Starting from the bottom and working up, who does the Democratic Party...

[kentuck]

represent? Do they represent the handicapped, the homeless, the disadvantaged, the minorities? Do they represent the poor and uneducated? Do they represent the elderly poor? Do they represent those that are looking for better jobs?

Or do they represent those making $100K and above? Are they competing with the Repubs to take care of this constituency? Who does the present Democratic Party represent, in your honest opinion?

[BillZBubb]

1. The corporations first.

Then the military industrial complex. Then the upper middle class. Then the handicapped, homeless, and minorities.

[MrBenchley]

12. It must be sheer hell for you to have to clog our message board

seeing as we Democrats are so corrupt and all....How you suffer! (snicker)

[Vidar]

44. Ture for many but not all. Conyers & Feingold still give me hope.

[BillZBubb]

54. Agreed, but we need many more like them.

Our party appears to be fractured by (loosely speaking) the DLC, not vehement about Iraq, corporate influenced group and the populist, fight for the little guy, get out of Iraq group. And the leadership seems timid and unsure on way to many fronts.

[whistle]

2. Yes

[undergroundpanther]

3. thier own,than any other politician, ,corporations

biggest donors,rich,upper middle class,....

By any other politician thery'll work thier ass off for a repug if it means they get to keep thier own incumbency .those the only things congress argrees on besides raising thier own salary and screwing the poor.(see Political fight club book for explanation)

[Nashyra]

5. OK who do you represent?

You're a Democrat, I'm a Democrat who and what do we represent. We are the Gov't. Are you and your Democratic friends pounding the pavement for Democrat ideals, are you putting in the hours volunteering so your candidates need less money. Are you supporting your local Democratic Club?

It is very easy to keep saying the same old thing, accusing the "leaders" of being just like the Repubicans. Go out there and be a leader, work for a candidate or cause, be a candidate, get involved with the planning and organizing of local Democratic Clubs, start your own Democratic club. It's alot of work, I know because I've done it or I am doing it. Walking door to door for the candidates.

We are the Democratic party, it is what you make and I it on a local level.

[kentuck]

6. But a more basic question is:

Who does your representative support once they go to Washington? Do they represent your interests or do they have separate agendas? What we believe and what our Representatives believe are not necessarily the same thing...

[JNelson6563]

61. My rep is a Rethug

and I am in a red District of 14 counties. Needless to say he represents the neo-con agenda. The local leadership in many of those counties like to whine a lot about what the state party doesn't do for them, how nothing much is happening in their county and on and on it goes. Ask them about actually doing something and open up the excuse faucet. So then I wonder, why in the hell did they take a leadership position if they don't want to do anything but whine and complain?

We are as strong as our weakest link and lemme tell ya, we're pathetically weak.

Julie

[Greyhound]

7. To what end? Which candidates/incumbents are going to represent

us? How many times do we have to take it in the ass for The Party while receiving nothing in return before we "earn" our representation?

Seriously, I'd like to know. And "we're not as bad as the re:puke:s" is not an answer, it is an evasion.

[undergroundpanther]

26. Why can't the Democrats in power listen to me?

I don't have a voice. Poverty ,and issues I think are important are not important to the Dem's for some reason,they once were but that has changed.I am a dem because I hate bush.I want to get the best chance of ousting this shit head.

Technically I'm a anarchist,anti authoritarian.
But I am realistic enough about this to realize most people are not morally or emotionally self aware enough to be anarchists without being an asshole or following a leader..

[Auntie Bush]

49. Bravo! Nail hit head!

[INdemo]

4. Those that write large campaign checks.

Oh they go through the motions of representing the middle class and the poor.....But its all about keeping their job.

[LibDemAlways]

59. You've got that right. Case in point:

My brother once worked as an insurance claims adjuster, and settled a homeowner's claim for a man who was a prominent Democratic fundraiser. The two hit it off, and the man invited my brother to attend a fundraising event for Gray Davis when he was running for CA governor. My brother showed up and was sort of milling around in the background watching all the rich insiders when the candidate approached him. "I've never seen you before," said Davis, extending his hand. "I appreciate your contribution. What do you do?" My brother sheepishly replied, "Actually, I wish I could contribute, but I only know our host because I handled an insurance claim for him. I'm an adjuster with his homeowner's insurance company." With that, Davis backed away and took off. He wasn't going to waste any time on an ordinary voter.

