Nice to see Roberts has DU fighting itself again instead of Republicans.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

:sarcasm:

When are we going to learn that the circular firing squad doesn't work?

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. Never... especially when a good number of posters here aren't Dems. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. That is true.

And a number of them aren't liberals either.

But the ones that are need to wake up and see that fighting each other isn't exactly furthering "the cause".

[blondeatlast]

4. DINGDINGDING! And they think we aren't on to them, either.

If they are that dumb, I hope they stick around a while.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. The problem is that while a lot of them aren't Dems...

They aren't Republicans or Conservatives either. They're just absolute extreme liberals whom have little to no intention of ever actually being a Democrat or voting Democratic who like to take potshots at our guys because they believe it somehow makes them and their cause more "pure".

[Mairead]

7. Check your facts.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. What facts?

If you can point out facts, please help me check them.

[blondeatlast]

8. I think they fall under all political stripes.

I'm glad DU is so tolerant although it gets tiresome sometimes.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. I don't mind being tolerant either

But I don't think people with a long history of doing nothing but bash Democrats should be allowed around here. I can think of more than a few people (most of whom have found their way to my ignore list) that fit that description.

[blondeatlast]

18. I tend to agree and tend to float by the usual suspects.

I keep hoping their threads will drop like rocks and more and more they seem to be in at least one particularly egregious case.

I'm failry certain we are on the same wavelength as to whom I'm referring.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Yes, it seems so.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of the same people are on our ignore lists too.

[TwilightZone]

28. I don't have anyone on my ignore list.

Perhaps that's part of the problem. ;)

[Lecky]

46. I agree with you completely n/t

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. I smell frozen pizza.

[renie408]

25. I thought I was a Democrat

I mean, I vote Democratic and I went to an anti-war rally and I really dislike Bush and his ilk. All my friends and family think I am a Democrat.

But I have been told several times since I have been on the DU that I must not be a Democrat. Usually if I am questioning if someone is a viable candidate or asking if total pullout from Iraq is a good idea.

I also got called a DLC shill once. And that was just because I was asking why the DLC is so bad.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Usually, these people are self-avowed non-Democrats.

Usually, they're either green or naderite.

And I've been called a non-Democrat myself, which couldn't possibly be further from the truth. Usually it's by the crowd that is really a green or naderite in Dem clothing though.

[enough already]

26. If opposing Bush scum like Roberts makes one "extreme"

then so be it. It's fascinating that you can determine intent from discussion board postings. Why, one might call someone who did that "extreme".

[TwilightZone]

3. Roberts isn't the only thing that has DU fighting itself.

It often seems to be more the rule than the exception.

Hillary, the Red Cross, Katrina, the '08 race, newbies, ad infinitum.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. It just drives me nuts sometimes.

We should be working together instead of tearing each other apart. I think too many people demand this ridiculous ideological purity, which is, as far as I'm concerned, antithetical to being a tolerant liberal in the first place.

[Mairead]

12. I think too many people demand a ridiculous ideological sellout

as though the D label were all that's important. It doesn't matter to them (or maybe it does, but not in the direction they claim) whether the place is filled with nominal Ds who vote GOP at every turn. They have the D label, and that's all it takes. All hail the phoney Dems!

I call people like that IMpurists: they're contaminated with ethical rot, and they want to spread it around til everyone else is contaminated too.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. You don't think having the (D) next to their name is important?

I see you're a Kucinich supporter. But without so many of the Dems that you are assailing, Kucinich will not be Chairman of any committee. His initiatives will never be anything more than snickered at. The things he fights for will have no chance at winning.

It takes Democrats of all kinds to build a majority. If you don't think so, try running a Kucinich type candidate for Senate in Nebraska. You'll be able to count all the votes he'd get on one hand, I assure you of that.

[TwilightZone]

23. Nebraska is a perfect example.

People point to Ben Nelson as "proof" that a liberal can win in the red states, apparently not understanding what he's like politically. They apparently think (D) = liberal, when it certainly isn't the case with Nelson. He's a moderate, at best.

A lot of Dems just don't seem to understand that the political climate in their particular area is not indicative of the rest of the country. What works in Massachusetts certainly isn't going to play in Nebraska. Ben Nelson wins here because he's a conservative Democrat. If he wasn't at least a moderate, he wouldn't have won in the first place!

Stephanie Herseth won in South Dakota and has publicly stated that the only way a Democrat can win there is by running as a conservative.

