Harold Ford (D) of Tennessee is huge A-HOLE

CNN just aired something about this idiot from Tennessee being in favor of a constitutional ban on same sex marriage :wtf:

He's also in favor of a constitutional amendment on flag burning. (such a critical problem in the U.S.) :eyes:

Look at his civil rights positions!!

He received ONLY a score of 60 from the ACLU based on a mixed civil rights voting record!! Are you kidding me???

This is outrageous for a minority who's a so-called democrat and should know better.

I used to think so highly of him.

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Harold_Ford.htm

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Ending racial profiling is part of fight for justice. (Jan 2001)
Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)


He's also a closet Bush lover and a war monger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ford,_Jr.

"...He has told Democrats they should be more supportive of George W. Bush on the war in Iraq and criticized Senate Democrats who attempted to filibuster Samuel Alito."

HEY HAROLD. YOU'RE A COWARD

..Larry Kudlow's favorite Democrat.

is supposed to be about protecting rights.

I could not agree more. A smarmy, opportunistic s**hole, in fact.

TC

His campaign has likely determined what positions might get him that post. Understandably, they are not going to be in alignment with the most liberal versions of those issues.

If he were to run on Barbara Boxer's positions in Tennessee, he would lose by a wide margin. If he wishes to WIN, his positions are going to have to reflect the voting demographics of the state he's running in.

If you were directing his campaign, and your goal was to win in the Tennessee Senate race, how would you advise him differently than he is being advised now?

things just to get elected in TN? I'm not saying that's right, but it may be impossible to get a strong Dem elected in that State.

their own best interests.

Rather than giving into the hate and small mindedness that the Republicans draw out in people, Democratic candidates need to focus on the issues and to call out the hate mongering and divisiveness for what it is: a distraction from the destruction of this country!

He can't be trusted

against what THEY perceive as their best interests. They have different beliefs that you and I, and we may say they're wrong, but that's what THEY want!

Personally, I don't like same sex marriage either, but I really don't care what you or anyone else does, becasue it doesn't affect me, so I am against an amendment.

I think the flag burning issue is pretty dumb. The only people I've seen burn the American flag out of hate were in a foreign country and some US law will not stop that! Making a law seems to apease some people, and it doesn't harm me either, so I don't care.

The Pledge also seems to be something that some folks get all hung up on. I say, if you don't want to say it, then don't.

If these things get Ford elected, then I think it's worth it. After all, isn't the job of a Rep. and Sen. to vote the way the people who elected him wish?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the act of burning a flag is protected under the Bill of Rights. A flag burning amendment will, as been argued more than a few times, chip away at the First Amendment. It's bad law.

I will vote for Harold Ford Jr. because he is a damn site better than any Republican running - AND with more Dems in the Senate, we COULD become the majority party and give chairman seats to Democrats.

Geez.

It is quite obvious you do not live in Tennessee - he HAS to be more conservative to stand a chance against or Reich-wing media.

He is the only Dem running.

He is not a "perfect liberal, though" ,amy of the votes listed in the OP are liberal.

I have always been fond of him. He is bright and thoughtful and I like to hear him speak on the issues. He is diplomatic even when he is being very strong on the issues.

He seemed to enter as a rising star but was frowned on when he broke tradition to challenge Pelosi for leadership in the House.

Though I disagree with many of his votes I like him. He really won my heart when that strange Ohio congress woman cut down Murtha during a House debate. He jumped from his seat, jumped the barrier and ran to the front yelling his objection. When interviewed in the break between votes he was calmer in his speaking but his eyes were just blazing. To see that passionate reaction from the ever poised Ford was moving.

If I lived there I'd not only vote for him but campaign for him. It could be running in Tennessee he needs to be more conservative or it could be that being raised there he IS more conservative. If he wins a Senate seat and becomes more established he might be able to move more to the left. In any case he is better than a republican.

and intelligent post. Oh, and AMEN!

Don't forget that as a Senator, Gore occupied a position similar to Joe Lieberman back in the late '80s.

I don't agree with everything he does either, but we need someone like him in the Senate, DINO or not.

Another example of where pragmatism trumps idealism.

It is infinitely more important to take control of Congress than to try to install a more DU-acceptable liberal/progressive candidate in a conservative state; as if that were possible anyway (yikes). If Dems can take back Congress, meaningful oversight and investigations begin and then the righteous reckoning America sorely needs will follow. I'm talking about accountability for their crimes, maybe impeachment.

That seat is pivotal in the upcoming election. Short of clubbing baby seals, IMO whatever it takes.

If Rosa Parks (whom you quote in your sig line) were alive today -- I bet you anything she would not vote for this moran based on his pro-war, terrible civil rights voting record.

You forget, Rosa Parks supported J. C. Watts!!

or just that she urged him not to give up his congressional seat as a Republican?

"'If you can, please remain as a pioneer on the Republican side until others come to assist you,' she writes."

Didn't she compare his holding his seat to her's on the bus?

Or did she support his right-wing, conservative positions on issues?


At any rate, Watts got another seat ... on the Board of Clear Channel ... John Deere, Wells Fargo, NASCAR, SBC Communications, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Dillard’s Department Stores, and Terex Corporation." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=J.C._Watts

So you consider Ford a Democrat! Not after today, for me.

He is a registered member of the Party, he is elected to the House of Representatives by Democratic voters in his district in Tennessee, and he is the leading prospect of the Party in that state as their candidate for Senate this year.

you mentioned that Rosa Parks supported JC Watts, and I just asked whether she supported his 'politics' or did she just support him not giving up his Republican seat in Congress? Maybe she supported both. I don't know.

I didn't say anything about Ford; however, I already knew about Ford's DLC-side. I agree with you about Ford.

ONLY Dem running in this state?

Good Lord.

But, keep in mind, he IS running for the Senate..in Tennessee. His vote against banning gay adoptions in D.C. is probably more indicative of how he REALLY feels about gay rights. On the marriage issue, he probably just wanted to pre-empt those "he supported immoral homosexual marriage" attack ads the Repubs would have liked nothing better than to use against him.

If--hopefully, when--he gets in the Senate, he's got a lot of ground to make up even to approach Barrack Obama, I'll say that.

B-)

only when the bill in question had no chance of passing anyway. When it was close -- as with the Patriot Act -- he voted on the right side. Ford's running for Senate, and he needs a few conservative creds to win. I don't give a damn if he a few votes that I don't agree with. When it counted, it seems he was on our side. And besides, he'd be another "D" toward a Democratic majority in the Senate, and that's what matters most.

"the bill in question had no chance of passing anyway?" :shrug:

Lets just for arguments sake agree that he did.

Well then, he has no spine.

it means he's not stupid enough to be philosophically pure and unemployed. You pick your battles in politics, or else you lose.

As for whether or not you know a vote is going to be close, just look at the list you posted. Even I could tell you which ones have no chance of passing, much less someone like Ford who's constantly in the thick of it.

1. TN is not CA or MA. TN isn't too big on electing democrats anymore. A Feingold or Boxer isn't going to get elected in TN anytime soon. You know he is going for Frist's seat, right? What do you think of Frist.
2. Have you looked at who he is running against. You may only agree with Ford on 20% of the issues, but you will agree with the repubs he is up against 0%.
3. Are you someone who complains about how dems can't do anything in the senate? Well, that is because they are the minority party. If you want them to get things done, they need to be the majority party, and they need this seat for that.

