Murkowski, Collins, McCain, Flake, Corker all voted to give immunity to banks. You know who didn't?

[Maven]

Every. Senate. Democrat. Including Joe Manchin.

Remember that the next time you feel the urge to thank one of these Republicans for their "courage".

Remember that the next time someone tells you that party affiliation doesn't matter.

Remember that the next time someone tells you that a more conservative-leaning red state Democrat is worse than a Republican.



Right now, we'll take the victories where we can get them. But at the end of the day, remember: the only "good" Republican is a defeated Republican. Carry on.

[Wounded Bear]

1. As usual, talk is cheap...

watch what they do.

[SCantiGOP]

9. Two repubs voted against it

Graham from SC and Kennedy from LA. 50-50 vote and Pence had to break the tie.

[NewJeffCT]

10. Did they vote that way out of real concern for the bill

or to burnish their "moderate" credentials knowing that Pence would break a 50-50 tie?

[DFW]

13. If I had to guess

My bet would be on Door Number Two.

McTurtle runs a very tight ship, and there are very few votes that go down where he doesn't know in advance how every single Republican will vote. If Pence was hanging around for this vote, it wasn't because he likes the food at the Senate canteen and just happened to be in the neighborhood.

[Xipe Totec]

25. Repubs are always on number two. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. I dont think enough of us are willing to learn this lesson. Sadly, I do not think so.

Add that to the number of people who simply wont vote even though they easily can because they are white.

The propaganda is so bad, and now add to that the obvious revelation that of course a democratic person paid for oppo on Trump, and it is pretty sure we are at the end of the road.

Here is what I like to think about, the Mercer's and Bannon want to eliminate our government, our country, they are open about that.

Dont they realize the only thing protecting their stolen wealth and property from the people they stole it from IS the government?

[al bupp]

3. The independents also voted against it

Bernie Sanders
Angus King

[mountain grammy]

41. Yep

[awesomerwb1]

4. Excellent point.

I'll take any dem over any rep.

ANY rep (R) who values their political career will march lock and step with the gop unless they're retiring and under special circumstances aka a Twitler.

Tired of the "when they go low we go high" nonsense. Right now we have to win and get rid of as many R's as we can, period.

[SCantiGOP]

56. any dem over any rep

I certainly agree, but it hasn’t always been like that.
Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Everett Dirksen, a third of the hard-core anti-war Senators during Viet Nam were GOP. I always liked Mark Hatfield, who was from Oregon when it elected liberal Republicans 50 years ago.
He made his reputation in state politics by passing civil rights legislation, and then opposed Goldwater and the war as a Senator.

[brush]

66. Yes, they always go low, and lower and lower.

[LonePirate]

5. But the media and some supporters of an Independent told me there was no difference in the parties.

[MyOwnPeace]

6. You got THAT right!!!!

Everybody's excited about Flake and Corker, but when it comes time to put it on the line, well, we see which side of the line they stand on!

[samnsara]

23. well flake already ruled out 25th or impeachment...

...I guess he thinks we can just wait it out til the next selection

[Honeycombe8]

58. Why do you think that? Did he say that? nt

[zentrum]

7. It's time for Warren to declare...

....that's she's running for President.

Bank regulation on behalf of the consumer is her issue.

[samnsara]

20. shes nice enough but im just not feeling it with her...

...we need new blood...im sure there are better choices who can do the job just as well.

[Cosmocat]

21. Until someone else better pops up

She is the standards bearer, IMO.

[Hekate]

28. As soon as Warren does that the GOP will deploy their oppo file via FOX, FB, and Twitter...

What you are demanding is that a valuable Senator stand up and make herself an early target for lies, smears, and distortions. She's already being used as one of their bogeymen -- you think it can't get worse?

Elizabeth Warren is doing quite well right where she is. She's an active voice on our behalf. How would an early candidacy change that for the better? Among other things, she'd be signalling that her Senate seat would soon be vacant.

[zentrum]

44. Good points.

Just so long as she evntually does run. When the timing is better.

