Bayh, Feinstein & Biden vote "NO", Byrd, Feingold and Leahy vote "YES"

[WI_DEM]

Who are the DINOs again? :)

[electropop]

1. I assume these folks have drawn up their retirement plans?

'Cause their Senate careers are now over. :grr:

[theboss]

4. I'm sure Byrd is quaking in his little space boots

He probably just secured his next three elections until he retires at age 116.

[Dr Fate]

19. I doubt a yay or nay vote would swing an election one way or another.

I really do.

[eyesroll]

9. Yes, because the 1 percent of people who care about this

have that much influence over the 99 percent who don't.

[Zynx]

10. That's an outrageous statement.

One vote ends their Senate careers? You really need perspective.

[Dr Fate]

20. I agree- that is why he should have voted "no." n/t

n/t

[electropop]

26. This one vote, more than any other in their careers, will screw

America for the next 40 years. The consequences of the vote will come back to haunt their constituents year after year. Voters will eventually figure out who put Roberts in as Chief InJustice.

[Dr Fate]

31. Just like voters figured out Iraq was a bad idea...

...even though intitally most voters and too many DEMs went alnog with it.

[Silverhair]

13. Not over as long as their home states still sent them to DC. NT

[JDPriestly]

2. Let's don't forget to thank the senators that voted, "No!"

It was a symbolic vote, but we need to let them know we are grateful for their standing up for us and that we will stand behind them if they continue to do the right thing.

[Richardo]

3. They're the ones saving their powder for the real fight.

Roberts for Rehnquist is like-for-like. Who replaces O'Connor is the swing vote.

[WI_DEM]

5. I hope that is the case

I also hope that Roberts will surprise us and be more like Souter. But we will see.

[Dr Fate]

18. There is always a knock-down fight against Bush just over the next rainbow

Isn't there?

I've been hearing about this "dry powder" for five years now. We got the driest damn powder I've ever seen.

[Armstead]

22. They've got a huge wearehouse full of powder by now

When do they plan to use it? 2009?

[Dr Fate]

25. Yeah- we got the driest damn powder I've ever seen.

And it will be even drier after Bush nominates a minority, a woman or both.

For some folks, there is always a knock-down, drag out fight against Bush just over the next rainbow.

"Keep your powder dry"-uh-huh.

[Richardo]

28. ...or what? Expend time, energy and powder in a futile gesture

...which after all is just replacing Rehnquist with his own clone? Who cares?

It's the replacement for O'Connor that's the key. And even that will be futile, unless the Dems invoke the 'extraordinary circumstances' necessary to reinstate the filibuster. THAT is what they needed to save the powder for.

[Dr Fate]

30. We could have done all that and also voted "No"

How much "energy" does it take to cast a simple "no" vote?

"Who cares?" I care.

I would have prefered party unity over 23 DEMs sending the message that the DEM base is wrong, and Bush and the media is right.

We could have all voted "No" and fought the next one too.

"The next one" will be a minority, a wonam, or both- and we will hear the same old excuses:

"We have to let them confirm her, if we don't, the media & the Republicans will say we are sexists & racists- lets keep our powder dry for the 'the next time'"

[Armstead]

34. Do you really think "extroadinary circumstances" means anything?

The GOP will never accept extrordinary circumstances as a justification for any action by Dems.

I would say having two vacancies on the Supreme Court -- including the death of the Chief Justice -- in the wake of a devestating national emergency (Katrina), and a nominee who refuses to reveal much would qualify as extraordinary enough to require more careful deliberation.

[Dr Fate]

36. Not to mention Bush's record of bad appointees. Can you say "Brownie?"

n/t

[electropop]

27. Exactly what constitutes a real fight?

And are Senators issued a limited supply of "No" votes, and once used up, they have to vote yes on everything? We are the opposition. It is our job to oppose injustice and evil and incompetence. We shouldn't do it just some of the time. It's a full time job.

[Dr Fate]

33. I hear it has somthing to do with "wet powder"- we dont want "wet powder."

I have also been reassuered that it takes "energy" to cast no votes as well- energy we must "save" for some legendary fight that will occur in the distant future.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Bayh, Feingold, and Biden And Are Running For Pres...

I wonder how much political calucations weighed on their decision....

Since Bayh vote against Gonzalez and Roberts I guess it's ok to support him for pres....

That's good because I think he has the best chance of beating the Republicans...

The bad thing is I don't think he can get the nomination...


That's for HRC to lose....

Nothing personal against HRC but bah...

[longship]

11. I like Bayh as person, as Senator, but not as Presidential cand.

Met him at KS Demo Convention. Got to talk to him. He's a super nice guy. He has that same reputation, undoubtedly well deserved. But I cannot support him for President unless he gets the nomination, which is not likely to happen. He's DLC. I cannot and will not support *any* DLC candidate prior to the nominating convention.

I think the best chance of beating the Repugs will either come from somebody who will pick up the sword and actually fight for the victory by presenting a contrast to the corrupt, business-centric policies of the GOP. A DLCer is not likely to do that. I think *any* DLC candidate loses, Of course, we already know that because that's precisely what they've been doing for years.

We need somebody who is not afraid to take on the Repugs. We need somebody who is not afraid to be liberal. We need somebody who will put people before business. That's who has the best chance of winning against the Repugs.

My favs. #1. Gore, if he can be convinced. #2. Clark. #3. ???? No one else satisfies my criteria at the current time.

There's plenty of time before any of us have to make this decision.

[rockymountaindem]

7. It's backwards day!!!

Didn't you see that they all had their shirts on the wrong way and inside out?

