Is there ANY REAL difference between the D's and the R's !???

[QuettaKid]

the more I hear and read, it seems like it really is more a case of haves and have nots. All of the marching and emailing and calling and letter writing and faxing we do and what do we get? Leahy voting to CONFIRM Roberts? I give up.

[bowens43]

1. Yes,, there are real differences.

[ObaMania]

11. But...

.. you wouldn't know it the way your elected DEM officials act and vote.

DLC and DNC are trending towards the right because they think that's the only way to get elected. Basically, when it comes down to POTUS elections people don't see a difference bacause DEMs are smacked down by their opponents and don't defend themselves or otherwise counter or stand by Democratic ideals.

JMO FWIW

[FreedomAngel82]

15. That's where we as voters come in

We can elect someone who agree's with our ideals and views and is progressive or we can just elect someone who has a (d) after their name.
Some cases you have no choice of course. My state we're having two democrats running for Frist's seat and both of them are DLCers. One is a lot better than the other and more progressive I think. I don't know why he is a DLCer personally. :shrug: I think sometimes we should have more indie's in Congress and the Senate to help even things out in times like this.

[ObaMania]

21. I'm wit'cha on the Indies..

.. I'd take some Bernie Sanders types over our Dem Senators/Congressmen any day!

[calico1]

2. My life was a lot different with Bil Clinton as

President that with the chimp. I notice a big difference.

[tlsmith1963]

33. Me, Too

California was a little slow to recover from Bush Sr.'s damage, but once we recovered my life was great. Then * came in, & it's been Hell ever since.

Tammy

[UTUSN]

3. Why, No, There Would Be Absolutely NO Difference

had GORE or KERRY been installed. I thought NADIR had settled this issue back in 1999.

[leeroysphitz]

4. Don't give up, just

REMEMBER come primary time and vote straight ticket: CHALLENGER.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Leahy is up for reelection 2010

He might as well vote stright Republican for the next five years since you're not going to support him no matter what he does between now and then, right?

[leeroysphitz]

10. He probably will regardless.

I mean we can call, write letters, protest etc... but for what? All we have is the vote. (If we even have that.) The leadership of our party is and has been unresponsive and indifferent to those that put them in office. We shouldn't make the same mistake twice. (thrice, etc, etc, etc...)

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. The leadership of the party in the Senate, Harry Reid, is opposing Roberts

That sounds responsive to me.

[leeroysphitz]

32. "Reid"

Was he being responsive when he voted to allow this criminal admin to start a war? Were our dem leaders being responsive when they selected him?


From Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1120-31.htm

Selection of Reid as Senate Leader Shows Democrats Continued Willingness to Back Bush’s Foreign Policy Agenda
by Stephen Zunes


The overwhelming selection of Nevada Senator Harry Reid as minority leader of Congress’ upper house shows that the Democrats are still willing to give their backing for the Bush administration’s reckless militarism and contravention of international legal norms.

Despite evidence that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, WMD programs or offensive delivery systems, Reid voted in October 2002 to authorize a U.S. invasion of Iraq because of what he claimed was “the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.” The Reid-backed resolution falsely accused Iraq of “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability . . . actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States.”



If we can't present a united front against an unqualified nominee for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States then I humbly submit we might need some new leadership... Is that an unreasonable statement?


edited for spelling

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. People are going to have to get over it

Not every single Democrat is going to vote the way that you want them to every single time. Even the liberals like Leahey.

[nonconformist]

6. Get over it? nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Yes

There will be many more battles to fight.

[nonconformist]

28. They've given us no confidence whatsoever that

they WILL fight those battles. SCOTUS apparently isn't a big enough battle.

[tabasco]

7. Ask these guys.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Just enough to give the illusion of living in a democracy.

Both are capitalist.
Both are run by wealthy white males.
Both are indebted to the corporations that pay their way.
Both play the "patriot card" when sending the troops to kill and die.
Both actively prevent 3rd parties from having an impact.
Both perpetuate graft in the form of "political contributions" from the corporations and the wealthy.
Both support a bloated military/industrial complex.
Both willingly abandon the poorest citzens in favor of the wealthiest.

They should just join together and call their party what it is, The Oligarchy.

[raccoon]

13. You sure got that right.

It does seem to me, though, that the Republicans,especially the Bush Junta, are more brazen about not giving a rat's ass about the average American.

