these Blue Dogs are sick puppies

[welshTerrier2]

I think it's time we had a little talk with a few of our Big Tent compadres.

Some have defended the Blue Dogs in the past pointing out that we have to be sensitive to the political realities in their home states. Not all of them come from blue states like Massachusetts where leaning a little too far left would likely go unpunished. "Grow up and be pragmatic for once" we're told.

Well, there's certainly a few grains of truth there. We certainly shouldn't be so inflexible that we end up sinking the whole ship.

If we were talking about additional aid to the New Orleans hurricane victims, no problem. If two or three years ago, we had been talking about a 12 month timeline to leave Iraq instead of a 3 month timeline, perhaps we might have understood. If we were talking about a gradual move toward universal health care, like covering all children now, perhaps there could be some room for compromise.

BUT HEAR THIS YOU SICK PUPPIES, certain things, you know, like the Bill of Rights and the f*&king Constitution are NOT NEGOTIABLE.

I think it's time to play hardball with these clowns. The Democratic Party needs to lay down the law about exactly what our values are. Allowing wiretapping without judicial oversight is totally unacceptable. Are voters back in their home states so misguided that they would insist on ignoring the Constitution? I have trouble accepting this. And, even if that's what some voters might want, the rights of ALL American citizens should be protected from this outrageous abuse of government power.

It's time for the party to let these sick puppies know that this nonsense cannot continue. If they don't want to play ball, they'll get no more help from the party. They'll get no more funding for their states' favorite projects. And perhaps the party should consider running a strong candidate against them in the primaries. We should not tolerate a situation in the House or Senate where a small band of conservative Democrats can hand victory after victory to the republican party. If that's what they want to do, it's time we taught them the price of their treason.

[Downtown Hound]

1. Damn fucking straight!

K&R!

[Totally Committed]

2. I couldn't agree more!

I wish I could give you about a thousand recs for this!

:applause:

YES!!!!!!!!

TC

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. You think that the Congressional leadership will punish the Blue Dogs for supporting the FISA bill?

Who the heck do you think allowed this bill to be voted on in the first place?

[welshTerrier2]

5. no, i don't

that's very much the concern I have with the whole party. i think Reid et al have "Blue Dog cover" but that they let this happen.

[Bitwit1234]

4. They must admit they are sneaking republicans.

And then we can go from there and make sure they aren't re-elected. I am going to send them all a form letter and tell them I will support any body running against them. That I will write letters to their districts and explain what kind of two faced back stabbing people they are. AND BIG FAT LIARS ALSO.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. The conservative voters in their districts would be happy to replace them with Republicans

[depakid]

12. If that's the case (which it isn't)

Let them then. If that's what it takes to rid the party of this cancer, then OK.

The bottom line is either you support policies that reflect traditional Democratic values- or you don't.

And if you don't- then you need to be ousted from your cushy office.

[Donna Zen]

7. Big Tent v Little Tent

First let me say that I understand all of the Big Tent yadda yadda. However, in reality, the Blue Dogs and the DLC are demanding that we all squeeze under their little itsy-bitsy tent umbrella. And if some of us must stand out in the driving rain, well, all the more room for them.

Covering all children under an all ready existing program is a compromise considering that we need single-payer health care to actually fix what ails us, and if we are to provide a competitive business environment. When the money was clinking in the surplus Treasury (pre-bush) it was the Blue Dogs & DLC who insisted on belt-tightening with no money for our kids. Well, that frugal legislative stance was their mantra until they opened the public wallet to all those fat-cat tax cuts. This attitude is NOT conservative no matter how many times they try to make it so. Junk politics will always be junk. Take it to the dump.

While their past legislative sins make me cringe, what also causes me great aggravation is their refusal to educate the public about what is right. Oh sure these Democrats spend plenty of time on TV playing CYA and/or defending the bush policies, and yet, they are loath to try and educate the general public or their constituencies about the majority Dems. positions. Since when is defending and protecting the Constitution a leftist-radical idea? Is is too much to ask of our representatives to take some time out from their busy fund raising schedules and explain to America that the Dems. did offer a better fix for FISA and that radical totalitarian republicans wanted to tap Aunt Sarah's call to Granny in Michigan?

The answer is: no, no, no.

No: they can't be bothered actually standing up for the American people.

No: they are not conservative.

No: they never ever compromise or anything else that might take some serious thought, if it means that they would have to do a little work.

They are place holders, representatives that sport a "D" after their names as a matter of convenience for them, and a way of keeping a majority for us. As place holders they keep the agenda in our hands, and someday that might mean something. Other than that, they are useless.

[Totally Committed]

8. Awesome, as usual!

I love your posts... always have.

:yourock:

TC

[welshTerrier2]

9. that's just way too good ... great post, Donna Zen

the only part i'm not totally comfortable with is the "place holder" business. seeing the Blue Dogs as some sort of neutral, benign place holders may hide the damage they're actually doing.

think of it this way: when a few lefty renegades, say like Feingold on Iraq policy, bolt from the mainstream, what happens? they push their little bill and it fails and then they support the Democrats' mainstream, wishy washy legislation. no harm; no foul.

but when the Sick Puppies do their thing, Big Harm; Big Foul. they hand a legislative victory to the radical right wing. This is the epitome of a heads you win tails I lose game. It's time for the Party's leaders to put an end to it. And if they won't, it's time for us to put an end to them and get some leaders who will represent us.

[Donna Zen]

10. Place-holding Death Eaters

You are correct; they're not neutral since they play a prominent role in taking the country down the tubes and pushing the voices of logical idealistic pragmatism out of the tent. You see, I think Russ Feingold, a Rhodes Scholar who specialized in Constitutional Law and actually read the NIE, is a fair-minded guy who is doing his job. I'm not sure what makes a lefty anymore. Maybe representing the best interests of America is now a radical idea. (shrug)

I did use a neutral term as a sop to the sure-to-arrive posters who rely on epithets like "purist" whenever they don't want to engage the facts which is pretty much always. It's a bad idea to set "them" off because one might get dragged into their conversation.

