Just a reminder

[WilliamPitt]

that if the Democrat running for the House and/or Senate in your district is a piece of crap, you should vote for them because you aren't voting for *them.*

You're voting for a recapturing of the majority by the Democrats.

You're voting for the removal of people like Frist and Hastert from power.

You're voting for the recapturing of the Intelligence Committee, the Finance Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, the Government Oversight Committee, and a dozen other committees of unbelievably substantial power.

You're voting to give subpoena power to John Conyers, Henry Waxman and Barney Frank.

You're voting for the ability to stop judicial nominees...and remember that Justice Stevens is 86 years old and not much longer for the world. You're voting to make sure another Roberts/Alito clone isn't elevated to the highest bench.

Just a friendly reminder.

One last edit, perhaps a snooty one, but it needs saying.

Responsible voting has nothing whatsoever to do with making you feel good about yourself or burnishing your liberal credentials. If you vote because you want to respect yourself in the morning, you are not being responsible to the country. This is a "we" deal, and this is also politics, which is a dirty business requiring multiple, constant and ever-present compromises.

Vote for majority control, no matter which individual Democrat you cast a ballot for. That is the responsible thing to do.

[redqueen]

1. I wish the MORONS who are supporting Kinky in TX would get this point!

:banghead:

[Maestro]

11. A-fucking-men redqueen!

Why don't they just vote for Goodhair instead. :mad:

[redqueen]

21. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" ... I get that reasoning at least,

but KINKY?

FCOL!

[Schema Thing]

13. Amen

[Czolgosz]

151. Who ARE those morons? Is it not bad enough that Kinky voted for Bush, has

specifically supported Bush's Middle East policy, has adopted a position to the right of Bush on immigration, has adopted a position to the right of Bush on erasing the boundary between church and state, and lied about voting for Gore? For more, see <http://stopkinky.blogspot.com/>.

[redqueen]

178. i don't even want to get into it...

but some people whom i wouldn't expect such nonsense from, to be sure

:(

[Hippo_Tron]

169. Isn't Kinky pro gay marriage?

You're right, of course, that Rick Perry and all of the other pukes are so bad that voting D is necessary to get them out of office, but from what I've read, Kinky is very progressive on some issues and pretty conservative on some other issues. Basically, he pretty much has no ideology and says what he thinks. I kind of wish that we could have races like that where we can vote for candidates who just sort of say what they think, but unfortunately we have to focus on getting rid of the Republicans.

[redqueen]

179. he's said a lot of things that sound good

however he's a frickin musician, not a politician, and i doubt he'd be able to get much, if anything, done in this state... well, unless it was backed by the lt. gov and the leg. that is where the power is... if he's the gov, well it'll be a real gift to the powerful

[Hippo_Tron]

192. Out of curiosity what kind of power does the Lt. gov in texas have?

I know that he's president of the senate and also has authority over certain commissions, making him a lot more powerful than the typical Lt. gov. But just how powerful is the position?

[redqueen]

195. it is arguably the MOST powerful position in texas

not only does that person serve in both the legislative and executive branches, but they also work with the senate to write the rules of the senate at the beginning of each session. they get to assign all the committees, chairs, and members of those committees, and also get to designate which legislation is sent to which committee. they are also considered members of all the boards (budget, education, audit, etc.)

it's ridiculous, really, how powerful that position is.

[Hippo_Tron]

199. So if a Democrat is Lt. Gov but the GOP has the majority of the senate...

Does the Lt. Gov get to apppoint Democrats to be committee chairs?

[redqueen]

201. IIRC, yes. n/t

[Czolgosz]

197. Kinky likes to make a pro-gay marriage joke but Kinky DID NOT VOTE against

Texas' homophobic anti-equal-rights Constitutional Amendment.

Kinky's all talk and no action on this issue (as he is on most issues). Like most everything the sounds admirable about Kinky, when you look deeper, it's all smoke and mirrors.

Kinky makes a joke about how "gay people should be a miserable as the rest of us" and the press awards him a "get out of jail free" card and they never ask any follow up questions like (1) "why didn't you vote against the amendment?" (2) "what are you going to do to preserve gays' equal access to the more than 1,000 rights dependent upon marital status?" (3) "why do you turn the question into a joke instead of addressing the issue as a serious matter involving people's rights?"