[zalinda]

8. You know what

if you don't like the dem party, leave. No one is holding you prisoner. Dems haven't been in power for about 12 years. What do you want them to do? The fact that Clinton did so well is a testament to what a dem can do. But, until election financing is changed, they will have to take money from corporations, unless you have the money to support them.

Yeah, let's all bash the dems, they can't do anything right, that will teach them. I guess you never heard the expression "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar". Some people here are really quick to demean a dem who did something they didn't like, but how many of them call to say thank you when your rep does something you like.

zalinda

[kentuck]

9. Whatsa' matter?

Feeling guilty? Who's demeaning the Democrats?? Just asking a simple question. What's the answer? Why the need to attack?

[Greyhound]

10. It is OUR PARTY, they are to represent US.

what is so hard to understand about that?

Yes, they are out of power, and who's to blame for that? What I, and millions of others, want them to do is to stand up. Simple as that. They know they're going to lose anyway, so at least go down fighting, by articulating why the majority is wrong, and as an added bonus, they will have something to point to later when the tide has turned.

What they're doing now is selling us all down the river, and in the next cycle they will have no opposing argument to point to, to say to the people, we were right then, we are right now! No, they are good little co-conspirators, enablers at best, and keep their heads down and their mouths shut. (I'm sure it is just a happy coincidence that they continue to feather their own nests while doing nothing for us).

BTW, if those of us that are trying to save the party from itself were to take your advice, what little relevance the Democratic Party has now, would vanish entirely.

[zalinda]

19. And by representing us, you mean YOU?

Not every dem thinks like you, wants the same thing as you, or is as angry as you. Do I like everything that some dems do, no. Is the majority going my way, yes. Dems do not stand for one certain group, or another certain group, they stand for everyone. Because of that, there are going to be people who don't like everything they do.

And, if you want it done your way, then run for office. See what the real world of politics is about. I am tired of armchair politicians, who apparently know better than the real thing, what is going on in the world. Do our pols know everything? No, that is why we are here, to inform them. But, we should also be here to support them. If they do something we like, we should tell them, after all, they aren't mind readers.

Government was designed to move slow, so fewer mistakes are made. Bush and his gang has sped up that part by having ALL repubs agree with everything that they want to do. And look where we are. Whether or not you like ALL the dem politicians doesn't matter, voting for them does. Having a dissenting voice slows down government action, and saves all of us heartache.

When the dems are in power is when you can start poking and prodding at them to move more to the left, but gently. Mountains can not moved in a day, unless you want to destroy them.

zalinda

[kentuck]

20. 'If they do something we like, we should tell them,..."

If they do something we don't like, should we tell them?

[Greyhound]

62. I mean exactly what I said. They are to represent US, that is the job

and if they are incapable, or unwilling to do it, they should be fired. BTW "us" includes all of us, not just the dems or re:puke:s.

I am fascinated by you allusion to the "real" politicians. Our system was established with the idea of citizens serving as representatives, doing their bit for a term or three and then going back to their lives, not to burrow into washington DC like a parasite to leech off of the rest of us for the rest of their lives. Also, please note the "citizens serving" part, as opposed to ruling. As a nation we rejected, after much argument and strife, the idea of the "ruling class" and thereby "professional politicians".

Since, convincing these "real politicians" to do what we want them to do is part of my job, I am very familiar with the craven scum and how they operate, so save the lecture for somebody that will buy it.

"When the dems are in power is when you can start poking and prodding at them to move more to the left, but gently. Mountains can not moved in a day, unless you want to destroy them."

Your continued advocacy of this failed strategy would seem to indicate that you are either approve of, or are a part of, what they did to us for the last 25 years to get us into this mess. If this is indeed the case, then you are receiving exactly the government you wanted, so on behalf of the rest of the world, congratulations. :party: :crazy:

[MrBenchley]

13. Geeze, how can these guys disrupt the Democrats message board if they go?

Great post, by the way.

[rockymountaindem]

23. Kentuck is not an attacker

Other people on this thread are, so save your venom for them.