Thanks TC and WT2. I enjoy the work of both of you too.

I'm in a bit of a mood today after having watched the same ol' same ol' crap on TV via Donna Brazille. Democrats need to be yelling their heads off about bush's failed foreign policy and his dangerous refusal to apply diplomatic leverage. Instead I have to listen to the lame arguments put forward by the Dems.


The TV's off now and I'm going to get a little sun.

[mzmolly]

81. I think this cuts both ways?

...the Blue Dogs and the DLC are demanding that we all squeeze under their little itsy-bitsy tent umbrella.

Some on both sides want a MY tent or the highway philosophy. That works for Republican cults, but not for Democrats.

I do not support the Blue Dog "vision" for the Party, but I'd contrast their overall voting records to just about any Republican.

For example see Loretta Sanchez's issue group ratings: http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=203

Civil Liberties

Representative Sanchez supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 91 percent in 2005-2006.

Representative Sanchez supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 79 percent in 2003-2004.

Representative Sanchez supported the interests of the American Library Association 100 percent in 2003.

I don't know many Republicans who have that kind of rating from the ACLU. However I agree with much of what you stated above. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

11. there is no reasonable excuse for poo'ing on the Constitution

This administration does it repeatedly.

And some Democrats just told them, no worries, we've installed poo stain-proof carpeting for you. Have at.

[welshTerrier2]

13. i'm just paranoid because everybody's against me ...

a classic Frank Burns' line from MASH ...

well, call me paranoid but today's thinking on the latest "stab the Founders in the back" from the Democrats went something like this:

it began sort of innocently enough thinking about the damned Blue Dogs. How could they "pledge allegiance to the flag" at the start of each Congressional session and then vote for this crap? Do the words actually mean anything to them or is it all just for show? I'll call that "Level I" thinking. I see; I criticize.

but, call me paranoid, Level I quickly progressed to Level II.

at this level, I realized that this vote did not occur in a vacuum. if Reid et al had wanted to shut this down and actually represent the voters in the Democratic Party and stand up for the Constitution, he never, never, ever would have let this happen. I'm sure the Blue Dogs got Reid's official okeedokee ...

but was Level II good enough for this lefty extremist? nooooooo ... paranoia Level III then set in ... still with me on this?

did Reid make the call on the wiretapping legislation all by himself or were there "other interested parties" having their say? And who might these interested parties be? Suppose, just suppose, one or two of the more influential candidates came in to "have a little chat" with good old Harry? Suppose they didn't want to give the republicans an "opening on terrorism" once the general election campaign began. Welcome, dear friends, to Level III paranoia. Feasible? You bet it is.

Do you think Reid would casually dismiss pressure from the presidential campaigns if they chose to exert any? I doubt it. Where exactly do we see the Democratic Party putting policy ahead of politics?

So, there you have it. Level III. Everyone can rest easy though; I'm off to take my meds now. Sheesh, what if there's a Level IV I just haven't thought of yet? :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[AtomicKitten]

15. *

[welshTerrier2]

16. LOL ...

Luther and I used to hang around together ... not anymore though ... i always felt he was watching me ...

[Totally Committed]

17. Poor Luther.

This country has gotten scary and strange in a lot of ways..... :tinfoilhat:

TC

[Donna Zen]

18. As Jefferson pointed out:

The fewer rights the people have makes it much easier to rule and control us.

Ain't no one on the campaign trail talking about restoring the balance of power or Constitutional restoration.

[welshTerrier2]

22. except Gore ...

or are you suggesting he's not "on the campaign trail?"

[Totally Committed]

23. Why?........

Do you think he is????

That would make me VERY VERY VERY happy!

TC

[welshTerrier2]

24. my best read ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3398333#3401468

[Donna Zen]

34. Gore has not announced

although I don't doubt that if/when he did, he would actually act on the idea. I view Gore as someone who has found clarity after enduring the Washington entrenched insider's bath of fire.

Wes Clark has also talked about the restoration of the Constitution. During 03 it was one of the things I noticed first. During a recent interview at the Yearly Kos, Wes also mentioned the problem of hereditary dynasties in the US.

Note: In a separate post, I'll give a link that must be read...you were right about the FISA vote.

[welshTerrier2]

35. if Gore runs ...

i'd love to see him announce his VP and his Cabinet right up front. it would be cool (and powerful) to run as a full slate. i'm no politician (to say the least) but this would seem to me to be a very effective way to hammer home a message from many different sources ... just a thought ...

i can't quite get there with Clark ... you and Tom are highly credible advocates though ... all i can say is i'm open and i'm listening ...

[Donna Zen]

36. Are you paranoid when you're right?

I don't think so.

Many people have been going to school on this vote. This link to a Kos diary by selise is a must read....absolutely, must read.

How FISA went down in the House

Next, why did the House leadership decide, probably on Saturday, to use the very unusual procedure of a unanimous consent agreement for S.1927? What I was told is that the final result of going this route was the same as if H.Res.614 had been used - except that is was much faster (fewer votes, less debate). So, if the decision was to get S.1927 passed, this was the fastest way to get it done. Furthermore, if any congressmember had objected to the unanimous consent agreement, unlike in the Senate, it would not have proceeded to a supra-majority vote. Instead, H.Res.614 would have been used... and since the outcome would be the same (only it would take longer), there was no reason for anyone to object.

So, I conclude that the House leadership decided to pass the administration bill, S.1927, in the quickest way possible... and that the vote Friday night on H.R. 3356 was just a bit of political theater. Perhaps they wanted to show that they had negotiated a not-so-bad bill that was more responsible in addressing the administration's request/demand. Perhaps they wanted to make it look like they were trying to fight against President Bush's unreasonable demands - even though they had decided not to. Maybe it was a bit of both.

As for that NYT article about how we are angry: well, damnit, I'm proud to be angry when someone takes away my rights.