[redqueen]

202. He talks about a lot of good stuff, but he obviously doesn't believe it.

It's all for show to get elected.

[cain_7777]

183. Seriously...

I have been arguing with my democratic friends that kinky is not a wise choice. We need to vote democrat through and through. Every time I vote it is democrat across the board, but unfortunately in the blood red state of TX it doesn't amount to much.

[redqueen]

188. That's the mindset too many dems have "it doesn't amount to much"

so many don't even bother voting... it kills me!

If we all voted, and voted STRAIGHT TICKET, perhaps it would!

*sigh*

If there has EVER been a time for straight-ticket voting, it is NOW!

:bounce:

[wildbilln864]

2. I'm ...

100 % with you!

[bdamomma]

3. they all need a quick kick in the behind

so we all need to VOTE.

[Lerkfish]

4. Here's another reminder: voting for lieberman meant that

he became a member of the "gang of 14" that prevented our ability to filibuster Roberts/Alito in the first place.


I'm just sayin. :shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

5. That was then

and you're not wrong. But this kind of "gang of 14" crap is what happens when you're mired in the minority for 12 years. This is 2006, and Lieberman is the least of our troubles. We have a chance to get this done.

[LynneSin]

9. Here's another reminder: Democratic Control of the Judiciary committee

means that the "Gang of 14" can go fuck themselves. When Leahy had control back in 2001-2, we only had to worry about what the 8 democratic members of that committee voted and they stuck together like crazy glue when it came to activist judges. You have people like Leahy, Kennedy, Kerry, Feingold, Durbin and even Biden who are some of the strongest advocates for choice and a sure thing when it comes to voting against these loop jobs that Bush nominates (trust me, I've written to Biden on every single one of the bad candidates and Biden was there 100% of the time)

[HardRocker05]

114. What's your point? Remember how dems were 'keeping their powder dry' all

that time so they could make a stand on the supreme court nominations, and well, we know how that turned out. They let the repukes steal 2 (or three) elections and bully this country into one of the most disasterous wars in history, and they still want us to believe that *they* and only they can save us. I'm going to have to see the money before i fall for that again.

[HardRocker05]

112. And he's another war-whore. Dems better not be taking my vote for granted

because i believe in accountability. If you vote for the democrat no matter what they do while in office, that's pretty much the definition of no accountability. Being slightly better than the repukes is just not going to cut it, cuz driving off a cliff at 25 mph is no better than driving off it at 50 mph.

[DoYouEverWonder]

173. So then

you'll be voting Republican?

What other choice is there?

Only people who don't want to control Congress will vote against a DEM.

[LittleClarkie]

113. I don't care if it's Lieberman's butt in that seat as long as a Dem

sits there.

Just make sure it's a Dem and not a Republican, that's all I ask. Just somebody with a D by his name. If we lose the seat, I'll be quite pissed.

[Lerkfish]

119. I guess you missed my point.

mr. pitt said we need to have a dem in the seat OR ELSE we'll be stuck with the likes of Roberts/Alito.

My point was we DID have lieberman in seat and we were stuck anyways, and we DID end up with precisely Roberts/Alito because a DINO will broker deals with republicans that forces into things like the gang of fourteen.

its a distinction without a difference.

yeah, yeah, I know you'll do all the math on the seat numbers and whatnot...but I'm saying that if we have a team member that keeps shooting into our own goal, IT WON'T MATTER IF THE TEAMS ARE EVEN, we still lose.

[LittleClarkie]

124. His point, I thought, was toward the future, as in a majority

It's not Liebermans butt in the seat now, but that a Dem in that seat is a Dem that counts toward a majority of Dems in the Senate. It's the total amount of Dems, not just one Dem and one seat.

[Hippo_Tron]

166. There would be no compromising if we were in the MAJORITY

Lieberman could attempt to align himself with Republicans and get right wing judges through the senate all he wants. It won't matter. Such a nominee will never get out of the judiciary committee because we will have a democratic majority on the committee. The gang of 14 will be completely powerless.