Ok, that said, you can go back dem bashing, just in time for Nov 06. :party:

*

Should we

a. pretend to agree with Ford,

b. Bash the Republicans who agree with him, but not Ford himself (thus making ourselves hypocrites)

c. Just ignore these issues all together and let Ford and Bush people do what they want?

D. Other?....

Please advise.

The positions he is advocating are not "moderate" at all- they are far right wing. (Supporting wars based on lies= Right wing. Anti-free speech= right wing. Anti-civil/equal rights= right wing)

I'm asking for at least a moderate-not a flaming Liberal. But before you adress these comments- how about a, b, c, or d?

Which choice do you think fits best?

Ultimately you want those of us who care about issues to shut up and let the strategists who lost the last 3 elections continue on.

If this is where he stands on the issues, I would prefer a Republican get the blame for the destruction those positions will bring upon Democracy.

Certainly there are other issues that would appeal to MODERATES or old-time conservatives rather than right-wingers that he could hang his hat on, oh well.

I'm just saying you're setting your expectations too high.

I should lower my expecttations and be happy with pretending I agree with Bush & Ford.

I'm saying that you cant answer my specific questions because you know it would expose this "strategy" for what it is- a message of support for Bush on the issues.

:wtf:

Here's what I suggest, since you asked:

1. Support Ford getting elected in TN.
2. Once elected, engage in debate about the issues that concern you.

You see, engaging in the debate before the election is counter-productive, since it only leads to an election loss in which case none of your views matter one whit and debate is not even entertained.

Just my humble opinion.

Peace.

Thanks, but no thank-you.

If Ford does not want to listen to moderates now, what makes us think he will entertain our views once elected? (assuming "me too- " Democrats can even get elected- ask Max Cleland & Tom Dascle)

Who would you prefer win that election?

The moderate Democrat, Harold Ford, Jr. or one of the three Rethugs who are running?

The only other Democrat that was running, State Senator Rosalind Kurita, dropped out of the race.

There are currently 4 candidates running.

Harold Ford, Jr. - Democrat
Ed Bryant - Republican
Bob Corker - Republican
Van Hilleary - Republican (has double digit lead over the other two)

You do want a Democratic pick up there don't you?

~~ BTW.. Sorry for fueding.. Hope we're still buddys!

How is supporting a war based on lies "moderate?" It's right wing, if not out-right facist.

How is being against free speech "moderate?" It's not. It's right wing- if not facist.

How is being against civil rights "moderate?" It's not- its hateful & biggoted.

Of course I want the man with a captial "D" behind his name to win- but I'd prefer he win as a moderate, not as a right-winger.

...but I'll do it anyway. She supports the war, and is certainly a DINO. In the primary (ongoing) I've been working against her, in favor of a candidate I prefer. But, in the end, I won't risk losing the seat to a Republican just to send a message.

I empathize with your dissent, but it is a path which has a very predictable and losing outcome.

Peace.

Where we bent over backwards to pretend we supported Bush on various issues- or set ourselves up as flip-floppers once we decided we did not?

I think it's funny that so many DUers think that straying from the losing strategy of the past 3 elections is the one that brings a "losing outcome."

Spare me your sympathy- the strategy that has brought us a losing outcome 3 election cycles in a row has nothing to do with my idea that we run as solid DEMs or moderates instead of Right-wingers and "flip-floppers."

I think we lost the last 3 elections because of voter fraud, vote manipulation, a politicized media, gerrymandering, and Republican crimes.

I believe we would have won all three elections had these items not occurred, in spite of the fact that many Dems are certainly DINOs.

"Losing outcome" was a reference to the Senate seat in Tennessee, not Congress as a whole or the presidential elections or any other election.

One more thing, I didn't offer you my sympathy - I said I empathized with you.

Now, if I can offer you some support, perhaps if we agreed to focus on the media telling us the whole truth, we wouldn't have an electorate so totally misinformed that it taints the whole political process. Perhaps hounding the media to reveal voter fraud issues honestly, Iraq war atrocities, the Bankrupting of Medicare, the bloated federal government, and the hubris, lies and crimes of the Republicans, misguided Democrats such as Ford would be forced into a more honest position themselves.

I could certainly support that effort in the short-term.

Finally, I'm happy to have your opinion aired in the public discourse and I'm also willing to be wrong. I'm willing to concede to your position that we should not promote candidates who favor the war if you can demonstrate that your suggestions are more likely to win the Senate seat for the Dems in 06. I recognize that the "Bush-lite" Democratic position has lost recently in the South, but I would argue that this is more a result of gerrymandering, propaganda and Republican chicanery rather than a strategic misstep on the part of the Democrat.

Thanks for the discussion!

Peace.

n/t

the coming government. Mind you, if you prefer to stand on principal and protest his candidacy, promoting his weaknesses to the detriment of the overall desire for Democrats to retake control of Congress in 06, I can live with that. But, it won't be fair for you to complain as your rights continue to be stripped away by the criminal Republican majority, because you would have helped deliver that electoral verdict.

I wish you all the best and am glad we share similar ideals overall, even if we differ from time to time.

peace

All fire should be concentrated on the enemy until their defeat is achieved; Rep. Ford is not an enemy, he is simply someone more to the center of the political spectrum than some here, and probably the Party's best available choice to gain a Senate seat in his state.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

And you know what- it stuck.

Good luck.

who you aren't going to agree with very much. Except the fact that other democrats may like those candidates a lot, and have some respect for them. This is a big tent party, is it not? If you have a problem with a democrat, I'd prefer to discuss it in a civil manner. I disagree with many DUers on many issues, but I don't start a thread with "DUers are ASSHOLES!" That would be a pretty dumb way to start a discussion, no?

My ultimate plan is to get as many democrats in office as possible, and get as many republicans out of office as possible. If the democrats are disappointing their constituents, they should be challenged in primaries. Ford was challenged in the primary and his opponent dropped out. We need this seat for majority. The repubs he is running against are TERRIBLE. I couldn't live with myself if I sat around and let one of those republicans take that seat. America can't take much more of republican rule, and replacing Frist with Ford would be a large step in the right direction.

Can we not win these states by being MODERATE on issues rather than far-right & pro-Bush?

so your position is moot.

But I should give up on that notion- since most of us seem content to pretend to agree with his Pro-Bush postions rather than work to make him adopt a winning strategy.

So, yeah, considering those here who will make excuses for pro-Bush positions as opposed to forcing him to be a moderate, my point is indeed moot.

If you are a DEM who runs as Republican, voters will pick the real thing every time.

The dynamics here are to the right of the coasts - middle IS right, unfortunately, in Tennessee. The "center" is too far left for many of the mushy middle voters in this state.

And, my position is that I would like to get him elected, take over the Senate and give him some room to push back the center toward the left and do it in such a manner that the voters in Tennessee can learn that "libruls" aren't wacky, kooky, wild, etc (like our Reich-wing-dominated media here tells us) and that they can represent their best interests.

For example, the voters in Tennessee will NOT get rid of our regressive sales tax structure - that even taxes food - for a more progressive income tax. It doesn't occur to the vast majority of the poor and middle class here that a state income tax would BENEFIT and not hurt them.

We're dealing with this mentality - so we HAVE to move left in a manner that explains to these people that change is OK - in fact, it's GOOD.

They are the radicals, we are the moderates. With Bush at 29%, now is the time to make that case, in my opinion.

