Reply #6: Yes, it said a great deal... [View All]

[w13rd0]

...for those of us trapped here in Missouri. I'm in Saint Louis City, a liberal bastion, but I'm well aware of what lurks in the Ozarks. Having a candidate for statewide election take a stand against a Bush nominee is a GOOD THING. But you've got those here that want to see her defeated by Jim "I've never voted against a Bush proposal" Talent because she said she probably wouldn't have supported a fillibuster before she's even in the seat. Yeah, that's great. Sorry yall, but I'm here in Missouri. My senators are Kit Bond and Jim Talent. I didn't have a home state Democratic Senator to kick around and demand that they fillibuster or I'd withold support. Sure would have liked one though...

Those of you safely ensconced in blue states that want to demand 100% purity and concurrence with your views are making it AWFULLY hard for those of us in red states to get people who have a hope into office.

You know what would have been great? If we'd had a Democratic Majority in the Senate so we wouldn't have even had to bother with a threatened fillibuster and the horror of the nuclear option. We could have just dismissed Bush's wacky ass nominees in committee.

You know what else would be great? If people spent HALF the energy they expend getting mad at our representatives during the quiet times, showing them that our engagement in the process is ongoing, and demonstrating that we support them when they take progressive positions. No, it doesn't make them "shape up" every time. (See: Robert Byrd and the IWR) But these are donkeys we are talking about here, you gotta slap them REALLY hard to get them to move.

Furthermore, the media is a large part of the problem. And anyone here who doesn't recognize that needs to take another look. They twist everything we say, they spin for the GOP, and they read White House Pressers direct from the fax machine. They've been selling this nomination as a done deal since day one.

Grrr...