Kentuck just likes to ask probing questions :)

[MrBenchley]

11. Jeeze, don't let us keep you....

If you don't know who the party represents, maybe you ought to get out of the way so those of us who ARE actually Democrats can work toward victory.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[BillZBubb]

16. Benchley is DLC

He seems to support the destruction of the Democratic party as champion of the poor and working class. He doesn't see the corruption that the corporate interests have brought to our party. Or the weak message which results.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[zalinda]

21. And what have you contributed?

I did not insult you. But you decided that I'm a Gingrich clone? I did not start a thread that was bound to bring out the nasty remarks about dems "not doing their job". What are you trying to prove? Or is it that you just wanted to start a thread to cause friction.

I don't understand, and will never understand all the negativity that is posted on this forum about a group we came together to support. Or at least that is what I thought Democratic Underground was all about. Where is the solidarity? I know that it is difficult to bear when something you want to happen doesn't, but that's life. We aren't spoiled little children. We are adults, who should be working to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And yet, some are tearing down the very people who could bring that change about.

zalinda

[kentuck]

22. What comment did you specifically find offensive or "nasty"?

I think you interpreted more in the comments than was meant to be there?? I was trying to say something positive about our Party. We support the less amongst us, don't we? Why would that be divisive?

[Toots]

66. Why is it you seem to be the only one who knows?

What does that tell us??

[MrBenchley]

70. It tells me either there's a shitload of non-Democrats here

trying to ratfuck the forum...

Or that some people are truly as clueless as they sound.

[AtomicKitten]

15. And the nonstop drive by some to demonize the Dem Party helps how?

Seriously, I'd like to know. I miss how that helps the situation.

[BillZBubb]

17. Hopefully it helps us get back on the correct track.

We need to use the primaries to support people who will take the fight to the right wing, not play alan colmes to their Hannity.

[AtomicKitten]

24. I agree. n/t

[kentuck]

18. How is it "demonizing" to ask these questions?

"Do they represent the handicapped, the homeless, the disadvantaged, the minorities? Do they represent the poor and uneducated? Do they represent the elderly poor? Do they represent those that are looking for better jobs?"

And why do some people get their panties in a twist over such questions? Shouldn't the response be a simple, "But, of course."

[AtomicKitten]

25. It's broader than that.

Those questions are usually asked with the predetermined answer "no" in mind by the OP, but I would argue that even at their worst the Democrats serve the American people better than the Republicans. The Clinton Administration had its faults, but they believed in and worked toward the tide lifting all boats.

There is vast room for improvement and a need to move back to a populist mindset where government serves the people and not primarily corporate interests. The best shot we have of improving the quality of Democrats in office is supporting more populist candidates in the primaries, and I think we are doing that.

But it would help to start with at least a neutral image of the Dems and not this incessant drive to instill a negative overall image and pessimistic attitude among others at DU. It isn't fair in many instances and it certainly isn't helpful when facing the daunting task we have ahead. There is so much inequity in the application of praise and pretty random demonization across the board.

A good start would be realizing that people are different, have different points of view, and truly accepting that and debating the issues and not the messenger.

I just operate better with optimism and every once in a while I blow a head-gasket with the negativity here at DU regardless of how passive-aggressive those drives are. This is one of those times.

[kentuck]

27. Why is there a "predetermined" answer of "no" ?

Shouldn't we expect the Democratic Party to defend the poor, the handicapped, the minorities, the jobless, the uneducated? Why should that be controversial? Does our Party no longer defend these folks? If we are still a Party of the people, then where's the problem? If we are no longer the Party of the people, then we do have a problem. And we should be very vocal about it - not quiet in the fear it may cause the Republicans to win. Because "anything" is better than the Republicans. Be happy with what you got? Let's let the Democrats in Congress and the Senate tell us, the people, what they want the Party to be? No. Let's tell them what we want the Party to be. If that sets ill with some folks, then too bad.

[AtomicKitten]

28. you don't get it and purposely so IMO -- another strawman argument

I'm not arguing your point, I'm arguing your insinuation, not too subtly I might add, that the Democratic Party does not represent and defend the poor, the handicapped, the minorities, the jobless, the uneducated. That is a gross misrepresentation of the truth and the facts.

IMO if some of you so adamantly in opposition to and disgusted by the Democratic Party were out doing something about it instead of the constant pissing and moaning here at DU about how eff-upped the party is, well, then I'd consider your OP sincere.