When he loses, you guys will probably claim he did not go far right enough. If he wins, you use that as an excuse for his continued right-wing voting on the issues:

"Nooooo- he HAS to vote with Bush- he ran as a Bush supporter- if he does not support Bush again- he will lose his re-election and we will lose a seat..."

Round & round we go.

I'd prefer he run as a REAL moderate- I think he could win if he did.

know they won the last election because they cheated... but I digress.

In regards to Tennessee, specifically, it's not so much a matter of framing as it is access to media. Most media, outside of Memphis and metropolitan Nashville, is to the right of Jerry Falwell here. There's no AAR unless you're wealthy enough to own a satellite radio (outside of Nashville - and maybe Memphis. Not sure if it's on there or not).

I worked for 12 years as a reporter - I know how insanely right-wing most of our media conglomorates are here. I also know that many rural voters get their "news" from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity because it's the ONLY option afforded to them as they commute into the city from the rural counties. Sad, but true.

I would also prefer that he run as a real moderate - and he is on many, many issues - but he still has to bow to a constituency that includes some pretty right-leaning Democrats. Hell, our own former party chair practically banned Howard Dean from coming here to support other Dems (and worked hard to keep him from being elected DNC chair - thankfully, we have a kick-ass new party chair here who's much more liberal).

It's a tough state and I can agree with what you're saying, but I also live here and know what the reality is.

Ford's polling numbers show that he's running the CLOSEST campaign against any Republican running since Gore left office to be our VP.

PS - Went to go look some numbers up for you: Lamar Alexander, our other Republican senator, beat his Democratic challenger, Bob Clement, 54 percent to 44 percent. And Ford is polling within one of Corker and only just outside the margin of error (+ or - 3 points) behind Bryant and Hilleary.

I'm not buying "the election was stolen" excuse until Democrats like Ford are all on TV saying so. Until then, it's just somehting DUers throw out as an excuse to hold on to strategy A or tactic B.

"no-no- we didnt lose because we were too right wing- we lost b/c they stole it..." Problem, that excuse does me no good if Kerry and other promiment DEMs wont say so.

Perhaps your article will change that, but considering the "dont make DEMS rock the boat" attitude on this thread, dont count on it.

Sure, the media is against us- that is no reason to go along with the false perceptions the media endorses. It's time to challenge those perceptions rather than go along with them.

Dems haven't had any power to do much speaking out - but if they don't, then nothing will ever change. It's kind of a Catch-22.

And, I do think some Democrats have been speaking out about this issue, notably John Conyers.

I hope this article does give them a voice to start complaining more forcibly, though.

However, my statement was more of a flippant one in the post above. I certainly agree that we can't blame all of our losses on Deibold and ES&S. We need to reach out more to the people - become the party of the people again - and we need to try to find ways, successful ways, around the corporate media to get our message, our real message, out to the people.

n/t

I happen to agree with you on them, as well.

So many DUers play the pragmatism card with regard to supporting Democrats that don't support our issues (like equal rights, free speech, and not supporting wars of choice started on massive lies), but I think they're fooling themselves.

When a guy like Ford runs with rightwing positions, often backed up by rightwing distortions or lies (see the gay marriage issue, for example), he is validating both the position ("I'm against gay marriage") and the perceived 'need' for that position ("It's unnatural/between a man and a woman/etc"). It undercuts the support for liberal positions in the party and pulls the rug out from under the feet of those in the party who support those positions.

Then there's the "vote for 'em now, make 'em listen/pay later" strategy (if it can be called that). For some unfathomable reason, people seem to believe that this is a stance of power, when in fact (thanks to gerrymandering of districts and widespread incumbent complancency and/or corruption) it is a position of weakness. Anyone who thinks that these people will actually feel threatened by those who voted them into office despite objections is delusional. And if Ford is cajoled into dropping his rightwing stances, he'll be seen as a traitor by those rightwingers or conservatives who voted for him BECAUSE of his rightwing stances, and they'll turn out in droves for retribution.

I have no idea how to fix the issue, save primary challenges like Lamont's - which a lot of DUers argue against, which is actually arguing against democracy itself.

But people should stop lying to themselves that their so-called pragmatism isn't unethical and self-interested, as well as short-sighted.

democratic voters are robots with no minds and that we'll support them no matter how shitty their record is JUST to make sure a republican doesn't get elected instead.

Come on, think about it.

That philosophy is a get out of jail free card for every single democrat.

When in reality, he could still win by taking MODERATE stances on the important issues.

How will the senate be with another seat going to a fundy nutbag republican? What will that do for America? I wait for your response.

That is my response.

Are we really saying that Hillary, Bryant or Ford cant win with moderate as opposed to far, right-wing, Pro-Bush positions on the issues?

I agree- I dont want Frist or someone who agrees with him on some of the most important issues.

I would prefer these DEMs you mention postition themselves as good moderates rather than Rightwingers.

Could we possibly agree that Ford, etc would be better off running as a good moderate that DEMs can support w/o being hypocritcal?

Bush is at 29%- I not sure why we all still think that aping him on the big issues is such a guranteed win these days. I dont think it ever was the way to go.

I hate the DLC as much as the next guy here (with the exception of Mr. Benchley - LOL), but I'm not going to piss away my vote in a very close race.

Ford and Bob Corker are in a statistical dead heat, if Corker becomes the nominee and Ford only trails Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary by very small percentage points.

Let's not forget that the beloved Al Gore was our senator and, when he was, he voted against federal funding for abortions and voted in favor of the first Iraq War - not exactly a paragon of liberalism was he.

Get Ford into the Senate and take the Senate back and Ford will have more wiggle room to flex some liberal muscles.

He's damn good on civil rights (barring the gay marriage issue), on education and on many other liberal issues. Where I part company with him is his pro-corporatist agenda, but, let me tell you, having traveled this state during his campaign, he's becoming less and less corporate-loving because the PEOPLE are telling him about their economic woes.

but we agree on Clark too. Most of my friends and family voted for him.

the first night he came to my house to meet my son.

I had all this Clark paraphernalia sitting around, left over from the campaign, and now-hubby says, "I see you like Wes Clark." I said, "Yeah," but thought, "Uh-oh. Maybe this guy's a Republi-nut."

So, then he turns to me and says, "He was my favorite commander. I wish he would have won the primary."

Look back at Al Gore's record. Look at when he supported the Hyde amendment.

sorry, that was a terribly shallow of me

I agree!

~~ ~~

And to c-boy.. HELLLLOOOOOooOOo. So, are you saying that you'd rather a ReTHUG win?

We're talking Tenna-fuckn-see!!!! Congressman Ford is not running in your neck of the woods and the majority of voters are the opposite of what you're used to on the Left Coast!

Rock on Harold.. you're going to WIN!!!!!!

:shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

on name-calling because of their tragic lack of articulation skills? :shrug:

All I know is didn't resort to name-calling, now did I?

idiot, coward and a'hole ! I think you could have framed your debate a little more intelligently too :hi:

We probably should expect moderate Dems running in conservative states. When we take back the congress, then we push for liberal causes :patriot:

He can lobby me anytime.

he sees me, he hugs on me, walks me around the room holding my hand and generally treats me like a princess - even in FRONT of my mother-in-law. :rofl:

He knows me from the Clark campaign.

Here he is with me and my former editor:

I don't hate you, however, I am insanely jealous.

I'll bet he smells good too.