Would we prefer candidates that are more liberal? Of course many of us would, but if we want to win, we need to approach each situation based on the political climate there, not some idealistic view of how things should be.

[mikelewis]

31. Well said.

[Zodiak]

36. Nelson is no moderate

I recently analyzed his votes, and he has voted against the "left" position nearly 100% of the time. He is singly the worst senator we have for the causes of Democrats.

Yes, even worse than Leiberman.

[TreasonousBastard]

49. Heh! I should run for my life for suggesting...

that Hagel is more of a "moderate Democrat" than Nelson. Being a Republican, he can get away with more moderate postions-- he doesn't have to prove anything.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

52. And look how tenuous his hold on his seat is.

Does that not prove our point?

[Zodiak]

55. No, it does not

A converse argument could be that this man would enjoy more support from the Democratic base if he would not vote with the Repukes every time. This man inspires no one, which is the CHIEF complaint many swing voters in red states have about Democrats. They stand for nothing if they won;t stand up for the little guy. Nelson's presence solidifies that notion.

Nelson is a conservative who suport Bush with his vote if not his voice, and he is not a moderate.

Surely we are not arguing for anyone to stay in the party who votes on Bush's side nearly 100% of the time. That smacks of the flip-side to "idological purity", which is "brand loyalty".

Maybe Nebraska can use some good old fashioned populism. After all, it is that same region that gave us our liberal populists in the late 19th Century.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

58. Are you kidding me?

Please, tell me how many times over the last 40 years we've even cracked 40% in a Presidential election in Nebraska.

[Zodiak]

62. Nebraska has responded to a populist D before.

Please tell me how many times in the last 40 years there has been a populist message uttered by a Presidential candidate in Nebraska? Pro-corporate Republicans with a populist social message versus pro-corporate Democrats with a liberal social message is a false dichotomy. We have to think out of the pro-corporate box.

Get a thundering populist who will promise to fight for the people "who work every goddamed day to the very bone for that elitist asshole that sits in that clean office", and you will start to wake 'em up. And yes, that populist should be religious (to cover populism on both counts). Show me that kind of Democrat in a national election, and you will see the red states turn.

Status quo is getting us nowhere, and I contend that Democrats like Nelson are so much jetsam. Some would even say flotsam.

[TwilightZone]

60. Sorry, but populism is the last thing this state will go for.

This state is 70-80% conservative. Populism has as much chance of success here as David Duke has in Harlem.

And, you might want to review Nelson's record again, because he's a lot closer to center than you seem to believe.

For example, he's:
pro-public education
anti-voucher
pro-gay rights

Many of his ratings on other issues are right down the middle. He's about as moderate as they get. In fact, he's so moderate that most of the time, we have no clue where he stands on issues.

http://issues2000.org/Senate/Ben_Nelson.htm

[Zodiak]

61. I disagree

For one, the reason that the conservatives are so successful in your region is precisely because of populism. This is the strategy the Republicans have used to gain influence, but it is not the type of populism that used to be popular there, it is social populism. Economic populism is the message that should be heard. It is a message bourne by John Edwards, although the messenger isn't that god for a populist message (trial lawyerand all).

I agree with Frank's assessment of the midwest's history and behavior as espoused in "What's the matter with Kansas?" If you disagree, that is fine.

Also, I do not give a hoot about what issues Nelson chooses to give lip service on his website. Last year, the Senate passed or confirmed a total of 11 times (you know, stuff that actually affects people). Out of those 11 votes, Nelson (Nebraska) voted against the progressive position 10 times, and in one case, he did it twice (voted "yes" on TWO RW judges). In my opinion, the only thing that matters is when the rubber meets the road; the rest is just so much hot air, and we Americans are VERY familiar with "say one thing do another" politics.

The people in red areas are very aware of the duplicity of their local Democrats, and it is that failure to stand for something that allows the much more populist Republicans to keep power. There is more than one way to be a populist, you know, and our failure to recognize that is killing us. It is actually letting us give ground to charlatains who are against the welfare of the people.

Anyways, when I rated all of our Senators, Nelson was the rock bottom. He turned out to be more of a Republican (by his votes) than Chafee, Snowe, McCain, Voinovich, and DeWine.

I will continue to stand by the statement that Nelson is singly the worst Democrat we have in the senate. Worse than Leiberman, if you look at votes and ignore rhetoric.