A little something from Glen Greenwald:

...this would not have happened without the full participation of the Democratic leadership. They control the bills, what gets voted on, how long Congress stays in session, all of it. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were ordered by the President to stay in Washington and so they did, keeping the sessions opened and allowing this bill to be enacted.
They could have obstructed, filibustered, done all sorts of things to prevent its enactment. They did nothing. Once they knew it would pass, enough of them voted against it to enable those who want to defend them to point to their little meek votes against it as though they are not to blame. Sorry, but they just are.

I wish more people on this forum would read and begin to understand what's going down. Maybe then they'd understand that we need a lot less poll posting and a lot more house cleaning. The system is broken.

[welshTerrier2]

37. you think my "Level III" theory is likely?

i'm referring to my "paranoia" post upthread.

as for how the wiretapping deal went down, check out this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1556258&mesg_id=1556258

btw, KOS is down for maintenance right now so I couldn't follow-up on the link you provided. probably have to wait until the morning.

[Donna Zen]

46. Level III=hell yes

And this has been going on for a long, long time. I remember when Clinton voted against CAFTA, and the NYT declared that it was a sure sign that Senator Free Trade was running.

The Kos diary (which is down but the page is open on my desk top) mainly sticks it to the House vote, but with luck the folks at FDL will also be analyzing the vote in the Senate. However, there's little doubt that the fix was in.

Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and Emanuel were to speak at YK on Saturday morning. I told MrZ that I wanted to sit in the back so that when Rahm got up to prattle we could make a quick exit. As it turned out, the stars of the show missed the event so they could perpetrate this. I used Rinaldo's cell to call my congressman, a BlueDog who voted "no."

Trading votes is the DNA of the congress.

[liberaldemocrat7]

106. I would like to get permission to make this into a bumper sticker.

I would like to get permission to make this into a bumper sticker.

[leftupnorth]

14. We need a new caucus in Congress. The Cowards Caucus.

All the Blue Dogs and Bush capitulators are automatic members.

The only time you are allowed to leave the caucus is when you finally show some intestinal fortitude and stand up to Bush. If you can't stand up to Bush, how are you going to stand up to dictators and tyrants around the world?

Congress is no place for cowards. If you don't have courage, GTFO.

[tritsofme]

19. Blame the Democratic Leadership in the House, not the Blue Dogs

Pelosi and Hoyer were under no obligation to bring the FISA bill up for a vote, and they knew when it was brought to the floor it would pass with the help of the Blue Dogs.

If they wanted to kill the FISA bill, all that had to be done was not schedule a vote for it.

Why do you think minimum wage never increased during all 12 years of Republican rule?

It wasn't because the bill wouldn't pass the full House, it was because the GOP leadership never scheduled a vote on it during their entire reign.

[stimbox]

21. There's enough blame for both groups.

The Democratic Leadership and the Blue Dogs are both to blame.

[rateyes]

27. I blame the leadership and the Blue Dogs. nt

[Totally Committed]

20. Quote from NYT: The Blogs Are Alive With the Sound of Angry Democrats --

"Some are already talking about primary challenges for Democrats whom they consider enablers of Mr. Bush, like moderate Blue Dogs who formed the core of Democratic support for the eavesdropping proposal in the House.The upside is that organizing is beginning already around fixing the FISA legislation, and a campaign to destroy the brand of the Blue Dogs is not far away.” -- blogger Matt Stoller on the Web site Open Left, accusing the Blue Dogs of one of their “standard betrayals.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3439943


TC

[Jai4WKC08]

25. My Blue Dog rep voted against the new FISA law

Dennis Moore from KS-3. He's the head policy guy in the Blue Dog coalition. Don't know why he couldn't convince his fellows... perhaps he didn't try. Butcha gotta give credit where it's due.

[rateyes]

26. As someone once said to me...I'm happy as a pig in shit

to kick and recommend this post.

My Blue Dog Jim Marshall hasn't voted with the Democrats ONCE. Not ONCE, on the war in Iraq, on FISA, on ANYTHING.

I've been doing my dead level best to play hardball with him. I say don't give him a dime. If you don't vote Democratic CORE values....

[Norrin Radd]

28. k+r

[femrap]

29. I just wonder who is really giving

them $$$$....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Did their constituents back home demand the bankruptcy bill?

Did their constituents back home demand NAFTA?

Did their constituents back home demand any of the atrocities committed by the Bush administration?

Somehow I doubt it.

[welshTerrier2]

32. i doubt it too ...

i'm sure there is a modicum of merit to the political argument. as I said, some states are bluer than others and I'm not opposed to a few prudent drops of pragmatism when the critical issues are not on the table.

but war, Constitutional violations, torture, NAFTA and so much more? It just doesn't wash ... and, even if it did, we have to stand for something as a party and "just winning" is NOT good enough ...

[jenmarie]

31. Highly recommended!!

It will take longer than we wish, but the only solution is to put up progressives against the turn-coats in primaries.

From Jane Hamsher at FDL.

And The Blue Dogs Shall Lead the Way

I guess we all have our priorities. Per Kevin Drum, these are Loretta Sanchez’s:

"Sanchez, Orange County’s only Democratic member of Congress, voted in 2002 against giving President Bush authorization to invade Iraq. More recently she voted to begin pulling troops out within 90 days.

Tuesday night Sanchez said she could not support the protesters because the $145 billion in Iraq war funding was in the same bill that would provide money to build the C-17 aircraft in California.

“I never voted for this war,” she said. But “I’m not going to vote against $2.1 billion for C-17 production, which is in California. That is just not going to happen.”"

We dirty fucking hippies always get dismissed or condescended to as paranoids when we suggest that the influence of the military industrial complex in these situations is just a wee bit extreme, then Mike Gravel shows up sweating and hollering about it like some guy pounding bourbon in the corner of a bar that everyone is trying to ignore and seals the deal. But as Big Tent Democrat says:

"Rep. Sanchez, you just said you were going to vote for the war, so that a California company will get a defense contract. 395 Californians have died in Iraq. Loretta Sanchez can put a price on their lives - 2 billion dollars. Not to mention the damage to the interests of the nation."