My favorite Harold Ford story is when Mean Jean Schmidt made disparaging remarks about Jack Murtha:

"Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side."

Sigh.

I don't agree with him on every issue, but he makes Tennessee look good on television, I'll tell you that. He's articulate and cultured and handsome - doing away with a lot of those backward, in-bred ugly stereotypes we Tennesseans get saddled with. LOL!

My husband and family and I have a plan: we're going to all vote for Bob Corker in the Republican primary (since Ford has no challenger) and hope like the dickins Corker is the nominee - for two reasons: 1. Ford does best against Corker. They are in a statistical dead-heat and 2. If a Republican SHOULD retain the seat, I'd rather have a pro-choice, moderate Republican like Corker than the Fundie Hilleary or the Neocon Bryant.

choose your enemies when you must (and can)

drafting legislation that will assist more people in all 50 states than would ever be the case if Tennessee sent yet another idiot Republican to that chamber to work on legislation that would restrict our liberties.

Ford would be a plus, and we need to stand behind him.

The Dixie Chicks? Sounds like a tough state. I would support Ford :patriot:

I'll tell you one thing C-boy.. if the Democrats come calling for a strategist -- please -- please don't answer the phone!

n/t

political fate needs to be addressed to Saxby Chambliss and Ralph Reed and Karl Rove.

They held the cards in that race.

Max also had too much class to respond to Rove & Reed's negative ads- i'll give you that- but he used Ford's current strategy on the issues. It failed.

They cheated.

That's the starting point.

Were his positions more conservative as a senator from Georgia than Wyden's are from Oregon? Certainly. That's the politics of survival.

That doesn't mean Max Cleland is a failure, or that his positioning was inherently wrong for his political survival in that state.

Let's put it where it goes: at the feet of Chambliss and Reed and Rove.

Politics of survival???- ummm- Max LOST. How is that survival????

Max could have responded to the negative ads- but the strategists who lost the last 3 election cycles thought that "Bush Bashing" would make him "look weak on defense."

We will lose in 2006 if our "strategy" is to make excuses for DINOs instead of holding thier feet to the fire.

corporate flunkies is a great starting point, yes.

I would agree that they're the bad guys.

Not Max Cleland. Not Harold Ford.

Ignore the issue they agree on?

Pretend we agree with them on the issue?

Bash the Republican but defend the Democrat,(AKA- the "flip-flopper" position)??

The flaw in your arguement is that Republicans do NOT represent me on the issues- while Democrats supposedly do, or are supposed to.

Sure- let's focus on the GOP as "lying theives" on the issues- but the problem is that by your logic,that makes many of our own guys "lying thieves" on some very important issues.

I feel this mind-set sets us up as "flip-floppers" once again.

hinge.

We don't always get the flavor we most prefer in politics. That's the nature of the contention and competition in ideology. It isn't designed to be a purist's experience. It's necessarily contentious and contradicting and often frustrating.

The progressive position has NEVER been a majority viewpoint among the American populace, in my opinion. FDR certainly dominated the scene for decades, and we think of his initiative now as "liberal," but a lot of sheer dependency was involved. People were desperate and turned to a strong leader. Luckily he was a Democrat with a pro-social philosophy and capability.

What would we say to Harold Ford? "We want you to be left of center on gay rights, on a woman's right to choose, on all judicial appointments, on gun control, and on sex ed in the schools." I'm cool with every one of those positions. For all I know, Ford might be also, but Ford, unlike me, is running for a senate seat in Tennessee, a state that went strongly red for Bush against native son Al Gore.

What would we say to him? Run a more liberal and principled campaign platform, even if it gets your ass kicked from here to Hong Kong?

I doubt seriously most politicians in either party would opt for that strategy.

We need a majority vote in the House and Senate, and flaws'n'all, Ford is worth our support.

The problem is many of you on this thread are using the post 9-11 GOP/media political spectrum as a model- whereby anything to the left of Hitler is "too Liberal" or "too progressive."

I think Ford could beat Frist by being a good Democratic Moderate- he does not need to support wars based on lies, be opposed to free speech or civil rights in order to be a moderate...

I never said he run as a Micheal Moore Liberal- that is a strawman.

I vote the candidate.

What would be my choices in Tennessee's senate race in 06? It would be Ford, without question.

Does Harold Ford represent the kind of Mario Cuomo Democrat I personally prefer? No he does not.

Is he savvy enough to get elected in Tennessee? Very possibly. Would his vote generally help Democrats in the U.S. Senate, to say nothing of gaining its majority on Committee chairs? Yes. Definitely.

And I isolate that in and of itself as a worthy goal.

On top of that, legislation Ford may draft seems more likely to me to be more humane than legislation a Republican opponent who defeats him might draft.

I stick with the blue team.

We seem to win elections win we act like moderates or Democrats- not when we agree with Bush (29%)

I'm not saying that we dont support him against Frist- I'm saying we preassure him & other DEMs to be MODERATES or Democratic on the big issues instead of making excuses for them when they support Bush(29%).

I never said he be a New York, early 80's era Mario Cumo Liberal- that is another strawman.

Cuomo is in my view a Democrat's Democrat. That's what I meant by that.

Pressuring centrists and moderates toward a more liberal social agenda? I'm all for it, and let it begin post haste.

Let it NOT begin by calling one of our guys "an A-Hole."

I'm not saying we "Pressur(e) centrists and moderates toward a more liberal social agenda"

I'm saying we preassure Democrats with far-right postions like Ford's to adopt ones that are more centrist or moderate.

Ford's strategies were successful.

I say we root for our team against the other team.

I think we win when we run as moderates DEMS.

Like Truman said- if a DEM runs as a Republican, voters will pick the real thing every time.

I hope you are right- but I see how this will play out- if he loses with this strategy (based on history,I think he will)then all you guys will say he did not go FAR ENOUGH to the right. If he screeches by, it will be seen as a validation that we should all copy Bush on the issues- which means he would continue to vote wiht the GOP on many of the biggest issues.

I would prefer he run and win as a good moderate and avoid these far-right positions. I wish we would TRY it, just once.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Especially since he is now fire-breathing Anti-Bushite since he learned his lesson in '02.

If he had used that same rhetoric & agressiveness in the campaign, I'm convivnced he would have done better than he did with the "me too" strategy.

Wasn't he winning in all the polls, including the exit polling, and then BOOM! lost the election AFTER Georgia got those damned Diebold machines?

Or Ford, for that matter.

"But-but-but- if they go on TV and say that- all the right-wingers will say they are crazy and none of the swing-voters will vote for them- they must appear 'moderate'..."

Now Roy Barnes vs. Sonny Perdue is a different story. That's the most convincing evidence I've seen of Diebold at work.

When I lived there, the two senators were:

Jim Sasser (D)
Al Gore (D)

And the governor was:

(D) Ned McWherter

ALL DEMOCRATS


So, yea, I have lived in the south.

The next time someone comes calling for a researcher, you please don't answer the phone :hi:

n/t

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



Of course, bordering Nashville to the south is Williamson County - the richest county in TN, and very Repuke.

being fearful of the Dixie Chicks, are you?

I mean, those women... why, they said untoward things about the president! I heard they even questioned his policy on Iraq!

It's wise to ban people like that. They spread doubt and unease in the general population! Essentially it provides aid and comfort to the terrorists. Think of it that way: a country-and-western trio of women shilling for al Qaeda right there in Nashville!