Here is the methodology.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/10/133312/333

After this exercise, I am crystal clear as to which Democrats need support, and which ones should be put out to pasture during the primaries, if possible. Nelson is one of them.

One more thing....I am not some hippie sitting in Berkley typing this (no offense to Berkley hippies). I was raised in North Texas and consider myself to be a red-stater by culture. I have heard the whiperings of the blue collar there, and, in my opinion, Frank was dead on in his assessment of populism and red states. If you disagree, that is fine, but you should know the reasons I have arrived at my conclusions.

[Raiden]

44. Very well said!

:toast:

It takes all kinds to build a majority

[TwilightZone]

13. Agreed.

Considering the number of "I'm not voting for x because they don't vote my way 100% of the time" posts, I sometimes wonder if ANYONE could possibly meet the standards of some of these people.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. I know I can't think of a candidate that would meet that criteria for me.

I wonder why these people don't run for office themselves. Obviously, they are the only people they trust politically.

[Zodiak]

37. I set the bar at 50%

That means half of the time, they vote with the Bush agenda, and I'm stiling willing to keep 'em. The truth is that we have a LOT of senators that vote against us most of the time.

If this was about 100%, no senator would qualify. Although, for the record, Harkin (95) and Boxer (90) are the best.

The line is 50% for me...I would not call that "extreme".

[Clark2008]

9. Well, I think Hillary's worth fighting about

I'm tired of losing to Republicans and she can't win.

And the only reason I ever argue about Hillary is that I want to get the fact that she can't and won't win through the skulls of every Democrat BEFORE 2008 so we can try and nominate someone who'll take a couple of red states, something we HAVE to do to beat the Diebold game.

Now, other than that, you're correct. There's no sense fighting over all the rest of that stuff. It's pointless.

[TwilightZone]

17. With all due respect, people thought Bill Clinton had no chance, either.

And he managed to win twice.

While I agree with you that someone other than Hillary would be preferable, I think arguing about it is a waste of time. It's no different than the primaries - if people are set on an opinion one way or the other, you're not going to change any minds.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. The reasoning is where the difference lies though.

People didn't think Bill could win because he was a complete unknown from Arkansas when he started.

People don't think Hillary can win because everyone DOES know who she is, and most don't have a favorable opinion of her. In today's climate, that's unlikely to change any time soon. Further, she doesn't energize the left nearly as much as she energizes the right, which is definitely a bad sign.

Personally, I'd rather focus on 2006 right now. Just pointing out where the differences in Bill and Hillary are.

[TwilightZone]

24. We need to be careful not to buy in to the media's view of her, though.

If reality was based on the media, Bill Clinton would have never won a second term.

Hillary's approval ratings have generally been pretty decent, and they're often higher than I would have expected. Even the rather right-leaning Rasmussen has Hillary's favorable/unfavorable ratings about even (40/41): http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20By%20The%20Numbers.htm

I'll agree with your point about her energizing the right. She will certainly do that. Though, so did her husband. She doesn't share his inate ability to energize the left, however.

[mikelewis]

33. The Right Wing wants her to run so that's good enough for me not support..

her. I'm not trashing her at all. I don't know much about her but if she thinks the Republicans aren't simply dying to rub her face in shit over the Monica scandal, she's nuts. They're going to call her a woman scorned liberal bitch whose lying to Republicans simply to gain thier trust. Why on earth would we ever put ourselves through that? Remember the old saying, "In the Primaries you fall in love and in the election you fall in line". It's not just her reputation they'll be smearing, it's ours as well. This will piss off the Republicans more than anything else and now is the time that we need a "Uniter and not a divider." Sadly, I don't think Kerry or Gore should run again either though I would love it if they did. We need to offer a Candidate to the People that can mend the fences and restore some dignity to the office not mire it in derisive anger from day one.

I think it would be a huge mistake to nominate Hilary. Not a day goes by that Rush doesn't mention Monica or Bill. The Right-wing attributes the rise in Teenage oral sex to the President's affair, for Christ's sake. They're absolutely drooling at the thought of a Hilary run and I for one don't want to give them that much ammunition to start the game with. I'm just being practical. We need someone who can stand up to thier smear campaign and expose it for what it truly is, immoral and hypocritical gibberish. Hilary can not win in this arena unless they want her to win. In which case, I definitely do not want her to win.