[Honeycombe8]

59. Not the time. Nothing to interfere with the 2018 mid-terms. nt

[IronLionZion]

8. Also the next time we need to punish red state Democrats

they tend to still vote correctly on many important issues like this.

[Honeycombe8]

60. The Dems in a red state are not responsible for who the state voted for.

If anything, they are the least responsible. Their votes basically don't count.

[BlueMTexpat]

64. Excellent point! eom

[Loubee]

11. Republicans never forget who they work for

Their employers who give them barrels of cash; ordinary constituents don't pay well enough.

[ffr]

12. Get thee to the greatest page, PRONTO!

The only good republican... DAMN STRAIGHT!

[gratuitous]

14. It's obvious that you have totally forgotten that Hillary made a speech to Goldman Sachs!

Is all of Julian Assange's hard work and character assassination to come to NOTHING?! Time for the Mighty Republican Wurlitzer to wheeze into action and remind the proles that "both sides", BOTH SIDES, I tell you!

[Maven]

50. I am truly sorry!

I will say ten Hail Maggie Habermans, and never again blaspheme against the Gospel of Both Sides!

[B Stieg]

15. Well Said! (n/t)

[FreeStateDemocrat]

16. Never trust a puke regardless of what they say, watch how they vote!!!

[NoMoreRepugs]

17. Amen Maven.

[Neema]

18. Exactly. A whole lotta grandstanding without actually walking the walk.

I call bullshit.

[MyOwnPeace]

27. Great call!!!!

BULLSHIT, indeed!

[angrychair]

19. Its not that cut and dry: basic human rights

The term “identity politics” was created to divide us more than we already are divided. It’s not “identity politics” but human rights. I’m not willing to compromise on human rights and as Democrats, none of us should be willing to make that compromise.

First, let’s clear up some terms:

Its anti-choice not “pro-life”.

It’s homophobia, not pro-family.

If you are white and don’t understand what the big deal is, that is white privilege

Why do we feel it necessary to nominate or endorse candidates that don’t necessarily agree with core Democratic principals? It typically comes down to three core arguments:

The “they’re the only Democrat running” argument. We as a Party should be talking, recruiting and advocating for better candidates and expect more.

The “they are the only candidate that will get elected because of the makeup of the district” argument. The problem is not that they can’t get elected, it’s that we can’t or won’t make the case for it and/or are not willing to stand up for what we believe in as strongly as they believe.

The worse of them all, the “it’s only on this one subject, otherwise they are liberal” argument. The willingness or inclination to rip basic rights away from human beings means, by definition, they are not liberal Democrats. Basic human rights are nonnegotiable, or as a better writer than me put it: inalienable

To be clear, this isn’t a “progressive” rant. I don’t care what Sanders opinions are, my politics are not tied to him or any other specific politician. They are tied to an understanding we should all have as Americans and as citizens of the world we live in.

Let’s also be clear that someone wanting or having an inclination to take rights away from women or the LGBTQ or PoC is based on ignorance, not politics.
It’s rooted in either a belief in Bronze and Iron Age fairytales or an inability or unwillingness to understand basic scientific concepts (as an example: a zygote is not a baby. A women can and sometimes does pass a zygote without even knowing it was there).

Having these beliefs is not wrong, people can believe whatever they want but when you decide to turn your religious beliefs or scientific ignorance into law in order to force others to comply with them, making them adhere to your religious beliefs or scientific ignorance by force, that is unacceptable.

[Honeycombe8]

62. As a woman, I am well aware of what it means to be relegated to 2nd class.

Not sure I like the tone of you saying that we don't agree with you, then we are white and privileged.

I'm white, female, and definitely not privileged.

We have to vote for the better of the two who are running and have the best chance of winning. To do otherwise it to ensure that all you and I and others hold as sacred human rights issues will be at risk. But voting for a blue dog Democrat protects that. If the blue dog is anti-choice, the reality is that it probably won't make one bit of difference. It might, but it probably won't. ONE Democratic Party vote probably won't have any effect on that issue, IF there's even a bill about abortion. But that blue dog will lock down and be yet another vote supporting gay marriage, health care, wage equality, environmental issues, foreign policy, etc.