=========

Hi there. How ya doin'? Good post, as always. Let's get some more Democrats in that damned Congress! Go, team.

GD-P is full of Dem bashing today..ugh.

We should be Fighting Dems, not fighting the dems. I like Harold Ford :hi:

But it might help some if we sent him some good vibes.

I'm more of a Barbara Boxer Democrat than a Harold Ford Democrat, but when the choice comes down to Ford and just about any Republican on earth, I'm strongly for Ford.

You take care.

Nashville is in Tennessee and they're playing there in October.

http://www.stubhub.com/dixie-chicks-tickets/?event_id=309949

But, your statement is funny. :)

and he has been the darling of the prowar faction for a long time.

http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

Go Harold Ford, Jr. ~~~ Don't let the dirty ReTHUG win!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All the old time Duers know I'm from GA- you can believe it or not.

If you want to insinuate I'm being dishonest, you can have the guts to respond to me directly.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.. which I don't know.

No more arguing though..

I hope he wins, you don't.. I guess we'll just have to live with that.

n/t

What do you expect a Dem in a conservative state to be like, anyway.

If he wins, he'll put us one step closer to a Dem majority. That's all I care about.

And perhaps he's not a coward after all. He just happens to disagree with you. Hey, that's America for you.

Cowardice implies that he feels one way and is acting another. I see no indication of that.

That's the goal for 06, and 06 is right now.

Go, Ford.

I think this is a false argument- that if he does not run as a right-winger, he will lose.

I say we support him.

We may prefer that he be more ideologically aligned with our positions. Nothing wrong with saying so.

But subtracting from his chance to win the seat that gives us a majority in the Senate is missplaced criticism.

I personally don't appreciate going to a ball game where the team I'm rooting for is in the field, and a fan of the opposite team tosses a beer can at one of our outfielders. It pisses me off. I thought calling Harold Ford "an A-Hole" was equivalent to that beer can, and I didn't care for it. There's a reason baseball benches clear so swiftly when an opposing pitcher brushes back, or beans, a team member in the batter's box. There's a loyalty reflect, and it's strong, and it's understandable.

I think we are being given a false choice on this thread- support Ford (and by proxy, Bush on several big issues) or be stuck with Frist.

I'm saying now is the time to pressure these DEMs to run as moderates- that way the majority can buy it, and the DEM base can get behind it w/o debates like the one we are having now.

I dont believe that his support for Bush on certain issues gurantees him a win- I've not seen that tactic work much for DEMs in recent years.

I find that a bit self-defeating, don't you?

We throw our support and hopes behind our guys. And our gals. It's a team effort, and it takes a lot of time and toil. Ford is trying to get elected to the U.S. Senate. I'd say we're better off if he makes it than we'd be if his GOP opponents make it.

Frist isn't even running for the Senate in 06.

He has announced that he's stepping down, likely to pursue the presidencey, Jesus help us all.

And I think he CAN win as a moderate- but it wont happen if we make excuses for his pro Bush (29%) positions as opposed to holdinghis feet to the fire.

Pardon me, but I dont TRUST the advice the strategists who lost the last 3 election cycles are giving Ford & others.

Why does that make me against the team as opposed to a concerned player who wants to win for once?

And I was repsonding to the posts that keep comparing him to Frist: "He's better than Frist, etc"

I don't even know who's running Ford's campaign.

But isn't this coming down to two basic directions?

To me, it is, anyway.

The first is that people in the thread top to bottom are in likely agreement with the OP on the subject of the issues presented, as issues. The LGBTQ issues in particular. We sense a nobility in those, and would like to see them advance in a more welcoming political climate across the country.

The second is whether Ford's taking positions too far right for our own comfort warrants support in his race for the senate.

And the conundrum for me is how to heartily endorse cboy's stands on those issues without abandoning the 06 strategy of recapturing the House and Senate.

How far off am I?

instead of upholding or giving them should be elected Dog Catcher.

It is not.

This is an electability issue. Al Gore, a native Tennessee moderate -- MODERATE -- was creamed by the idiot George Bush in 2000 in his home state.

Now don't tell me your purist take on gay marriage is going to play in Tennessee. So what if you hold that position, and so what if I agree with you?

We are running a senate campaign in Tennessee. Ford is. What would you have him do? Vote on principle in accord with US and then get his ass kicked?

Where does that leave him?

This is politics. Politics is nasty and white-knuckled and low-down dirty. We ain't gonna git it our way all the time.

keep hoping for someone who can stand up and say with his or her heart, "this is wrong, this is right, this is what I believe" and make the voters see that high moral character and real compassion for everyone is desirable in a leader.

I know that what you say about politics is true and I pray daily that we can take over the congress before our country is completely sold down the river.

As for Al Gore, I believe that what beat him worst, here at home, is the fact that he forgot to speak from his heart. Al is a leader that we could all be proud of, but everyone got so scared to show any real emotion (after Dean and the flack he took) that the handlers and speech writers made Al look goofy. He is a passionate and persuasive speaker if he just goes with his own brain and heart. If he runs again, he should speak off the cuff at all times.

speaking truth to power, and we wish it could come in a political climate that did not punish the speaker.

I think Bush's thousands of catastrophic failures include -- very near the top -- his cheap pandering to the far right fundie nutcases on gay marriage. A totally manipulated, cynical, mean-spirted, gutter-souled piece of shitwork, doubtless arranged by Karl Rove.

That's my take, and I bet I'm not alone.

He's still doing it, having no other positive ground to define himself with, so he's smearing lesbians and gays.

I feel you're on target with Gore. He needed to loosen up. I will also confess that he was too conservative for me in 2000, and I worked for Bill Bradley, and was a delegate to my state's convention for Bradley. Needless to say, my side lost that one. But I did work later for Gore against Bush, and although the Green party beckoned, I usually stay true blue in my politics.

Gore seems looser these days, and is in one of those marriages that looks pretty robust to me. That kiss at the convention was a steamer, wasn't it? Those two look happy, and secure enough in their happiness that they wouldn't wish to deny it to anybody else.

There will come a day when we see that happen. All of Europe thinks we're a pack of cretinous dolts over here when it comes to sex anyway. I'd say they're right.

cboy, accept a compliment. Your thread exploded here with a lot of posters with passionate viewpoints. A strong case could be made that that is what political discourse is for.

Consider one suggestion: email a link of this post to Harold Ford's office. His staff will field it, and there's a chance, will show it to Ford.

Wouldn't hurt him one bit to see how people are thinking on the left side of things.

All good wishes to you.

:hug:

billion years understand how hurtful it is for someone in my party to be in favor of a constitutional amendment on gay marriage.

There's no reason why he can't simply be against gay marriage. He has to go a step further.

While I would disagree with that stance, I could better deal with it.

But to amend the constitution to make sure two people who love each other can't get married, live in the privacy of their own home, go to work, mind their own business, be the productive members of society that most of us are.....that is being an ASS HOLE.

As a minority, Ford should be a little more sensitive about civil/human rights issues.

Is this something you can't understand? Can you seriously not comprehend why I might be furious?

If someone steals my car and then runs for a local race as a democrat, you think I'm going to vote for that person even though he's going to get my road paved?

And it's not just the gay marriage stance that bothers me. It's backing Bush on the war. It was being against the Alito filibuster.

Come on OC.

Republican to sit in that chair after November. You're framing it as a LGBTQ issue, but you're asking DUers to agree with you on that, and we already do.

