Explain the major differences between:

A democrat that votes for pre-emptive war and a republican that votes for pre-emptive war.
A democrat that votes for extra-constitutional spying on American citizens and a republican that votes for extra-constitutional spying on Americans.
A democrat that votes for funding an escalation of the war and a republican that votes for funding an escalation of the war.
A democrat that votes for the torture "get out of jail" card called the MCA and a republican that votes for the torture "get out of jail" card called the MCA.
A democrat who is against impeachment of an executive branch operating outside of the law and constitution and a republican who is against impeachment of an executive branch operating outside of the law and the constitution.

I need to understand so I won't get on people's nerves for being critical of the leadership and the blue dogs. What should my proper reaction and analysis be? What should I see that I don't see?

In another thread that what I learn.

People say those here that post critical things in this regard have an agenda as if the critics are an enemy within hurting the party. I want to know how that agenda claim is defined. For accusations to have merit, their premise must carry weight that outweighs the criticism.

Anyone who argues there is a difference simply because the vote is from "our" side of the aisle is disingenuous.

when they just continue the failed policies of the president?

It makes no sense to support a democrat who supports the war and refuses to impeach the president just because he isn't a republican who supports the war and refuses to impeach the president.

Henry Waxman who doesn't support impeachment, and John Boehner, well, then you can't.

I can't see that criticism is never warranted without some "hidden agendas".

A democrat that votes for pre-emptive war and a republican that votes for pre-emptive war.

No difference, specifically regarding war "policy"...but that's a no-brainer; they're all on the same team when it comes to the economics of permanent hostility, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

But a Democrat, as opposed to a Republican, also votes for health care for children, for stem cell research unencumbered by "Snowflake Baby" horseshit, for women's choice, for Supreme Court nominees if he/she is a Senator, etc.

That's a difference important enough to take note of. 12 million children insured, maybe cures for diabetes and MS, choice defended, and a little less batshit-craziness on the highest court.

A democrat that votes for extra-constitutional spying on American citizens and a republican that votes for extra-comstitutional spying on Americans.

A shit.

A democrat that votes for funding an escalation of the war and a republican that votes for funding an escalation of the war.

Someone defending a tough reddish district. Sucks, but so does losing and seeing someone like DeLay in Tip O'Neil's old seat.

A democrat that votes for the torture "get out of jail" card called the MCA and a republican that votes for the torture "get out of jail" card called the MCA.

Son't know enough to answer. Can you shoot me a link on this MCA thing? Thanks.

A democrat who is against impeachment of an executive branch operating outside of the law and constitution and a republican who is against impeachment of an executive branch operating outside of the law and the constitution.

There's a difference between being against something, and being for something but unwilling or unable to pursue it for a variety of reasons. Take one: House members go nowhere alone, so they organize coalitions and blocs, etc. If your bloc disagrees with impeachment because they think it'll crush out all other legislative business, well, we're back to winning again. These folks have to run again in a year, and have to pass bills helpful to their constituents to get elected again. Can't do that if the whole building is cookoo for coco puffs and impeachment hearings.

We need 218 to get in the door. Convincing those people to risk their seats and our majority (not to mention next year's possible larger majority-to-be) by getting no work or bills done for their voters...they call that "hard cheese" up Wisconsin way.

Anyway, that's one argument.

I'm also looking at why the decisions cannot warrant criticism without it being an agenda. For example, not at least pursuing an impeachment inquiry through this constitutional assault seems unconscionable to me. Does that mean I have some sort of problematic agenda?

There are things they can do, maybe not grand-slam big-ass things because they don't have the votes for those...but they can do better. At this point, I'd be happy even for just a little bit of lip-service about salvaging the rule of law. Bullshit me, go ahead, I can take it. I just want to hear someone with legislative means actually say out loud into microphones and cameras that IT IS NOT OK TO DEFY AND BLOW OFF LEGALLY-ISSUED SUBPOENAS.

For starters.

As for agendas, yours will be problematic to some and balm to others, like mine and everyone else's here, and fuck all that anyway. You do as you feel, me too, everyone else also, vote your mind and heart when the time comes, and know your purpose like you know your name. If that's a problematic agenda, whoever is complaining at you about it needs to go back to bed.

:toast:

I never vote or work for anything else except the democratic party so it feels strange when people think you have a rock the boat agenda when I thought I was trying to present cases of merit. I need to take criticisms with a grain of salt and chill but passion gets the best of me sometimes. Thanks again.
:toast:

:yourock:

1. Congress no longer needs veto-proof support for bills. Squeaking by with a simple majority becomes just fine. And if we ever lose control of congress, we gain the power of the Veto.
2. Cabinet Secretaries & Appointments (DOD, DHS, Dept of State, etc.)
3. Judicial Branch Appointments, including SCOTUS and U.S. Judiciary. We know how important that is.
4. Regulatory Agency appointments (DEA, FCC, FEC, FEMA, FTC, FDA, SEC, etc)
5. Being in control of "Executive Privilege." Now, we get to wiretap them. (or, you know, stop breaking the law - either way, we win this one)
6. Set National Policy. We all know that its not just the President that sets policy. There is a lot of party politics that influences this.

And lets not forget the last one:
7. We stop Republicans from destroying our country and others.

I criticize not defending the rule of law and the constitution against a republican assault more vigorously. Criticism is not advocacy against the democratic party.

That's the only difference.

Appoint Roberts and Alito to the SC

Give committee chairmanships to Democrats

Veto timelines for withdrawal from Iraq or block legislation that enforces this (who voted against those on the DLC side again....?)

Hold up spending bills so that they can get a black check for war spending (again - DLC types who voted this way would be....)

Vote against minimum wgae increases, SCHIP and other social programs that benefit the working and middle classes

Vote against stem cell research

Appoint theocratic loons to key administration positions and use the power of government agencies, even those purportedly to improve scientific understanding, to promote fundamentalist mythology

Vote to stand by while millions of people die of AIDS worldwide unless those trying to work on the problem pretend that sex doesn't happen and everyone would be safe if they just loved Jesus

Try to destroy ANWR while extracting a few weeks worth of expensive, sludgy oil (DLC supporters include?....)


I'd go on but the point will either be made, or most likely ignored intentionally, by now anyway.

If the only thing that matters to you are one or two votes on Iraq where political positioning and re-election campaigning are the principle motivations then sure go ahead and do the "tweedledum and tweedledee" ever so original and clever schtick. I mean we've all seen how intelligent and successful that has been, right?