Also, when we label a Democrat as anti-choice, we should look at how hard the person is on the issue. There is a spectrum.

If Democrats wait for the perfect candidate, they won't be winning elections. That's the reality. You choose from what's available. I wouldn't not vote for a candidate for not being everything I want, while I wait for 100% of what I want somewhere down the road. That's not the way government works. Once a Repub gets in, he'll likely keep his job.

[angrychair]

65. To clear up a couple points

The point about white privilege:
More specifically, it has to do with white people who say “they don’t understand why PoC make an issue out of this” just because you are not experiencing or understand that it’s racism from your perspective doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

I would also go back and look at my point about the excuses we make in choosing a candidate.
My point is that Democrats, from grassroots up through state parties and the DNC, can and should do a better job is the selection process.
By the time we are voting in November, yes it’s to late. The points I’m making are about an continuous process to ensure the candidates we put on the ballot meet our standards, not my standards but the Party’s standards to support things like Women’s rights or the rights of LGBTQ to wed and adopt children and to be treated like any other married or divorced couple.
Lastly, the “it’s only one issue and one Democrat” has come back to haunt us and that complacency will hurt us going forward as we become more jaded and soft on core beliefs of human rights.
It’s only one in your district, one in someone else’s and another somewhere else, until we have become jaded and dismissive of these issues and a vote to limit a human right comes up in the House, and it only needs a couple of Democrats to vote to pass it and Dems happily voted those people into office.
No, I’m not saying vote for the republican, I’m saying we as Democrats should be doing everything we can to ensure we are never in a position to have to vote for two anti-choice candidates or anti-LGBTQ candidate. Why? Because this isn’t a fluff issue, it is basic human rights and either they matter or they don’t, there is no in between.

[Honeycombe8]

67. "WE" don't select local candidates. The states & districts do. By popularity & funding.

Someone either has "it" or doesn't. It sometimes has nothing to do with issues. Charisma, smarts, dynamism, leadership skills. They are members of the Democratic Party because they GENERALLY agree with the platform, but of course not in every respect, ordinarily. And even if they do, or we do, sometimes it's a matter of degree or the details of the issue.

For example, I may be against capital punishment...."except" for certain instances, while others may be against capital punishment in all instances. But both are essentially against capital punishment.

OR...you can not vote, and let the Republican win. The one who is FOR capital punishment. That is the choice sometimes that the locals have made. They choose the candidate. And it has to be a conservative blue dog, probably, to win in a conservative district. Claire McCaskill, Joe Manchin, Mary Landrieu (who was pro-oil, since she was elected by an oil state).

[Hekate]

22. Add to your list: Remember that next time someone gripes that our leadership is not "progressive"...

...and that Schumer and Pelosi need to go. Those two hold the line for all of us.

[Honeycombe8]

34. Fresh blood is good. It pumps energy and new ideas into any organization.

But timing is everything. There is no substitution for EXPERIENCE and a proven track record in times of turmoil and danger. Schumer & Pelosi have their faults, but they can pow wow with the Democrats on the hill and get the votes (usually). I would say that they are pretty good leaders.

[DownriverDem]

38. Makes you wonder

who the hell are these so called left leaners who just want to attack the Dems? Win first and then make the changes you want. You don't destroy what we have and hope it works out.

[Maven]

46. Agreed. They've both done an excellent job post-election

Schumer especially deserves props for the discipline shown by Senate Democrats.

[rogue emissary]

24. Once again the media does its part, by reporting "Congress" voted to give banks immunity.

As if Democrats and Republicans supported the legislation. When the headline should read "Republicans give immunity to the banking industry."

[Honeycombe8]

35. +1. nt

[malaise]

26. Trust not one of them

That is all

[StevieM]

29. In the minds of Bernie or Busters, HRC was the equivalent of Joe Manchin. Or maybe Lieberman.

They weren't against four more years of Obama. They were convinced that her time in office would be quite different than Obama's.

