win the special election when Senator Casey resigns.

There are DUers here who would love to kick everyone out of the Democratic party and have the ultimate elitist goal: a party of one. There are others who will do whatever they can to put Republicans in office.

Around the Alito confirmation hearings I posted a surprising bit of truth...that many DUers here were violently attacking specific liberal Democrats for allowing Alito to be confirmed, who in reality had voted FOR the filibuster and AGAINST Alito! I suggested that this type of dishonesty reeks of Rove. Wild accusations can stir up wild emotions...even if it's complete bullshit.

Never in a million years. I will not give up my freedom of choice to vote for a person just because he or she calls themselves a Democrat. He or she has to do better than that. DINO's can kiss this voters ass.

For every vote you don't give a congressional "DINO," that is another vote that isn't going to contribute to the leadership of John Conyers, Ted Kennedy and other progressives who would secure your freedom. Remember, the DINO's won't be in power, they would rather be contributing to a majority led by great progressives(like Conyers and a number of other incredible progressives who would become chair) who would secure your freedom.

If you lived in Ted Kennedy or John Conyers district, wouldn't you vote for them? Voting for a DINO is like voting for Kennedy and Conyers while living in their district because they are the people who would get power if the Democrats won a majority. However, not voting for the "DINO" would be simply like not voting for Kennedy and Conyers. This year is more important than any other to do this.

Again, do it for Teddy! :)

let's get some people in power who actually work, instead of passing symbolic bills meant to polarize people against immigrants! Keep the rubber stamp repugs out of power positions!!!