I'd have more respect for you if you went out and supported a third party; that would be a constructive effort.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[zalinda]

34. And, you can find the door too, it swings both ways

I don't doubt for a moment that the OP was meant to upset and cause an argument. It was framed in such a way that it could ONLY cause that to happen. If someone said that they worked for the poor, etc., someone would say that no, they are repub lites. If someone said they are corp whores, then someone would defend them. It was and is a no win situation, except for someone who wants to see us fighting among ourselves.

There was nothing constructive about the "questions". Nothing was learned. A solution was not worked out. Just time passing with some more insults to people who you can't apparently understand.

zalinda

[kentuck]

35. bull...

totally irrational. :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

43. now pay attention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2714487&mesg_id=2714876

And I quote: "I'm not arguing your point, I'm arguing your insinuation, not too subtly I might add, that the Democratic Party does not represent and defend the poor, the handicapped, the minorities, the jobless, the uneducated. That is a gross misrepresentation of the truth and the facts."

I obviously don't think it's true, nothing unequivocal or hard to understand about my response.

This is the same 3-5% crap. Different election, same crap. Nothing new here.

[kentuck]

45. You're not quoting me - you're quoting yourself ??

There was nothing in my post that was meant to be "insinuated". It was meant to be black and white, because it is an important discussion for Democrats to have, in my opinion. Obviously, you think it is a discussion we should not have, for whatever reasons. And might I ask, where did you get the "3-5% crap"? Did you just make that up out of thin air? I asked clearly who does the Democratic Party represent. I did not "insinuate" anything. That is your defensive interpretation. But if you wish to continue quoting yourself, go ahead...

[AtomicKitten]

46. Aaargggghh ... You said (although it was deleted) that I obviously

agreed that the Dems did not represent the groups you listed, although I had very clearly answered that and you apparently are the kind of person who waits for people to stop talking (without listening to what they are actually saying) until it's your turn to talk again, and you didn't read my post.

You are marinating in your own world of let's just say negativity and itching to bump up against someone to unload on, and I'm just not interested.

I disagree with your OP, I question your intentions in posting it, and, well, enough said.

Done. Have a fabulous evening.

[kentuck]

47. have a nice day.

peace

[BloodForOil]

29. The difference between Democrats and Republicans

Is we have a broader range of viewpoints and we have more disagreement within our party, especially between the grassroots and the establishment. We are also less focused and less organised - our voters don't vote as reliably and take more time to digest issues.

On the whole, the Republican party has an angrier, less-educated, less diverse base, the grassroots fall in line with what their leaders say, they have rigid support and ideologically-driven followers and they rule their congressional side with much more discipline.

In other words, the Republicans are more organised and have less disagreement within their ranks, we are less so but have more. Both have their upsides and downsides.

[leftofthedial]

32. 1. corporations who bribe (or may someday bribe) Democratic politicians

2. the self interest of members of the Democratic party establishment

3. the self interest of Democratic incumbents

4. the interests of Republican incumbents when politically expedient

5. key governmental constituencies (the military, national security, etc.)

6. wealthy and powerful non-corporate interests that demand influence

7. corporations who, even if they do not bribe Democratic politicians, are viewed as having issues that are important to any of the above consituencies

8. Foreign interests that might wield influence on the reelection prospects of the Democratic incumbent

9. personal "principle"

10. actual voting constituents (those with organized interest groups first, ordinary individual citizens last).

[BillZBubb]

36. Looks like you really touched a raw nerve kentuck, keep it up!

You ask a valid question, and instead of a reasoned answer, you get slammed. That's because the truth on this is painful to many of our fellow Democrats.

I would ask those attacking you to spell out exactly what our party has been doing for the disadvantaged in the past few years. The Bankruptcy bill? "No child left behind"? The prescription drug plan? Trade agreements?

To our credit, our side did effectively and vigorously attack the Repugs on their piratization scheme for Social Security. But, that's a pretty short list.

[AtomicKitten]

37. thank you for defining the problem

"our side"

That's it right there. Succinctly in a nutshell.

Apparently some of you here at DU think your battle lies within this website with your constant attacks on the Democratic Party.

The rest of us understand that battle is against the Republicans and you, as self-righteous as you clearly think you are, are merely railing at the bogus strawmen you set up in this sick game to validate your pointless drive to divide Democrats and us here at DU.

Thanks for admitting it, finally.

[BillZBubb]

38. You have a reading comprehension problem.

"our side" was the continuation of a list of positions taken by the Democratic party. I thought our side was the Democratic party?