Matt Stoller has a post on OpenLeft today which argues that Congress is effectively in the hands of a working Republican majority, thanks to the efforts of Blue Dogs (of which Loretta Sanchez is one). Matt suggests that they are “essentially threatening a revolt against Pelosi if she tries to impose real discipline.” Ergo we get FISA, we get the Millitary Commissions Act, we get mo’ war.

In the wake of primary threats (largely promoted in the netroots) Al Wynn and Ellen Tauscher had their come-to-Jesus moments and signed the pledge to vote for no more Iraq funding without provisions for the complete withdrawal of combat troops.

Maybe that’s just how it’s going to have to happen, one DINO at a time.

[welshTerrier2]

33. say it ain't so ...

i've really liked Sanchez ... until now ... that's just disgraceful ... maybe it's the "real world" but it's disgraceful ...

so many make fun of Gravel around here ... they've gotten lots of mileage from his stone in a pond ad ... the thing is, he isn't wrong about the corruption that "those who scare him" have bought into hook, line and ... ummmmm ... stone ...

we cannot afford to elect any more corporate candidates whether they are corporate right or corporate left ...

good post, jenmarie ... thanks ...

[sanskritwarrior]

38. Yes and the Jihad

against Democrats that dare to differ from the progressive mind meld continues........

how about going after the repugs and leaving us Conservative Democrats alone...........

But that would be bad as we can't have Democrats voting for what their constituents want, they must vote for what the crazies people that are intolerant of dissent want.........

A Democrat that votes the way the progressives want is a good boy or girl

A Democrat that votes the way they believe their district wants them to vote is an evil fucker in unholy alignment with the fascist Republicans........ :eyes: Could the cognitive dissonance be any fucking bigger???? Jeezus........

[welshTerrier2]

39. try this ...

i just love your post ... "the Jihad against Democrats that dare to differ from the progressive mind meld continues........"

did you mean to write "differ from the Constitution?" ... yeah, I thought that's what you meant ...

you want to proudly wave your Conservative Democrat banner? fine ... let's hear you make a case for giving bush (he calls himself a Conservative too) the power to wiretap without any judicial oversight ... that's what you support? bush loved it ... bush will use it ... but I guess you and your Blue Dog Conservative Democrats are happy to give bush all the power he could possibly ask for ... you tell me to go after the repugs in a thread critical of Democrats who caved into the repugs ...

and then you ask could the cognitive dissonance be any fucking bigger???? i think your post answered that question very nicely.

[sanskritwarrior]

40. I meant exactly what I said

and I see you are on the other team, the one that will demonize Democrats to get your way........How sad.

[welshTerrier2]

41. what's sad is violating the Constitution

what's sadder is that you know that the bush enablers you're so energized about were dead wrong and you won't even try to make a case to defend their actions ...

[sanskritwarrior]

42. LOL

not really I'm the biggest fan of the current FISA change, we use it in the military a lot.......the elimination of the need to get warrants increases the ability of those that work in intelligence to collect actionable intelligence more efficiently. It also enhances our ability to use various collection platforms in a time sensitive manner without having to go and get warrants......At least there were 41 Democrats in the house smart enough to understand how Intelligence is collected and how cumbersome that warrant crap was.........

It is pretty legal by the way, the Congress just passed it, can you prove to me that it is illegal? You are probably one of those people that think the Iraq war is illegal and I as as soldier do not have to serve in it. Again proof is nice.


In summation, there is no need for me to defend anything, the vote was perfectly legal and enables the Intelligence community to get some real work done with obstructions taken down that got in the way. Those of us in Military Intelligence already had the ability to not have to waste time getting warrants, it makes my heart smile to see the civilian intel bubba's finally get a tool that helps them.........

Label me a freep. Do whatever I don't care, I know I am a Democrat, I also know I am happy that the FISA vote took place and that we have a legal framework in place (for 6 months and hopefully forever) that allows the Intel bubba's to do their jobs........

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[sanskritwarrior]

44. Wow

I would enjoy seeing you prove I am a traitor to this nation. I have served honorable for 14 years and have but 6 more to my retirement....And it is truly interesting seeing how many progressives can find it in their hearts to trash a Democrat for "daring to feel different" about an issue......... Very tolerant, very progressive.......... I am a good Democrat, I give to my candidates, and I support a moderately liberal agenda.........I would like to see you prove I am a traitor........

Have some class no one on the Conservative Democrat side is saying you should be purged or that you are traitors, most of us have a hell of a lot more class and can tolerate dissenting viewpoints. thanks for showing your true colors faux progressive.

And remember, don't hate because people are different, embrace diversity.......... :patriot:

[Solon]

49. Its more than a matter of difference of opinion...

The fact is that you wish to destroy the fabric of Constitutional law in this nation, the fact that you consider Warrants of all things as obstacles to your job tells me that you wish to act outside the purview of judicial oversight and the Constitution itself.

[sanskritwarrior]

51. YAWN.........

Yes I wish to destroy Constitutional Law.......... :eyes:

Is that the best you have got, trying to demonize me for daring to dissent from the progressive path..........

Try again solon, show me how much more tolerant and progressive you can be..........Call me a traitor some more, call me some more names, it truly shows how weak your argument is......

[Solon]

55. This has NOTHING to do with "Progressive" or "Conservative"....

This has to do with accountability, period, its not like getting warrants were such a fucking obstacle before, why the fuck do you need to be held unaccountable now? I would much rather there was a judge in the process somewhere along the line so that I would know that the rights of myself and others are protected FROM YOU.

[sanskritwarrior]

57. I'm no threat to you

from December on I'm going to be in Iraq, so I'm no threat.......

And I disagree, the Army's program has been quite successful it has allowed us to react more quickly to actionable intelligence without having to go through the time consuming nutroll of getting a warrant........I've seen a program similar to FISA work brilliantly against the enemies of this country, that's why I support it.........