As I've posted in this thread already, my strong guess is that very close to 100% of DUers would agree with you on the issue of lesbian and gay marriage, on the dignity of self and partner to enjoy the same privileges straight folks have in return for correspondent acts of citizenship.

I'm just not seeing any disagreement with you on that, and although I certainly do not speak for any others, I just can't imagine many on DU doing anything but endorsing you whole-heartedly on that.

But people voted for Democrats decades and centuries before gay marriage was even UTTERED in public, let alone voted on in state legislatures. Bush is grandstanding with his support of the federal amendment, and we all know it. I'd prefer that he grow some hair on his wiener and stand against the far-right cretins who think Jesus is somehow offended by same-sex pleasure. Even enlightened Christians agree with you on this issue, no question about it.

But Ford is running in Tennessee, not Boston. There are out politicians in a lot of places, but their constituents are not rabid, hellfire-thumpers from the Bible Belt. You've been to Tennessee. It's nice in the cultural venues of Knoxville and Nashville, but how far out of those cities do you think you ahve to go before they're ready to string gay people up, or kill them outright, in the manner of Matthew Shepard's murder a few years back in Wyoming?

If I ran the universe, we'd have senators and representatives along the order of Barney Frank, and Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer, and Bill Moyers -- people who would be compassionate progressives.

Turns out, though, I DON'T run the universe, and so I have to play the hand I'm dealt.

So does Ford. My support for Ford is not a disagreement with you. I'd call Ford on that, were he to ask me. I'd defer to your take on the same-sex rights issues, because I agree with them ALREADY. He may also, for all we know. But 30 miles outside Knoxville, the going gets real rough for even moderate candidates.

I'm with you on the issues, but I have to play in the political arena that's there.

or other right wing-leaning democrat once he gets to Washington?

I hear the argument, "Once we elect him, THEN we can get him to start voting more progressive."

What are the chances that'll happen?

I mean, even though he'll be away from Tennessee, he'll presumably have to keep in the mind the right-leaning democrats who voted him when he votes in D.C. (if he wants to be re-elected back home, which I'm sure he'd being interested in happening).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not convinced he's much better than his GOP opponent. His social agenda appears atrocious.

And while you many not admit it, I think deep down inside you understand why I'm so, so furious with Ford.

But I appreciate your intelligent and civil post :)

Ah, but will he vote with us? Would be interesting to see. I'm not sure he has it in him, but I could be wrong... he's awfully fond of his Pub-Lite-ness... makes him friends on both sides of the aisle, doncha know.

TC

:hi: Hi, LittleClarkie!

Yeah, that just occurred to me too. He'd probably be something like Landrieu or Nelson. But can we ask for much more down south?

But see, that's what I'm saying. He's fond of his pub-lite-ness. Hence, he's not a coward. He's a shmuck.

Semantics, I know, but it bugs me to call someone a coward when that's not what they're displaying. If Ford had shown signs of being more to the left, then suddenly collapsed toward the center right, I could see the point. But no. I think he's always been this way.

n/t

He agrees with Bush too much. but I don't think he's agreeing with Bush because he's spineless. I think he's agreeing with Bush because this is his honest opinion on the issues.

He reminds me of Byrd that way. We love Byrd when he's railing against the war, but wanted to strangle the buzzard when he came out in favor of Alito.

But I don't think we'd have a chance at winning the seat with a true progressive.

Then again, if we do get the majority, the last thing we need is this dude crossing over the aisle every five minutes.

Hrm. It is a conundrum.

His pro-Bush postions are not moderate- they are far right.

And I disagree with you on the semantics- if you favor Bush on these big issues honestly or not, it is because you are coward (scared of "fags", scared of terrorists, scared of free speech etc) to begin with.

i'd choose ford.

we don't distinguish ourselves from republicans. Why in the world would they say that??? :sarcasm:

In Harold Ford's case, they're certainly correct.

He sounds like a young Joe Lieberman to me.

in his life.

In his younger career days as an attorney, he left New England to join the cadre of professional volunteers in the Deep South to fight for the civil rights movement.

He's not the same old Joe, obviously.

Before we blame Ford for not aligning with us on issues, we have to consider that he's likely a smart politician, and the job he's vying for is a political post. It requires the resume Tennessee voters want to hear before candidates win their vote.

On DU, you're going to get nearly 100% agreement on those issues up there in your OP. But out in the 50 states, a wider adaptability is needed if we want to play in the political arena. It's not set up so that purists on the right get ____ representatives and purists on the left get ____ representatives. It's a constantly shifting gray flux, and the more politically savvy and adaptable candidate is the one who usually wins.

Way to go C-boy. Real classy of you to come on here and call a Democrat fighting to win Frist's seat an "A-Hole".

Check out the issues of the dude you'd prefer win's record:

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Van_Hilleary.htm

a)Ford OR b)Fritz Clone?

More a)Democrats in the Senate OR b) more Republicans?


Since this election is a fight to regain our democracy before we lose it forever, I choose option "a" in both cases.

Tennesse is NOT a progressive state. Last I look, even Al Gore lost that one!

You seem lost. Here's a mapquest to your reality!

NEVER NEVER LAND --the place where all Democrats agree with you 100% and vote the same as you would all of the time

It would SUCK if he won Tennessee!

the latest polls:

Former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker has jumped to the front of the GOP race for U.S. Senate, according to a poll by Knoxville TV station WBIR.

The station said, "In the past month, Republican Senate candidate Bob Corker has boosted his profile among Tennessee voters, apparently as a result of widespread advertising."

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_86376.asp

most of the time if and when he gets to Washington?!?!

If he wants to be re-elected in Tennessee, I think he's going to vote to please his right wing constituents back home.

If he strays, he loses and it's my feeling politicians care more about being re-elected than standing up for progressive issues and values.

seanie frequently talks of his dinners with mr. ford. vote for his primary opponent. harold can't be trusted

So you're saying they should vote for the R-Thug?

them "friends." I've seen footage of him chumming it up with major mob figures in early Las Vegas. Warm handshakes, knowing smiles, glimpses and winks -- the whole deal.

It didn't shake my admiration for him, or subtract from my missing the caliber of public servant he was.

Ford's given a raw deal in the OP, despite the fact that I'm betting nearly 100% of us agree with cboy on those issues.

But elections are only about issues. First, they're about getting elected.

or Ted Kennedy, but then again it is TN we're talkin about.

I don't think he's goin to make many of us happy with his votes, but ultimately, as long as he votes for Reid as majority leader, I don't really care.

First things first. We have to win. Ford has an albeit difficult, but reasonable chance of picking up a seat. I don't think we need another Frist clone to replace him.

The same goes with Casey and Santorum. People may bitch about him, but he's the nominee and we need these seats. I've noticed the same mentality around here that existed before the '04 election - people are just ASSUMING Dems will win. I think that's foolish...and just because Bush isn't popular doesn't mean states like TN are now liberal or automatically pro Dem...

Seriously though... great points!

=Whew= Hopefully we can all agree on that!



... can't we guys? ~ ~

Strawman argument to say he has to run as a Kennedy or a Boxer- how about he just run as a moderate?

which is why my post was quite critical of Ford. I'm not a big fan of his and I don't agree with his strategy of emulating conservatives. In fact I find it quite cowardly, and like Landreiu and several other red state Dems and just about every repuke in congress, I don't think they serve their constituents' particularly well either (considering LA, WV, etc have high poverty numbers but their senators often bend over to those states' corporate interests).