Your attempt to read something sinister into that speaks volumes about your defensiveness and your inability to articulate an answer to kentuck.

[AtomicKitten]

40. passive-aggressive but no cigar

Try to play innocent, but unfortunately for your argument I really can read.

I question your ability to read, however, since the OP was unable to defend either his broad trashing of the Dem Party or his underlying message that he just hates them. Not much of a message there, but you applaud him nonetheless. Sheeesh.

[BillZBubb]

41. You obviously know nothing--who is this WE?

Do you know what Passive-Aggressive even means? Don't throw around bullshit. Learn to read.

No competent reader could deem my comment to mean anything but the Democratic party. I gave a list where the Democratic party didn't do the right thing, then the one shining example where they did. Our side, the bad and the good. Get a clue.

[AtomicKitten]

42. You first, and I'll add denial to your diagnoses

You have no substantive argument, you don't even have a point. You just try to demean and create more division and cheer for "your side." All the while feigning pure and innocuous intentions.

Same old 3-5%. Different election, same old crap. Nothing new here.

Feh. I'm not impressed.

[zalinda]

52. Actually, you're wasting your breath

Some here think that they know everything. They talk a good game but do nothing. Apparently they think that if you just criticize then pols will do exactly what you want them to do. It doesn't seem to be working so far.

But, in the real world, if you have 5 bosses and all they do is Cristie what you do, you tend to try to not make waves, of any kind. You try to disappear. Can you imagine what it must be to be a pol and be criticized by hundreds of people every day. How demeaning must it be to go out and ask for money, and be greeted by people telling you that you are not doing your job. We have no idea what it is like in their shoes. We don't know what it is like to have to deal with people we don't like day after day. Just about every pol started out wanting to help, at least dems. But beaten down day after day, by repubs, by other pols and then the people you're supposed to be working for, must be very difficult. Thankfully, we do have dems who believe in being public servants, and show up to do their job no matter what.

We really need to tell our pols when they do something we like. How else are they to know what we want. If you keep saying no to a child, they have no idea what to do to get a yes. Imagine a hundred calls to say thank you when they vote on a bill that you like. Would they get the message, you bet. Everyone wants validation, and so do our pols. We don't have to send flowers, we can send emails, letters and telegrams, or just pick up the phone and say "good job".

Well, this thread did accomplish something after all. I know now who are the trouble makers and who really cares. AtomicKitten thanks, I knew I couldn't be the only one who saw the OP as a way to divide.

zalinda

[AtomicKitten]

57. thanks Zalinda

I usually end up banging my head up against the wall with some people, and I go away feeling depressed and just icky. Sometimes I think that's what they intend in the first place.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

55. You are getting pretty personal in those statements.

.

[AtomicKitten]

56. As usual, your assessment of the Dem Party is unfair.

The Democrats have voted against the bills you cite, albeit not all of them because Democrats do not walk in lockstep, something that infuriates you regarding Congress and here at DU. You seem to forget something key and that is the Democrats in Congress have virtually zero power. There's your rebuttal to a gross generalization. You just refuse to acknowledge it because reason clashes with you being unfair. And besides I answered the OP if you care to review; he just wasn't listening at first either. That's the problem with people that put up bogus OP's to incite unrest; they aren't interested in anything other than an "atta-boy" from like-minded people.

This appears to be a pissing contest to you. To most of the rest of us the status quo transcends posting on DU. Lobbing insults is what people do when they don't have a substantive argument and can't stand toe-to-toe and disagree respectfully - and it's really, really lame. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you but you don't "win" anything by simply being an asshole.

You are not on my side nor on the side of the Democrats as a party. To claim otherwise is just absurd.

I have no interest in dealing with you further.

[BillZBubb]

68. Wrong again.

It's amazing how little you seem able to grasp from plain English.

Yes, it infuriates me when Democrats don't walk in lockstep--on the principles of the Democratic party. That is our failing as a party. I don't have any problem with a variety of opinions on issues where party principles can be successfully argued on both sides. But items like for instance the Iraq war, Bush's tax cuts, right wing court appointees, the Bankruptcy bill, and the Medicare drug scam are all opposed to what are supposed to be our values. Maybe their is an argument on immigration and flag burning type things for some strays within the party, but not on key issues.