[DownriverDem]

39. And they were wrong!

I despise those folks too. Their actions just mean the repubs win. What the hell is wrong with them?

[JCanete]

30. I agree this has little to do with courage. I understand the inclination to praise where these

republicans actually do something slightly decent...we kind of want to encourage the good stuff...but they aren't doing this because its slightly decent, nor for any encouragement. They are doing it because Trump is making their reelections hard, or attacking them directly, or because they are trying to be ahead of the shit storm.

No red state dem is going to be worse than a republican. Those who say that don't have it right. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have criticisms for our Manchins. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be offering a bluer option in these states as an alternative in the primaries. You can't really move a state blue if you don't promote the best that blue has to offer. Manchin won't be inspiring the next generation of voters.

[Vinca]

31. Republicans - to a person - can't be trusted to do the right thing.

[geretogo]

32. Some Senator years ago said to a reporter " The Senate is owned by the banks ".

[Honeycombe8]

33. You are right, Maven. Even a blue dog Democrat is better than a Republican.

Democrats tend to vote the Democratic way on most things. Republicans vote party line almost every time.

[Maven]

48. Yes, and numbers matter. Majorities, specifically. nt

[Afromania]

36. Every time one of them managed to stumble into doing something positive there are threads

thanking them for their service or caring about whatever. These people don't do anything for the good of anybody or anything other than their selves. A single vote for one thing doesn't seem to indicate that they won't immediately go and fuck us all over on some other issue.

You can not trust these people. There is something in their makeup that prevents them from understanding right from wrong. If you asked them directly if xyz is going to help people and how they couldn't tell you with a straight face and without some bullet pointed factoids.

[Maven]

49. We liberals love stories of redemption.

We love the idea that people can change for the better, and we want to embrace people who "see the light". It's part of what makes us liberals. We shouldn't lose that, but we also shouldn't get starry-eyed and forget who these people are and what they stand for. And we shouldn't pass up any opportunity to send a Republican packing, whether that Republican is Mitch McConnell or Susan Collins.

"A single vote for one thing doesn't seem to indicate that they won't immediately go and fuck us all over on some other issue."

Exactly. And, we shouldn't find ourselves in the position of being grateful for that one time when they don't vote to kill us!

[DownriverDem]

37. Love my senators - Michigan

Sen. Debbie Stabenow & Sen. Gary Peters have been fighting for us here in Michigan big time. Thank you Senators!

[Doitnow]

40. Typical REthugs. Lie Cheat and Steal. They are all the same.

[ehrnst]

42. Damn straight. (nt)

[lunatica]

43. they voted for their god, the banks.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

45. Murkowski, Collins, McCain, Flake, Corker...

you are all weasels.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

47. Bravo

[guillaumeb]

51. Murkowski, Collins, McCain, Flake, Corker are just as independent as

Mitch McConnell will allow them to be.

[Dawson Leery]

52. Joe Manchin is still miles above the least kooky GOP Senator, Susan Collins.

[UTUSN]

53. R#196 for, thank you!

[BainsBane]

55. Not the point

Obviously they are RWers. They are conservatives who are standing up to Trump. Trump's threat to America has less to do with policies than his emotional instability and the fact he has the power to end the word with nuclear weapons. The man is a sociopath. He could easily order millions killed and not lose a minute's sleep over it. That is why he is dangerous, not because he supports RW policies. We can and do disagree with Republicans all the time. That is the nature of politics. Trump is an aberration and very, very dangerous.

[Garrett78]

57. That any of those folks are considered "moderate" is a sad, sad testament.

Meanwhile, talk of the Democratic Party shifting leftward freaks people out.

The Republican Party has been incredibly effective at moving the Overton Window.

[MrModerate]

61. No, but I'll remember it the next time . . .

That through some miraculous accident of bipartisanship, decent legislation gets made.

[BlueMTexpat]

63. This is indeed the bottom line!

"But at the end of the day, remember: the only 'good' Republican is a defeated Republican. Carry on."