But I also understand partly why he does what he does. The time to get a different candidate elected is in the primaries. I'm not sure if Ford is the nominee, but he seems likely to be...and if he is, I do urge people to support him regardless. As bad as Ford will be, he still won't be as bad as a Frist clone.

I wouldn't give him my vote.

Ford obviously hasn't bothered to read the amendment that he supports...it would implicitly ban civil unions too.

A candidate doesn't necessarily have to agree with my support for gay marriage in order to receive my vote, but if he/she can't at least giving me the respect of a civil union compromise, why should I support him/her as an officeholder?

Or would you vote for one of the three Repugs?

I am sick and tired of the atmosphere of hate, distrust, and fear that Bush, Frist, and all their ilk have spread in this country. I would have to look closely at everyone running and then decide.

I am a Democrat all my life, 60 years young, but I have voted Republican on occasion when the Democrat running was not the best guy. I can do it again.

And vote for the one who I felt had the most character.

and I am embarrassed to say so.

With Bill Frist in office, Harold Ford probably thinks that mimicing him is the quickest way to get elected.

We need to take back the Congress, but not by electing morons like Ford.

Your position would ensure a Republican victory for that race.

You'd be much farther, not any closer, to your ideological choices.

I don't buy the Frist-as-a-model at all.

sense of being stupid. Perhaps I meant that he is a moral moron. Or perhaps a very sad example of what is worst about politicians sucking up to the element that they believe can elect them, no matter what they have to support ( or pretend to support) to get the votes. Please, Frist as a model, perhaps not, but supporting legislation that is completely un-American in spirit is pretty Fristian in my book.

but it's still not the point.

If I want to be represented by a pro-LGBTQ candidate, I need to move to Berkeley, California. Nashville, Tennessee would be a less convincing choice, because the strong progressive community there is small by comparison.

In California's special election between Gray Davis (D) and Schwartzenegger, the state voted 54-43 (something like that -- very close) for Arnold.

The Bay Area, though, went 80-20 AGAINST Arnold.

I can live there and expect to see mixed marriages of all ethnic persuasions, a very broad range of political viewpoints, and sexual freedom like nowhere else I've ever visited. It's amazing and it's wonderful and 30 miles east of it you drop off into 1850.

Tennessee is not Berkeley, and Ford must swim in those waters.

I don't think so.

Most non-partisan Tennessee voters would probably pick one of the two major candidates, based on what they view to be the biggest issues affecting them as voters.

So I'm not going to vote against what affects my life so intricately.

and the calls I made to Tennessee were the most difficult of any I made to any state. And I have a friend who lives down there, and she seems to feel Harold Ford is the best the Dems can do. I dunno... between a rock and a hard place is what this feels like. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't in this race.

Good luck to all who have to make this choice.

TC

This used to be a very cool state.

Good luck!

TC

I don't understand how that is better. There are only two choices in this TN election: Ford or one of the republican fundy freakshows.

There are only two possibilities here.
1. Ford wins, and dems are one step closer to a majority
2. One of the ultra fundy nutjob republicans win, and they are one step closer to complete republican dominance of our government

I couldn't live with myself if I just sat idley by and let #2 happen. America will not be able to last much longer like this, and I want to try to do something about it. I think a democratic majority is a step in the right direction, but hey, that's just me. :shrug:

If Ford is elected to the U.S. Senate, and he changes his position to be accepting of civil unions, he will be painted as a "flip-flopper."

That wouldn't necessarily be impossible for him to overcome, but do you really think he'd take that risk?

Does he slam the Bush administration's economic record on the economy, support healthcare and economic justice for Americans, and oppose trade agreements that only benefit corporations?

My guess from what I've heard of him and seen him say, the answer is no.

The reason our party used to control congress is because we had the upper hand on economic issues. As bad as the anti civil-rights bigots in our party were, they still distanced themselves from Republicans by supporting a populist economic agenda.

If Ford is going to support a socially regressive agenda that's the way it is going to be. But if he wants to win, he needs to be on the stump every day talking about George Bush's economic record and what he plans to do differently. Right now Van Hillery (his likely opponent) is beating him by 10 points because Ford is letting the race be about social issues and about local issues as well. Ford needs to tie Van Hillery to Bush's crap economic record.

and he's no Bush lover. LOL

if he's elected, and his election gives the Democrats a majority. What do you think the chances of a same sex marriage ban getting passed is? Nonetheless getting through a committee. That's not an issue right now. That's SMALL compared to what we really have to deal with right now...

are anything BUT true Dems.

SUCKUPS to the corporate welfare pimps, the lot of them.

Nice rant :thumbsup:

On the issue of DINOs

Where the hell are we, people?

In 2004, we heard "Don't rock the boat! Go along for the ride even if the oarsman isn't gonna stop for your friends. Just tell your friends 'b'bye now!' and wave as you pass!"

Maybe some of you don't have any gay friends or family members. Maybe you don't know any child-bearing-aged women. Maybe you don't know anyone who is 63 and sick and flipping hamburgers for $6.50 an hour to pay for medicine.

Maybe you don't know anyone who has served in Iraq. Maybe you don't know any Iraqis. Or Mexicans. Or anyone flooded in New Orleans. Or anyone who has been screwed up by a physician. Maybe you don't know anyone who is old or disabled. Perhaps you've never met anyone who has been an inmate in our prison system. And you've no doubt never met a person who has been raped, or a child with no hope of adoption, or an inner city child going to school in a moldy, dangerous building.

Who the hell are those of you who tell me to "play nice" so we can elect a Dem?

At any cost? Hell no.

Compromise is certainly the way of the world. I have eaten my share of shut-the-hell-up pie in this life, but no longer. And anyone with any hope of saving this Union better put down their fork as well.

Many above want to play the same damned game we have been playing since Clinton was harrassed. "Well, we have that big Scarlet Letter on our chests, so we have to act like the guilty party and just go along."

Do you realize how INANE you sound when you say crap like that, people? Come On!!!!!!! You are saying that people are too stupid to "get it" while those very same people are showing you that:


THEY GET IT!!!!!!!!

You hit them in the gut with the TRUTH for a change, and they will flock to you like fundies to Falwell.

You keep compromising and I will keep hearing people say "Dems are just like Repukes. No better. No worse." Is that REALLY what you want to hear?

I am the spawn of hundreds of years of America, from the people here on shore to the ones landing for generations. I have ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary war, and they did not gain control of this country by fooling the "dummies" into thinking they supported the king. They were very vocal in their opposition to the king, and they laid their lives on the line to give you your fucking Constitution - that one you people want me to ignore.

There are a lot of cowards in this thread. But a shout out to those who aren't afraid to say what they think. None of us should feel compelled to support a Democrat simply for the party's sake. If so, we are no better than the damned Repukes.

You keep trying to appeal to Johnny Bubba's basest instincts. I'll keep talking to his soul.

Moreover, the South has become a Republican stronghold in recent years, the castle keep for the party's Senate majority. Democrats lost five seats in the region in 2004. Of the 22 Senate seats in the South, only 4 are now held by Democrats. Party leaders are keenly aware that until they make inroads in the South, any stable majority in the Senate will be hard to achieve. But they have hopes that Mr. Ford can begin to turn the tide.