[Solon]

60. Which enemies?

The ones we created by waging a war of aggression in Iraq, or the ones we trained in Afghanistan? And don't give me this shit about the Army's program, they did, after all, illegally violate the rights of Americans from the 1950s till the 1970s. You ARE a threat for as long as this law is in effect, hopefully the Democrats will grow some balls and kill it off, or it gets overturned in the courts. Also don't give me this shit about you "fighting for my freedom", you aren't, hell, no one has for at least 50 years. Sad really, that you are being used in this way, but you bought the line, how does it feel? Being a tool for those who wish to just line their pockets?

[sanskritwarrior]

62. Did I say I was fighting for your freedom?

I can't find the place where I said that.......

And I didn't buy any line, it feels pretty good to serve the greatest nation on earth if that is what you are asking......You seem to know more about me than I do, it's pretty crappy for you to tell me "what I think and what I believe"....I know what I believe and I know how awesome the new FISA rules are.......I couldn't be happier to be a Democrat or an American.....

As for enemies, anyone that represents a danger to the United States is an enemy, if the country orders me and my comrades to go and take care of them and they do it legally as they did with Iraq, I will gladly do it.......

I don't expect any thanks, I do this because I love America and what it stands for........

So if you would please prove that I am a traitor I would appreciate it, if you can't forgive me for laughing at your intolerant, unprogressive views.........

[Solon]

64. So the fact that we invaded and conquered a practically undefended country doesn't bother you?

If the country orders you to kill your own mother, would you do that too?

[sanskritwarrior]

65. The orders to invade Iraq

were authorized by our Congress, signed by the President, and executed by my chain of command, so why should I feel bad? I serve this country, and this country took a legal path to go to war, so my conscience is at ease.

Well what is my mother doing? Has she engaged in terrorism or is she just protesting??? Context matters.........

PS I was in the invasion convoys in 2003........the Iraqis put up a hell of a fight, so they were not exactly undefended........

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[sanskritwarrior]

67. Hmmm

how arrogant of you to presume what I do or do not possess........

I believe you would be crying most foul if I made such an accusation against you......

Have some class and don't insult your fellow DUers.......

My job is a soldier, I have been doing it for 14 years.......In that time I have acquired an advanced education, completed college and attended many lectures on ethics and morality in war............. I know where my morality stands.......

My country debated the merits of going to war with Iraq. Our congress passed a resolution authorizing it, the President (a man I loathe but must listen to as long as he is giving legal orders) gave the order to attack Iraq. My chain of command who I am sworn to obey executed the order to attack Iraq.

That is what is required to legally send me and others to war. Of course I have my personal feelings about the war, but they are quite irrelvant in the face of your questions........

I am not just "following orders" I am following Legal orders that my country has given me and until such time as those legal orders are rescinded I am oath bound to do my damndest to hurt the enemies of this country as much as possible while obeying the Rules of Engagement and the legal orders of my superiors.......

So please do not presume to tell me that I have no morality, I have quite a refined sense of morality that is tempered by the need to follow legal orders in accordance with an oath I have now taken four times

[Solon]

68. Actually, you are the perfect soldier...

You would gun down an Iraqi who is trying to defend his or her family against our war of aggression just because you were ordered to. Whatever "feelings" you have for this war is irrelevant, the fact is that you don't care if our "enemies" actually present a threat to the United States at all, you would kill whoever you were ordered to kill. I was wrong, you aren't a tool, you are a weapon, a mindless killing machine who would point and shoot at the nearest person the Government decides they don't like. To be frank, you disgust me.

[sanskritwarrior]

72. The feeling is likewise

I find intolerant people unwilling to accept people with different opinions disgusting myself.......

[ieoeja]

78. Proof of sanskritwarrior's Treason

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[PassingFair]

79. Yeah, but that was THEN, this is NOW.

:sarcasm:

It couldn't be much clearer, could it?

And they ALREADY had the ability to search without warrants
and go back and get them later!

Now they can put THAT off ALMOST indefinitely.

:puke:

TERRA TERRA TERRA

[ieoeja]

90. Back in the early days of the Gingrich Revolution.

A Democrat in the House offered the above as an amendment to a piece of legislation the Republicans had introduced. One Conservative after another stood up to denounce the amendment as liberal claptrap and a cheap stunt that would void the entire legislation. Finally one Conservative, don't recall which one, but one who apparently had at least a passing familiarity with the Constitution of the United States of America clued his GOP colleagues into the fact they had just spent the last hour denigrating a portion of the Bill of Rights. Worse yet, they had gone on record as stating that the Bill of Rights invalidated their entire legislation.

I often wonder if the Gingrich Revolution gave us no-knock warrants, random searches, road blocks, etc to placate the Conservatives in their constituency assuming the courts would knock down the offending legislation.

For the record, the courts failed to do their job with the above legislation even though the Conservatives in congress acknowledged it was unconstitutional.

[sanskritwarrior]

93. I don't see how that is being violated

oh wait your one of those people that actually believe monitoring phone calls represents search and seizure.........How truly laughable......

[Solon]

95. According to the Berger and Katz cases, it does...

Why not read up on Supreme Court decisions once in a while?

[sanskritwarrior]

96. Why?

If it was illegal it would not have been passed............

I swear this circular argument that the progressives latch onto is sad.......

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL, IT WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS, accept it and move on with your lives......

[Solon]

101. "Progressives"? Which team do you play for?

You said:

"oh wait your one of those people that actually believe monitoring phone calls represents search and seizure"

According to the Supreme Court, almost 40 years ago now, the search and seizure clause applies to wiretapping and other electronic surveillance. If you prefer ignorance, fine, but don't make shit up.

On another note, Congress can't pass an illegal law, that is true, but they can pass and have, Unconstitutional laws, its up to the courts to decide that, and the new FISA law is already getting challenged.

[sanskritwarrior]

109. I play for the Moderate Democrats team

the one that isn't going to sit around and watch the loony far left drive the party off a cliff.......That's the team I play for.....