[Dr Fate]

15. Some of us think certain DEMs should vote "no."

In light of "Brownie" how anyone can defend a "yes" vote for a a Judge who refuses to turn over all of his records, or answer questions about the issues that matter to us most?

When are we going to learn that letting Democrats give Bush what he wants NEVER works???

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. I think he's talking about posters who trash Dems even who will vote no

Kerry, for instance, who could cure cancer, single-handedly pluck a baby from the cold depths of the Potomac, pull a little old lady from out of the street before she gets creamed by a Mack truck, and all on his lunch break - and many disruptive elements on DU would still say "too little too late!" or "Skull and Bones!!!" or "why didn't he do that in 2004???!!!1"

Those kind of people are everywhere, and it's not just Kerry they hate. I don't think many people have a problem with reasonable constructive criticism, like I've seen you offer many times - but then again, it's clear that you're on our side. I think a large percentage of posters here are absolutely vested in helping Democrats LOSE.

[Dr Fate]

35. True. Kerry did well for Dems by stating his case.

n/t

[Zodiak]

39. I'll go one further.

I got really tired of these arguments going back and forth on DU without any facts, so I went and got them myself. Now I know where all our senators stand.

And let me tell you, Kerry is a good one. Not the best, but definitely a good one (80% progressive). I will say nothing more negative about him because the proof is in his votes.

My analysis actually revealed a lot of Democrats that betray the party that are NEVER discussed on DU. It is those (and many in liberal states) that we need to target for replacement during the primaries.

Here they are: Leiberman (CT), Carper (DE), Feinstein (CA)

One more thing. I REALLY REALLY believe that a Democratic progressive populist can win in a red state, as long as this person speaks their language. People are really hurting, and they long for a populist voice, even in red states. In fact, RW populism is what got the Repukes to make in-roads into red areas in the first place (fundie stuff is populism, but on social matters). We need strong populists who will be populist on econimic matters to resonate in the South.

I want Democrats to WIN, but not just in this district or that. I want a return to the old days when Democrats ran everything, and I sincerely believe that triangulation has caused the Democrats to lose power in red states. I hear the argument that they don;t stand for anything and if they loved th little guy so much, how come they vote for NAFTA (or some other pro-corporate agenda)? We haven't produced a true populist voice for a Presidential candidate in many, many years.

John Edwards is trying his level best, though.

[adaada]

43. But will fighting this one really DO anything?

I'm looking at it from a pick your battle sort of perspective. I find Roberts personally distasteful...his rulings, that is. But we have to realize, we're in the minority, so would it do ANY good at all to fight on this one.

If it really would, I would say to fight.

[Dr Fate]

45. Suuure. They will be saying the same crap when the next one comes up too.

It's always "next time", isnt it?

[adaada]

47. The strategy may be... (with section from Wiki on duties of Chief Justice)

to not oppose Roberts, because Roberts is replacing another uber-conservative, so his appointment does not change anything. (ALTHOUGH, I am not educated enough about the workings of the SC to know if Chief Justice brings with it any special powers. If so, that would NOT be a straight-across trade, so I don't know...I need to look into this further.)

BUT to replace O'Conner...that's where the real fight should be. Not certain this is the approach Leahy is taking, but it may make sense to save the Democratic energy for the O'Conner replacement. It is important to remember that the Democrats ARE in the minority. I think it's a choose-your-battles strategy.

Edited to add: I've just looked this up in Wiki, and here's what it says about the powers of the Chief Justice:
Duties

In addition to the duties of the Associate Justices, the Chief Justice has the following duties:

* The Chief Justice is considered to be the justice with most seniority, independent of the number of years he or she has served.
o In any vote, the most senior Justice in the majority has the power to decide who will write the Opinion of the Court. Since the Chief Justice is always considered the most senior member, if he or she is in the majority then the Chief Justice may decide to write the Opinion of the Court, or assign it to some other member of the majority of his or her choice (the Opinion must still receive the votes of a majority of Justices after being written; on occasion votes have been known to switch depending on the written drafts, making someone else's draft the Opinion of the Court).
* Chairs the conferences where cases are discussed and voted on by the Justices. The Chief Justice normally speaks first, and so has great influence in framing the discussion.
* The Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice shall preside when the Senate tries an impeachment of the President of the United States.
o Two Chief Justices, Salmon P. Chase and William Rehnquist, have had the duty of presiding over the trial in the Senate that follows an impeachment of the President – Chase in 1868 over the proceedings of President Andrew Johnson and Rehnquist in 1999 over the proceedings against President Bill Clinton.
* Presides over the impeachment trial of the Vice President if the Vice President is serving as Acting President (no Vice President has been impeached, though Spiro Agnew resigned under threat of impeachment, and none has been Acting President for more than a few hours).
* Administers the oath of office at the inauguration of the President of the United States. This is a traditional, not a constitutional, responsibility of the Chief Justice. All federal and state judges, as well as notaries public, are empowered by law to administer oaths and affirmations.
* Serves as the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution.
* Serves as the head of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the chief administrative body of the U.S. federal courts. The Judicial Conference is empowered by the Rules Enabling Act to promulgate rules to ensure the smooth operation of the federal courts. Major portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence have been adopted by most state legislatures and are considered canonical by American law schools.

[Q]

29. Once again we find strangers questioning the loyalty of other Dems...

...that they know nothing about.

You need to remember that many of us WERE used to being in the majority party. In fact the Dems held both houses for most of my life. Some of us find it more than a coincidence that we have lost everything since the 'new' Democrats have had control of the party and agenda.

This leads to many of us thinking that we need to go back to the time and philosophy that kept us in the majority for so long. That is...strong support for workers, women, minorities, poor and disenfranchised...and lesss catering to corporations, war profiteers and warmongers.

[sendero]

30. Ya know..

.... this is a message board. People come here to find like-minded folks, to vent their frustrations, and sometimes to disrupt.

In the scheme of things, what goes on here is barely a blip on the radar. Heated debate is useful, it might not reach a consensus conclusion, but it does separate those who can make their point from those who cannot. And those who really cannot because they really aren't "progressives" or "liberals" to begin with, usually are not able to really hide that.

I'm not really familiar with the threads you are talking about. I find the Roberts exercise entirely moot, he's going to be confirmed and that is that. Since he's replacing one of the worst conservatives, it is to be expected that he will be a conservative. It is a net wash.

When the nominee to replace O'Connor comes along, that is a different story. If Bush** nominates another wingnut, the Dems need to stand up and do whatever it takes - at least put up a fight. But we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

As far as the "circular firing squad" argument - well when Dem officials (pols, party officials) do it, that's bad news. When it happens here, well, it really doesn't matter much does it.

[Zodiak]

40. No, it does not.

I'd like to think that we are important enough to be "seen" or "heard" by the body politic, but I am not conceited enough to hold my tongue because I believe it.

That is what makes me laugh about this. As if people watching CNN hear "The DU is fighting itself again, news at 11".

These intracine battles are necessary because, in the end, a few people are going to get more facts and learn more about where we really stand as a party. It is of paramount imortance that we hammer out these issues in our minds so we can translate that into votes.

If you agree that it is the top priority to get Democrats of ANY stripe into office and are Machiavellian about it, that is fine, we need you...speak your mind.

If you are sick and tired of so many Democrats going to the dark side and torpedoing the welfare of the American people are are willing to create political consequences for these people, that is fine, we need you...speak your mind.

In the end, more people will agree with one side versus the other, but it won't happen without the debate. Without the debate, we get the status quo, which we can all agree sucks moose!

What we don't need is people cajoling others into NOT speaking their mind because we fear that DU is under th microscope of the entire country. It isn't, and it is comical that anyone would think so to the point of trying to curtail the speech of a political ally.

[sendero]

48. Excellent...

.. and well said. Thanks for that - I think you said what I was thinking better than I could say it :)

[JNelson6563]

57. Well said

It just cracks me up that posters here think what is posted matters out in the real world. I feel it's more a place for getting info and for non-activists to feel as if they are "participating" when what they really do is post on an obscure DB.

It's easy to ignore the bickering but it is harder to ignore the increasingly frequent good-for-shit posts in GD, which used to be a fabulous source for valuable info. The sort of threads the OP mentions are of no merit but no worse than the fluff crap that gets posted by those who think all of DU is their personal lounge.

If that doesn't demonstrate how un-important DU really is nothing will.

Julie

On edit: In fact, if I were an Admin anbd really wanted this site to be taken as a serious force in politics I'd be locking all the vanity threads in GD asap and, after two or three warnings to the posters who persisted in that sort of crap, they'd be banned--or at least confined to the lounge.