Now, people like you argue we lack the power to do anything. That's a cop out. The Repugs, when they were the minority still were able to do things for their base--and they voted almost unanimously for positions supporting their philosophy. Remember, ALL Repugs voted against Clinton's 1993 budget. ALL of them. Can the Democrats say the same about any of the major Repug legislation?

They also used parliamentary manuevers to stall or kill many of Clinton's judicial nominees. Did we? No, DINOs bolted and made a side deal with the Repugs that let ALL of Bush's ultra-rightists on the bench and got NOTHING in return. Did the party hold the sellouts accountable? No. Were they even publicly admonished? No.

We could do a lot more on the minimum wage. All Democrats should be on board on this. It's an issue where we could pillory the Repugs. For instance, we should and could have stopped the recent pay increase for Congress from passing by tying it to an increase in the minimum wage. Instead, too many Democrats just went along.

I could go on and on about this. Evidently the kind of thing mentioned above doesn't bother you. It bothers me. There must be a set of principles that as a party we will fight for unequivocally. There has to be some bedrock core line that ALL Democrats will fight with all possible means to prevent being crossed. It's sad that you are so easily placated.

[AtomicKitten]

69. Calling people stupid as your rebuttal is as lame as it is rude.

A difference of opinion is nothing to be afraid of, but you apparently are so insecure that you resort to bullying behavior punctuated with name-calling.

[madfloridian]

39. May I ask something also?

Who is trying to build the structure of the party with a base of small donors who give monthly?

This is what I was talking about in another thread. This is the way we get them to speak for the people again.

We have to fund it ourselves. As long as we don't provide funding it opens the door to the big money folks who must be listened to once they set foot in the door.

[snowbear]

48. Oh.. pick me.. pick me.. I know who!

This guy:



Right?

[madfloridian]

50. Ding Ding Ding...right answer.

:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

58. oops -- self-delete

[MGD]

60. Representation for everybody is divided between 2 partys

In an attempt to represent so many, very few actually receive representation. Winner-take-all elections suck in this way (and others too). In the end, however, because of the astronomically high cost of running a major election, big money sources ultimately tend to find the greatest degree of representation among both partys. It's a very old rivalry that goes back to our very first elections between the Jeffersonian Democrats and the Federalists. As a new Democrat, I have come to this party because I am opposed to what I consider to be unAmerican fascist inclinations inherent within the Republican/Federalist/right wing/conservative party and I feel the Democratic party represents a mostly unified front against these inclinations. Of course, because of the flawed two party system, there is overlap within both partys and, ultimately, there are a lot of unhappy and unrepresented folks in this country. This is all just my opinion of course and I promise I don't wish to ruffle anyone's feathers with trollish suggestions.

May peace finally find you

[spanone]

63. Our government exists to grow & protect corporate America.

The 'people' just get in the way.

[LibDemAlways]

64. It's too bad your valid question was hijacked by

people more interested in infighting than in providing the honest opinion you asked for. As for the opinion, here's mine.

It takes big $$ to get elected. Chasing those contributions and finding ways to reward big donors is a huge part of politics. We don't see too many pictures of candidates accepting checks at private functions, but it's their political lifesupport system.

I think most Dems are probably better intentioned than their repuke counterparts when it comes to wanting to help ordinary citizens, but ultimately they must serve their corporate masters first. Look at Harry Reid. A decent-enough, unassuming man who knows everybody in his small Nevada hometown. However, there are powerful gambling and credit card interests in Nevada that provide campaign funds and expect Harry's support in return. When it came time to vote on the bankrupcty bill, it was no surprise that Harry opted to screw the little powerless guy in favor of the big-monied interests. It's how the game is played.

The reality might be different if more people started paying attention to how their reps are actually voting and if more strong challengers came forth within the party. That's why the CT situation is such a beacon of hope. A well-entrenched incumbant who thinks he owns the seat and is beholden to powerful special interests is being challenged by a man receiving strong support from the Democratic base. Knocking off Lieberman would send a message to other DINOS and wishy washy Dems that the people are taking notice and will fire their sorry asses if they don't start more forcefully representing "we the people."

[kentuck]

67. I think that would be the healthiest thing that could happen to our Party

Even if Lieberman wins, but it is close, that might shake them up a little? Hopefully...

[Toots]

65. Just themselves

If they were to Represent Americans of any stripe we would have heard about it..

[MGD]

71. A national recall feature might increase representation nt