[Solon]

112. Well, if you play for the "moderate" team, you are doing it no favors, that much is clear...

you actually play for the "make shit up" party, for crying out loud, at least research the shit you spout to make sure its accurate! Its not that hard, why not look here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html

[sanskritwarrior]

113. That's nice and all

but it proves nothing, the FISA law is now amended and no one is in jail for passing an illegal law, ergo it must be legal......

Now call me stupid and deride me mental faculties some more, I enjoy it so.......

[Breeze54]

115. I knew you smelled but didn't realize it was as bad a stench as it is...

You play for the Fascists regime and you are a fucking moron and a disgrace
to any soldiers that took the oath to defend the Constitution from enemies,
both foreign and DOMESTIC!!!

TRAITOR!! USURPER!!! FUCKTARD!!!

Go back to Freeperville!! That is clearly where you belong!!

Asshole.

[Lochloosa]

107. BULLSHIT

That is why we have courts. To determine if the laws passed by Congress are legal or not. Bad argument!

[sanskritwarrior]

110. Well

we will see what is bullshit and what is not. I have a feeling the courts will rule this law perfectly legal..........Of course I already know it is, but it will be nice to have a court backing me up.......

[Blue_In_AK]

70. I am curious...

Not meaning to flame, but tell us what Democratic principles you personally believe in. As a Democrat, I find your casual dismissal of the fourth amendment to the Constitution rather disturbing, so I'm just curious what you think defines you as a Democrat, what makes you different from a Republican. I mean, if you're really a Republican, fine, just be one, but be honest about it.

Seriously, I don't want to argue, and I won't. I may be misunderstanding you. Your posts that I've read always seem to gloat about how cool it is to now have this new power to circumvent the Constitution, despite a legal mechanism already in place to do what you wanted to do.

I disagree with you profoundly on this.

What DO we agree on? What makes us both Democrats?

[sanskritwarrior]

73. Hmmm

I support the right of any and all gay couples to enter into marriage if they wish to, the state should not be able to tell someone they cannot get married because of their sexual preference.....

I support the rights of a woman to get an abortion and do not believe any restrictions should be placed on said act. Attacking an abortion provider or clinic should carry a stiff federal criminal sentence.

I support a national system where paper ballots are used and electronic machines are eliminated entirely, they are dangerous in the hands of unethical people on both sides

I support a National single payer health care system with the wealthy being taxed at a higher rate to pay for it

I support any and all efforts to preserve social security for future generations, privatizing SS is one of the worst ideas in American history.

I support the destruction of the No Child Left Behind act, what an abomination.........

I am quite liberal in most areas of my life, except the GWOT, foreign policy, and FISA............

Any more questions......those are just a few I thought of off the top of my head.......

As for gloating, you're damn right I'm gloating, finally we had enough Democrats take their heads out of their asses and vote for something that gives real teeth to our intelligence gathering agencies.........I feel like throwing a party, I'm so happy.......

[Blue_In_AK]

82. Thank you for your response.

Except for the little matter of upholding the Constitution, we agree. I'm still having a problem getting past that violation of the Constitution thing, though.

[liberaldemocrat7]

111. In Nazi Germany Hitler and his henchman made a lot of illegal acts legal

by having the Reichstag pass laws. So what does that prove? If you want to nullify the 4th amendment with congressional laws, it does not make it necessarily moral and correct.

Some police officers even want the miranda rights repealed.

As far as I see, free market Democrats and too pro corporate Democrats can leave the party as those who want to outlaw abortion. Those people work against what I want to see in America, a country with single payer health care, corporations and their products and workplaces sufficently regulated and taxed, wealthy people sufficiently taxed, and privatization of the new deal reversed and eliminated.

If I want a pizza I will trust the private sector to make it and I'll pay for it.

If I want health care I want the government to pay for it and regulate it.

Corporations should not have more rights than people.

[sanskritwarrior]

114. So wait

now we are the nazis? Or are you now claiming that only people that vote for their constituents but against your opinion are Nazis?
Oy vey..........
The spinning in this thread is out of control.......Blue dog's represented their districts well by passing this wonderful FISA legislation.........Of course had their betrayed their constituents, the people that actually elected them, you would no doubt call them heroes........The cognitive dissonance on that one is mind boggling.......

[PassingFair]

45. "A Democrat that votes the way the progressives want is a good boy or girl"

And a Democrat that votes the way the REPUBLICANS want is a ......?

:eyes:

[sanskritwarrior]

47. Interesting

So Heath Shuler who represents a Conservative Democratic district where a bare majority favors the war is representing Republicans when he votes for the changes to FISA.......... :eyes:

WOW it must be hard to wrap your mind around the fact that in an unscientifc poll apparently 20-25% of Democrats favor the changes to FISA....... But hey start working on purging us and making our party a permanent minority....... :eyes:

An issue that conservative leaning voters favor, 32 Democrats in conservative districts voted for it, how shocking...........I guess representing your constituents only counts when the progressives say it does........ :eyes:

[PassingFair]

48. How many Republicans voted against it? n/t

[sanskritwarrior]

50. 2

as far as I know........

98% of Republicans voted for the changes

About 20% of Dems also voted for it........

So I guess you are saying 20% of Democratic House Representatives are really Republicans???

Of course most of the 41 come from Red districts, so I guess it is a crime for them to represent those districts by voting accordingly..........

[PassingFair]

52. Is it a crime? No.

Will I spend money and time and effort to root them
OUT of the party of opposition?

Yes.


"So I guess you are saying 20% of Democratic House Representatives are really Republicans???"

No.

They just VOTE like them.

[sanskritwarrior]

53. So you are going to spend money to

sponsor a progressive in Heath Shuler's very Red district........???

Well the majority was fun while it lasted..............

And how is it voting like Republicans when they vote LIKE THEIR FUCKING CONSTITUENTS????? GOD DAMN!!!!!! This is insane, there is a wing of DU blasting elected Democrats for voting like the people that elected them..........Good christ, the stupid in this thread burns.........

[PassingFair]

54. The people in Virginia who elected Webb did NOT expect him

to subvert the Constitution.