[Fire Walk With Me]

32. I don't know. Roberts looks like a trojan horse to me.

Wolfowitz, Bolton, now Roberts. Nasty stuff this lot will be capable of causing if they all start at the same time, eh?

[Zodiak]

41. And the BFEE has a long history of this

In fact, a trojan horse is more the rule than the exception. It is remarkably naive for anyone to take Roberts at his word considering the tight-lipped manner in which he and the WH handled his nomination.

[robcon]

38. The thread seems to say...

whether you agree or not, agree with me anyway.

Unanimity is unattainable and counterproductive to a lively discussion. Calling disagreements a circular firing squad is wrong.

1. What we write here doesn't matter, except as debate and information/opinipon transference.

2. Not all Democrats agree. That's ok.

I say... let 'er rip.

[Zodiak]

42. wow....

it took me a bunch of paragraphs to say the same thing. Bravo for brevity.

Oh, and I agree, too.

[TreasonousBastard]

50. Never...

who was it who said "I don't belong to an organized political party-- I'm a Democrat?"

Interesting thing about the Dem-bashing going on in here, though. OK, some of it is clever disruption by Naderites, the one or two freepers with more than two brain cells, and the occasional Green or Libertarian.

But the rest is mostly people screaming about stuff they can't control. The resident Socialists (and I'm one, but I try not to complain too loudly) will always cry in frustration because they'll probably never see their dreams come true. Of course, the champions of laissez-faire capitalism on the other side won't see their dreams fully live, either, although they're doing better than we are. Such is life in a democracy.

Politicians have to get elected, and they have noticed that even with all the vote-rigging they can pull off, they tend not to win when they say or do much that their voters don't agree with.

49 states and two or three other countries have
DUers screaming about Lieberman, but he's not their Senator. It's a lot easier to complain about a congresscritter a thousand miles away than it is to work to get a good one in your own state or district. It's also a lot easier to talk about a mythology of the next Presidential election when there are three elections coming up before that, one of which is infinitely more important.

We have to elect a Governor here in NJ this year, and watch who will be his Senate replacement, and then watch who will be the House replacement since the new Senator will probably be a House member. Then, there are municipal and county elections to deal with. We don't talk about '08 or who's doing what in Missouri. And, the DLC never comes up in these discussions or planning sessions. It might as well not exist at our level. Roberts' nomination is assumed to be fait accompli, and is also a waste of our valuable time.

[blondeatlast]

51. This should be it's own thread, TrB. Nice work.

We have lots of purists and idealists on DU, and then there are many like me--far left folks in red states who are happy with nearly any scrap they are offered.

I like to think that if we approach DU with the right attitude, we aqll come away smarter.

[Q]

54. I wish posters would stop using the word 'purist'...

...here on DU. It's like a clarion call to bitch and moan about the 'left' and those who have every right to 'complain' about the only opposition party available in a two-party state. The word is overused to the point where it has no meaning beyond being a way to smear opponents of the 'third way'.

I'm indeed sorry that you feel that accepting 'scraps' is enough for you. But many other Americans feel they have an obligation to speak out about what's going wrong in our democratic republic.

[Zodiak]

56. Scraps?

It goes beyond scraps. Look upthread and see that some wish to keep Nelson around, and that senator has voted against us nearly 100% of the time. In Nelson's case, he gives no scraps, no nothing, but he still enjoys the support of those who only look for the D by his name.

There is no way I would vote for a man who votes with Bush all of the time. I donlt care if it was Jesus Christ himself.

[blondeatlast]

59. Hold the phone, Q. You think I'm happy? I live in AZ, for God's sake.

Our public school system ranks down there with Alabama's. Our health care is a joke; it's not even up to MedicAid's standards.

All I'm saying is that we can't hope to ever be as perfect as many NE Democrats would be satisfied with. That doesn't mean I don't want the same things, it just means I'm far more realistic about how to get them.

If the thrid way had a snowball's chance in Yumahere in my state, I might take it. I have to do the best with what I've got, which is realistically the Democrats.

If I thought the system was perfect, why would I be at DU? Bitching and moaning is what we do. If we had a Democratic administration, and both houses of Congress, and Democratic governors in most states, and the SCOTUS gave a rat's ass about the Constitution, I'd be happy to let the "third way" have DU all to itself.

But the way I see it now, we're all screwed. So here we are.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

53. Will Rogers said the quote you mentioned.