[eyesroll]

8. Thank you.

I'm getting sick to death of one vote (admittedly, a vote I don't agree with) somehow cancelling out years of good ones. Sure, scream and holler. But don't expect everyone to vote your way every time (and swing between "love him" and "fuck him" when they don't) just because that's what you want them to do.

Poster one: "Feingold's tearing * a new one about Iraq right now!!!"
Poster two: "He voted for Roberts. Fuck him."

Following that logic...
Poster one: "Politician X voted for the war and the bankruptcy bill and a bunch of other crap."
Poster two: "But he voted against Roberts! All is forgiven!"

[longship]

12. And how about this one...

Poster: Politician X voted against Roberts.
Politician X for President

[Mass]

15. As stupid as the previous one

And too often seen here.

[Mass]

14. This is a totally normal behaviour on DU.

I will agree with you it is stupid, for Feingold and for anybody else.

[Dr Fate]

17. So when we asked the DEMs to represent us, we were just kidding?

Some of us were not, while some of us are willing to give them free passes and make excuses no matter what.

[eyesroll]

23. I didn't say that.

It's reasonable to take issue with a vote. Yell. Scream and holler. I've done the same when I disagree with a vote.

It's when a single vote causes someone to change their tune from "X for President!" to "Fuck him. I'm done."

Especially when said vote is well within their normal behavior -- Feingold, for instance, will not vote someone down on ideology, period; he also gives presidents leeway in their nominations. I don't necessarily agree with that...but I understood that when I voted for him. I can express my displeasure, however strongly, but I'm not going to say "fuck him, I'm done," because I knew when I voted for Feingold in 2004 that this is what he does.

It's like marrying someone knowing they snore...and then divorcing them later for snoring.

That's what bugs me. Not the yelling over a vote.

[Dr Fate]

24. I would have agreed with that 100% 5 years ago.

But after the DEM Iraq War,Patriot act & Bankruptcy votes came back to haunt us- I simply dont trust any strategy that gives Bush what he wants.

At some point we need to draw a line in the sand and send a message that we are not kidding when we ask DEMs to represent us.

There should be no hand shakes,parades or excuses for any DEM who voted against the DEM base, but rather cast a vote that confirms the Bush/media perception that Roberts is qualified.

[eyesroll]

39. So...who's left?

There is not a single person in elected office who did not vote for at least one of the war, Patriot Act, bankruptcy bill or Roberts.

Throw 'em out and start over?

[Dr Fate]

40. I never said "throw them all out"- but when will they listen to us?

We were right about Iraq, etc. We ARE right when we point out that going along with Bush has never been a winning strategy for us. When are they going to listen to us?

My thinking is that the party could have and should have been unified in this vote against Roberts.

At some point, we need to stop throwing parades & making excuses for DEMs who ignore the base- and make it clear that we are serious when we ask Democrats to represent- GASP!!!- Democrats.

I'm not advocating throwing them all out- I'm advocating that we should we give DEMs who continue to favor Bush over their base the cold shoulder until they "get the message" that giving Bush what he wants does not help us win elections and does not help this country.

[Dr Fate]

16. DINO is as DINO does. I would have prefered party unity on this.

But I appreciate the 22 DEMs who listened to DEMOCRATS rather than a GOP/media perception that confirming this liar was such a great strategy.

I'm moslty disppointed in Byrd & Feingold- they of all of them should know better.

When all of us grass-roots DEMs asked our party to start standing up to Bush, we were not kidding- but some DEMs still think they can write us off.

[Tatiana]

21. Bayh voted no??? Wow! That's a surprise coming from him.

Lately, he's seeming more and more like a Dem. Good job!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. He's Running For Pres

and wants to appeal to the party's liberal base...

I really think he's our best shot....

He ain't perfect but his moderate demeanor and boy next store good looks has just the requisite amount of superficiality and fatuousness to appeal to Middle America...

[LoZoccolo]

32. 0 Republicans voted "no" on Ginzburg in 1993...

...and we know we're not dealing with many RINOs in the Senate since then.

[Dr Fate]

35. But that was in the days before DEMS were burned by their Iraq Votes.

And their patriot act votes, etc, etc.

It should be clear to DEMs that the "strategy" of ignoring the base and these giving liars & criminals what they want does not not work.

To many of us, this vote against the base represents the same old "Lets go along with Bush, it will help us" strategy.

A LOSING "strategy" that we have seen for 5 years.

[LoZoccolo]

37. I don't understand your argument.

You're saying that you are now holding Democrats to unprecedented standards due to them voting for a few things you don't want?

If it weren't for the splinterists that say the Democrats go along with the Republicans too much, we wouldn't be talking about Bush*'s nominees - there'd be none because Bush* wouldn't have been elected with Nader's help. Same goes for the Iraq War.

[Dr Fate]

38. "Splinterists?" You mean the DEMs who ignore the Democratic base?

I'm against the 3rd party spliterists too- butI will say that I dont see how they are the ones to blame for certain DEMs giving Bush what he wants with their votes. Is Ralph Nader and Granny D holding guns to them or somthing?

The only "precedent" we need to look at is the fact that giving Bush what he wants has never benefited us in any way, shape or form.

I still dont see how going along with these particular criminals in the name of parlimentary tradition is going to help unify the party and defeat the GOP.

A "few things?"- Iraq, Patriot Act, Bankruptcy bill, Roberts- it's starting to be more than just "a few things."

[Zhade]

41. Since I believe they take turns...most of them.

NT!