NO they did not.

Nor do other red state voters.

The only stupid in this thread is Y-O-U!

[sanskritwarrior]

56. LOL

so you can prove that Conservative Democrats elected in conservative democratic districts betrayed their constituents by voting for the FISA changes? I would love to see some proof of that........ I would love for just one progressive to admit that maybe they were representing their voters.........I can admit that the Dems that voted against FISA were definitely representing their voters.......

[PassingFair]

58. They betrayed ALL AMERICANS by voting for that piece of *hit.

No over site.
Sure, let's let
THIS GUY:



be the DECIDER!

[sanskritwarrior]

59. Interesting

anyone that disagrees with you has betrayed the country...........Don't change the subject, can you prove that they were not representing their constituents........

How progressive and tolerant of you.........

[PassingFair]

61. Just those who flush away our 4th amendment rights. n/t

[sanskritwarrior]

63. Can you prove they did that

because I can't........

Can you prove anything you have claimed so far, or are you just gonna take this on faith.......

[Blue_In_AK]

71. No, what you did was change the Constitution

without going through the amendment process. The law is clearly unconstitutional, but since the courts are stacked it probably won't be stricken. The rule of law has clearly broken down.

[sanskritwarrior]

74. So if the courts don't rule it unconstitutional

you will still say it is............ WOW hubris...........

[Blue_In_AK]

69. My response on a DCCC questionnaire I recently received...

I answered all the questions, but I wrote in that I was only supporting progressive candidates and therefore I would only be contributing to individual campaigns. I said that I wouldn't send any money to the national party until they start supporting progressive candidates with enthusiasm. I said the Blue Dogs must go.

I wonder if they care what I think. :shrug:

[PassingFair]

75. They CARE alright.

Remember, the main DLC players SKIPPED their
own party a couple of weeks ago. It was practically
Harold Ford running around alone with a noise maker.

TOXIC!

[Anita Garcia]

76. Why are we afraid?

Why are we afraid to call our Democratic friends in power and complain about their votes.
Is it that we think we'll be burning a bridge we may need to cross later?
Think about it.

[CrispyQ]

77. I couldn't agree more:

"We should not tolerate a situation in the House or Senate where a small band of conservative Democrats can hand victory after victory to the republican party. If that's what they want to do, it's time we taught them the price of their treason."

k&r

[mzmolly]

80. Run a progressive against them in the primary and see what happens.

That's the solution. If they win, they win and they represent those who voted for them.

[welshTerrier2]

83. i think that misses the point

if these Blue Dogs do not reside in a "progressive" district, it certainly makes no sense running a progressive against them in the primary.

here's the point of disagreement I have with how I BELIEVE you are seeing this issue. i'm speculating here so, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I believe your argument is that these Blue Dogs are representing the people in their districts as best they can. Is that fair to say? If you agree, let's even create a hypothetical to make your position even stronger. Let's say that a given Blue Dog rep or Senator actually called every single person in their jurisdiction and asked for their opinion on wiretapping. And let's say that every single person in that jurisdiction totally supported the exact position that rep or senator eventually took. I can't create a situation more favorable to the "representation" argument than that.

Even given that extreme case, we still should not condone any rep or senator voting to violate our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Now let's try a hypothetical that makes my point stronger. Suppose those same constituents had voted to let bush suspend freedom of speech or freedom of the press because they believed he should be granted such authority due to the war on terror. And, being a diligent elected official, the rep or senator from that district chose to vote with the president's party, in this case the republicans, to ignore the Constitution.

That is what I see the issue as. To speak of representing constituents in any given district is NOT the issue here. No district has a right to vote against my Constitutional protections. And that is exactly what the Blue Dogs have done.

There also is a political element to what they've done. The remedy you proposed, i.e. to run a progressive against them, is not the remedy I would like to see. If the party leadership is unable to reign in these bush enablers, I would like to see them punished by not supporting their requests for support for their states and for their campaigns. Why should the rest of us be blackmailed by arguments that they might "go over to the republicans" or that republicans might win in their states if we push them too hard? If they're going to vote against our Constitutional protections and, worse yet, empower bush to spy on Americans, who needs them. If we allow this to continue, it means nothing to be the majority party. And while we're making threats about losing to the republicans, exactly what impact on the Democratic Party do you expect the passage of this totalitarian legislation will have? This is very damaging to the party as a whole. While your conservative friends are busy watching out for their constituents, the rest of the country is pretty damned angry. If you think Americans are going to take kindly to this cave in by Democrats, you're wrong. The politics of this are clear even to those who don't pay much attention.

The "representation" argument is deficient because the highest obligation of elected officials is to uphold the laws of the land and the highest ideals to which they aspire. To put the representation of a single jurisdiction, especially on such a misguided, un-democratic position, above the deeply entrenched values embodied in the Constitution is not conservative; it's un-American. We, as citizens, should be free from illegal searches and unchecked wiretapping of our private communications. We've seen more than enough erosion of our civil liberties under bush's tyranny; for any Democrat to empower more of this erosion, regardless of intent, is unconscionable.

[mzmolly]

84. You would like to see us hand the nomination to Republicans in these districts, correct?

If the party leadership is unable to reign in these bush enablers, I would like to see them punished by not supporting their requests for support for their states and for their campaigns.

The "Party Leaders" don't get to think for others, unfortunately. Further your definition of "upholding the constitution" is apparently not agreed upon.

As I've stated above Loretta Sanchez, for example, has a solid record of supporting the ACLU. One vote does not mean we should enable a Republican replacement.

[welshTerrier2]

85. is that what you read in my post?

first, there's been no evidence presented about what the view from any of these districts actually is on this issue. so, before we make assumption about where the voters in those districts stand, we should obtain some data. second, regardless of where they might stand now, it's even less clear where they would stand if those reps made a case that this was a blatant, long-held, violation of the fourth amendment. many hardcore conservatives are very dedicated to protecting the Constitution. I might site Bob Barr's work with the ACLU as an example of that.