And Mr. Ford, a five-term congressman from Memphis, rouses his audiences, white and black, with little parables of political possibility: How he was driving back to Memphis one day on the campaign trail, fired up after a meeting at a church, and decided to stop and shake hands at a bar and grill called the Little Rebel. How he looked with some trepidation at the Confederate flag outside and the parking lot filled with pickup trucks, covered with bumper stickers for
President Bush and the National Rifle Association.

And how he was greeted, when he walked through the door, by a woman at the bar who gave him a huge hug. "And she said, 'Baby, we've been waiting to see you.' "

The story goes on (and on) in the way of Southern political speech, but it conveys Mr. Ford's core message: that Tennesseans of all political stripes are ready for change, tired of partisan and ideological divisions and ready for some pragmatism and action - on high energy costs, big deficits, inadequate veterans benefits, health care and education.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/us/31tennessee.html

Now... isn't that what Dems are supposed to do? Go into uncharted waters?

Imagine a black man going into THAT rat's nest.

I'm convinced.

How are people ever gonna get wise to these tactics if we just go along with them?

"high energy costs, big deficits, inadequate veterans benefits, health care and education."

Now those topics are of good, moderate or even progressive interest.

I'd rather hold his feet to the fire and let him know I think he should run on more moderate positions. Same goes for other DEMs who still think they need to ape Bush(29%) to win- I'm convinced that is not the real 3rd way.

fundies 75% of the time.

Why? Because he knows that's how the folks back home in Tennessee would want him to vote and that's what he would need to do to get re-elected.

Fortunately, with his right wing fundamentalist christian agenda, there's no way he could ever run for president and win as a democrat.

That's the good thing out of all of this.

...uncharted waters indeed !

He has to vote like a self-loathing Dem/minority because he's in the south and that's' how he can win. But don't you dare say anything negative about the south!! Just because the politicians have to be reich-wing flavored to win doesn't mean there's any sort of particular mindset that's prevalent!!

<gag>

:eyes:

ok well people just like him anyways - that's what Tennessee needs.

We accept Dems at face value, never challenge them, and we just let the Dems bend over and say "There is no religious freedom in this country?"

A Marriage Amendment to the Constitution IS saying this: "There is no religious freedom in America. You must believe as Fundies do that all gay people are going to hell and can't ever get married to each other. We're gonna put that in the Constitution for you, to remind you that OUR RELIGION is the law of the land."


Maybe that is acceptable to you as our side goes along and wins. It's not acceptable to me. I live in Tennessee, and I feel it's my right and responsibility to stand up for ALL of the citizens of my state, not just the wackjob rightwing freaks.

And if a Tennessee Dem goes along with corporate rape of America, warmongering, blah blah blah, should I, as a Tennessean, simply shut up or Frist is dangled in front of me? Is there no difference between Dems and Repukes any more? Is that what we're saying?

Do we stand for anything?

Ford is the dem nominee, and the republican nominee will be a hard core neo-con. Either the dem nominee or the republican nominee is going to be sitting in that seat come Nov 06. Which one do you want? It IS going be either / or.

And if you think Ford is "no different" than Hilleary and the other freaky fundies running for the repub nomination, you must not have researched them very well.

I never claimed such, I asked a question. Please do not condescend.

My either/or is not about candidates per se. Read a bit deeper there, friend.

The either/or is "love em or leave em" in the sense that some do not want any Dem criticized just "so we can win." Our party is in as much trouble as we were in 2004, when people were saying the same damned thing.

It may be acceptable to you to never challenge a politician if he or she is on "your side." It is not and never will be acceptable to me to take my citizenship so lightly.

Ford or the republican.

Good for you :eyes:

:toast:

We really don't need your kind of help, not to be disrespectful or anything.

"My way or the highway" does not a political strategy make.

Not when Americans are fed up with the whole system.

I, personally, am not afraid of people. We need politicians who are not afraid of people.

If Ford panders to the Backwash for political gain, what makes you think Tennesseans will rush to the polls to vote for him?

In YOUR mind, there may be a difference between Ford and Frist. But if he votes just like Frist in the end, why the hell would anyone jump up to cast their ballot for him when they want CHANGE?

I never said "my way or the highway" I said that it is going to be Ford or one of those repubs sitting in that senate seat. To answer your question.

"If Ford panders to the Backwash for political gain,"

I don't think that.

"what makes you think Tennesseans will rush to the polls to vote for him?"

I don't think that either. TN isn't very dem friendly for the last 10 years.

"In YOUR mind, there may be a difference between Ford and Frist."

Just as in YOUR mind there is no difference. Just as in Nader's mind there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

"But if he votes just like Frist in the end,"

Anyone who has looked into the votes of Frist and Ford (other than Ralph Nader maybe) can see there is a HUGE difference between those two.

"why the hell would anyone jump up to cast their ballot for him when they want CHANGE?"

Huh? Where is your proof of that most of TN wants change? They voted against Gore, for Bush, for Frist, etc. Polls suggest that if anything, most of TN wants a fundy repub senator.

Again, I am not sure why you are so angry, I am sorry if I offended you.
:hug:

If so, stop.

We are discussing politics here, I thought. You seem to be on the Dr. Phil show or something. It's cute but it really doesn't help your cause.

This is not about YOUR thoughts or MY thoughts. It's not about anybody's precious feelings, either.

It's about VOTER PERCEPTION.

And a whole lot about assuming everyone in the South is a backwoods racist homophobe.

We have a Democrat for governor, and there are large pockets of Dems all over this state who will not be crushed if the Constitution is not destroyed.

There are a whole lot of disenfranchised voters who couldn't care less about gay marriage or abortion, who rightly see that these are smokescreen issues. They are suffering the same health care/education/Iraq/gas price crisis here in Tennessee as they are in all of America.

If Dems want to run with the Good Old Boys that these people are FED UP WITH, they are not going to attract these voters.

It's a simple concept, but one that requires some time spent in the state and some dropping of a few stereotypes, and some backbone to stand up for everyone in this party.

You seemed pretty angry, I was just trying to be polite.

But a discussion of the points I raised would be refreshing

If so then it would be Ford as the choice.

But calling someone an asshole isn't productive no matter who the candidate it is. Last time I checked the enemy was republicans.

"We want to limit them, we want as few as possible. But I`m like John Roberts, the chief justice of the United States. I support the law of the land."

Duh, Harold. John Roberts said this when he was a Court of Appeals judge. Court of Appeals judges don't make law. They just interpret it, so it's appropriate for them to say they support the law of the land. YOU, Harold, are a LEGISLATOR. You MAKE the laws. So it's really stupid to say in answer to a question that you SUPPORT the law of the land.

Also, why would you feel the need to align yourself with - of all people - John Roberts when discussing a constitutional right? Who are you pandering to? Certainly not anyone in the Democratic base. Just as you did with your offensive posturing against the Alito filibuster (which seriously undercut his own caucus and the civil rights community), this comment shows that you don't give a blip about the people who brought you to where you are.

:puke:

It will either elect a moderate Democrat who will vote with the Democrats some of the time or a Republican who will vote with the Republicans all of the time.

Which would you prefer?

And the only Democrats in the Seante from the South are moderates.

with his Republican pals, if you ask me

Sure maybe he's doing it to get elected.

If he ever runs for Pres I can't for him based on this.

Maybe he has forgotten of the struggles African Americans endured.

I'm glad I'm not faced with having to vote for him.

But I am faced with having to vote for Feinstein.