[bloom]

17. Even still

the Republicans are significantly more ruthless.

If the Democrats are a category 1 Hurricane, the Republicans are a category 5.

[FreedomAngel82]

18. I would like

the democrats to definitley start playing hard. No more of this nicey-nicey crap. If you know they're lying call their bullshit!

[NNN0LHI]

22. And when the cops haul ya in you get a "good cop" and a "bad cop"

But as we all know that too is only an illusion.

And they thought they were free...

Don

[NNN0LHI]

19. That was very good

I have to ask did you just think of that? And I think you are right too. Well, who can argue with it? Its fact. What you just said deserves its own thread.

Don

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Just stating the obvious.

As much as most people would like to believe that we live in a democracy where "every vote counts", we really live in an oligarchy where who one can vote for is controlled by the bosses who are wealthy enough to make the choices. It's a fraud.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. I think it has to depend

on who has the power and who doesn't. Who do you trust more with that power? You also have to remember that the democrats couldn't do shit anyways. I wish they would just close down shop personally. I wonder how people would respond to that though. :shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Democrats Gave Us

Social Security

Unemployment Insurance

Medicare

Medicaid

Fair Housing Act

Voting Rights Act

Civil Rights Act

Americans With Disabilities Act

Earned Income Tax Credit

"You also have to remember that the democrats couldn't do shit anyways. "

I hardly think so....

[leftofthedial]

16. On peripheral issues there are differences

But they both represent corporate interests, not American people.

[newportdadde]

23. One takes the eggs and leaves the chicken, the other takes both.

The Democrats who most just like Republicans bow to corporate masters believe in taking the golden eggs but leaving the sheeple just enough grain to trudge on and keep laying those eggs.

The Republians however take the eggs, the feed, the roost and then yell at the chickens when they stop laying and they finally just eat them too.

[Deja Q]

26. No.

It's all about buying influence. And both parties' representatives are for sale to the highest paying customer.

It's like prostitution, except lending one's sexual organs seems to be a more noble profession...

[stray cat]

27. Surely you have to be kidding.

Think of the difference between Clinton as a moderate democrat and W as just a plain radical. I'm sure there are incompetent individuals in both parties and the best republican may be better than the worst democrat - but there are certainly vast differences in general on specific issues. They just may not be the ones that anger you at any given moment.

[Voice1]

29. An interesting analysis

I found this from Bushwatch, back in July, I don't think it has a permanent link:
http://www.bushwatch.com/demwatch.htm

With 17 key votes under their belts, 48% of the Senate Dems in the 109th Congress vote Republican more often than Democratic. While Boxer leads the Dems with a 96% Dem vote record, and Kennedy follows with 90%, Hillary Clinton, who leads the list of '08 potential Dem presidential candidates in various national polls, only votes traditionally Democratic 66% of the time. While we've recently reported on the Dems who defected to the Bush camp on his energy bill, a number of Senate Dem votes during late May and early June, as well as the recent CAFTA vote, have now been added to our running list of key Senate Dem votes that have been taken by the 109th Congress.

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. they have very different constituencies

That alone means that Democrats will usually act in a more progressive manner than the Republicans. But unfortunately, they both are beholden to the elites and their big money interest.

There is at least the possibility of influencing things in a progressive direction with the Democrats. I would also say that it may be difficult, but not impossible to move the Democratic Party into becoming a genuinely progressive party.

Many years ago I put my hope in attempts at third party politics. I became convinced that barring unforeseen event, it is unlikely that a progressive national third party is a viable alternative anytime in the near future.

[seabeyond]

31. nope nothing. you are right. just vote cheney 2008, there you go

feel better. cool

now should i list the zillion differences or are you gonna just pretend that there is no difference to bash dems......

[deutsey]

34. Although I left the Dems almost a year ago, I would certainly say

there are many significant differences between them and the Republicans.

Although I am no longer a registered Democrat (I have registered Green), I will definitely vote and work for Democrats whom I believe in. I just can't, personally, belong to the Democratic Party anymore and want to work toward building a third, more progressive party.

That's me...I don't condemn people who want to stay within the Party. I hope ya'll can save its soul.

[applegrove]

35. Huh?

[newspeak]

36. just a question

was leahy along with Daschle one of the ones that received the anthrax letters?