And I certainly didn't say that "party leaders get to think for others; what I'm talking about is having them play hardball. If you want us to help you, there are certain core democratic and Democratic (both small "d" and big "D") values that must be adhered to. There's room for compromise on many issues but not on certain issues. As a party, we should demand unwavering compliance to Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

As for Loretta Sanchez, there are no special exceptions. No, WE should not enable a republican replacement; nor should she. If she is going to vote to empower the republicans and do damage to the Democratic Party, it is she, not we, who is jeopardizing our political future.

[mzmolly]

86. "No, WE should not enable a republican replacement;"

Good to know.

I just don't think the hardball approach is "Democratic." To say that we should cut funds when people in those districts were democratically elected, is not a tactic I would support. The Blue Dogs were elected by the people in their districts. Those people have the ultimate say. Those people have contributed to the Democratic Party financially and otherwise. So, I feel it is we the people who have to play hardball. We have to put pressure on these Democrats to do what we feel is "the right thing," especially if we live in the BD districts.

Peace

PS Just read an interesting article on how Dean's 50 state strategy has paid off that may pertain?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070813/moser

[welshTerrier2]

87. consider this ...

first, let me apologize. I have to go out for a bit so I haven't read your link yet. I will though.

in the meantime, let me ask you how you feel about current Democrats who will likely vote for a third party next year or perhaps will write in a candidate in the general election or might not even vote at all. if they do it based on their beliefs, are you OK with that even if you disagree with their choice?

the reason I ask is because I see some similarities to the representation argument you're raising. in your argument, the rep is "being true" to their perception of how their constituents would see the issue; in the argument of those who will "vote their consciences" next year, they are "being true" to representing themselves. To thine district be true; to thine own self be true. See the similarity. Are you OK with that? Some DU'ers are not.

Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll check it out when I can.

[mzmolly]

88. I feel that anyone who is going to vote third party should not bitch about what happens

when Republicans are in control. It obviously can't bother them too much.

[whopgood]

91. Totally agree

Fortunately, I have the luxury of being respresented by Earl Blumenauer, and we agree on almost everything. However, had I lived in some place where some DLC centrist was elected, I would not hesitate to run agressively against them.

[mzmolly]

92. Hello and

welcome!!! :hi:

[BornagainDUer]

89. K&R!

[Vidar]

94. Just another name for the dixiecrats that brought Reagan to power.

[knowledgeispwr]

97. I understand what you're saying...

but what about these "blue dog" democrats that would be replaced by republicans if we "played hardball" with them? If enough of them lost, then the republicans would return to control the houses and then democrats would no longer control the agenda.

What do you mean by "stronger candidates"? More progressive candidates are likely to lose in some/most of these districts. If you simply mean standing up on constitutional issues, then I agree with you.

[welshTerrier2]

98. not "stronger"; "strong"

while the initial focus of my OP in this thread was specifically on the Blue Dogs, check out this post from further upthread.

also, let me be very clear that I have not called for "more progressive candidates" (at least I hope I didn't). that was NOT my intent. what I am calling for is making those who won't align themselves with core Democratic Party values and the Constitution understand that there will be consequences for their un-democratic, un-American, treasonous actions.

and let me also state that I do NOT accept the argument that Democrats would lose these seats in conservative districts. it's their job to stand up for the Bill of Rights. I don't accept the premise that conservative Americans agree with eroding the Bill of Rights. And those who do should be taught that to do so is NOT in the country's best interest. The Bill of Rights protects Americans and America's soul. We should not be afraid to stand up for liberty. The "yeah, but, my district is conservative" argument is crap.

in the end, as highlighted in the linked post above, I'm afraid that this travesty of justice goes beyond the Blue Dogs. Does the expression "pay no attention to that man (woman?) behind the curtain" ring a bell? In decisions of this nature, one would be wise to ask what forces are driving the party. To believe that all actions are taken independently and that permissions are not granted from above is probably a bit naive. And above the Blue Dogs, there was Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer and others. And above them, perhaps the campaign "frontrunner" and her husband. Understand this: the more confident the great triangulators get that they will win the nomination, the further to the right they will push the party. Think there's no connection? Stay tuned. A leaked campaign memo from Hillary to her "elite campaign staff" will soon be publicized on this very website.

[knowledgeispwr]

99. OK, I think I understand you're point of view...

I agree that Democratic office holders should hold to a core of democratic values and the constitution. So often there are posts/threads on DU about us "purifying" the democratic party of all those that will not vote left or far-left on all issues (a view that I think is too idealistic). Perhaps I read some of that into your OP for which I apologize. I understand that you aren't calling for that.

[welshTerrier2]

100. please read this post ...

i elaborated on exactly what I think the party needs to do in the following post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3441969&mesg_id=3442455

[AtomicKitten]

102. hey wt2 - Wouldn't it be amazing if Gore came out slamming

what the Dem Congress just did on warantless wire-tapping?

I do believe I would implode with delight.

Chicken Lady: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamvidb1RRc

[welshTerrier2]

103. Gore: "I'm not very good at politics"

I've heard Gore make that statement several times. But, I'm happy to say, I just don't believe Gore really means it.

Think about it: can he really believe he stinks at politics when he WON the popular vote in 2000? And what was his track record running for the House and then the Senate and then VP? I have no idea if Gore will run but his "no good at politics" seems intentionally "misdirecting."

If you're keeping score at home, 6 little terriers say he won't; 4 say he will. That leaves plenty of wiggle room here in Puppyville.

As for the Chicken Lady, gotta love those exploding feathers :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

104. that's definitely plenty of wiggle

Ah, puppies. I love baby animals. Then they grow up and assume 'tudes and commit mischief unscathed because they were once puppies or kittens and that's what we see when we look at them.

Let's just say if Gore does that and/or declares he is running, well, you've seen the video. Fingers crossed.

[welshTerrier2]

105. the source of my icon

[AtomicKitten]

108. TOO cute.

I mean it. The authorities will be by directly to collect you.