[Midlodemocrat]

6. .

:applause:

[OKNancy]

7. and if you have a Democrat running, count your blessings

some of us aren't even blessed with a DINO to vote for.

[vickitulsa]

22. Ain't THAT the truth, Nancy!

Sometimes I tell ya, I feel like I live in a political f'ing Wasteland!

At least here in Tulsa it's not quite as bad as in the rural areas and small towns, but it's still nauseating to think about the creeps and crooks who represent us. And I'm old enough to remember quite well when Oklahoma was a proud Democratic stronghold! It wasn't all that long ago, or maybe I'm just aging fast ... but still it was just an accepted fact of life that most folks in Oklahoma were Democrats and happy to be so.

Where on earth did things go so wrong and we here in Oklahoma ended up in this morass of insanity called a Republican majority??

*Sigh* I'm just disgusted with the state of things here in my beloved home state in my beloved home country. I DO believe it can change and I admit I'm seeing some promising signs here and there, so I won't give up, and I'll damn sure VOTE.

I guess I'm hoping a lot of Republicans are also disgusted with their "leadership" and may just stay home if they can't bring themselves to switch to voting for a Democrat....

[femrap]

52. I'm reading 'The History of the US' by Howard

Zinn...and I was shocked to read that during the early 1900's Oklahoma has shitloads of Socialists!!!! More elected there than anywhere! WTF happened?

[vickitulsa]

174. I think it was most likely Bible-beltism gone amok.

Conservative thinking here even among Democrats was not unusual, especially in certain aspects of life (like "morality"). But I do recall studying about the socialists in Oklahoma's past, too. Woody Guthrie is from here, born in Okemah, and we all know about him -- and his son, Arlo, whom I saw in a cozy live concert here in Tulsa in the early '80's. I think Woody's songs especially captured a historical "feel" of Oklahoma that no one has ever surpassed, and that is our legacy. I think that's how the whole socialist-related thing got started here but am not certain about that.

(Here's a good biographical page about Woody in case anyone's interested on learning more about him.)

http://www.woodyguthrie.org/biography.htm


I do know that Oklahoma is to this day populated with a high percentage of poor people, and they are the LAST ones you'd think would be voting Republican! Sometimes I guess I just don't get it; but when I grew sorta old (just turned 57) and disabled and wanted to settle down in one place at last (I was a rambler much like Woody), I came back to Oklahoma. I still love this place, for all its warts and waywardness! :D

Makes me mighty sad to see all those nasty Republicans running things here as well as in DC.... :cry:

I really don't know WHAT the fuck happened -- in my home state OR my home country! Sad sad days these are indeed.... :cry:

[femrap]

198. Hopefully the Poor of OK and the country will stop

being manipulated by this FEAR that the neocons wield oh so well. And the Dems haven't really stood up and given folks another light to look upon...yes, it's sad. But I'm beginning to think that it's most dark before the dawn. Keep Hope Alive!

[vickitulsa]

200. Yes, hopefully they will. I'm one of them, btw,

and my food stamps were just cut off two months ago with no reason whatsoever given. In order to get them started again, I'll have to get my pain-racked body down to the DHS office, wait in a hard plastic chair for heaven knows how long -- even if I do have an appointment -- and then hope it hasn't been all in vain because of some new rule change the Repugs have pushed through.

They had already cut the amount of food stamps I was getting, also without explanation, from $90/month to $65/month. My sole income is my SSDI (Disability) check which is $718/month, and my lot rent is $350/month, so it's easy to see how tight my "budget" is! Losing my food stamps really matters.

One thing about it: If my fellow poor-Okies finally DO wake up to how they've been manipulated into voting against their own interests, and if they turn on the Repugs for it, they won't likely vote anything but Dem for a generation or two!

Like you say, Keep Hope Alive!

[OKNancy]

60. I like to joke

that too many Texans moved here.

[LynneSin]

8. I've said this a hundred times and have been flamed for it

I really want to vote for Michael Berg, who is running for US House on the Green ticket in Delaware. Here's a big name person and very well known anti-war critic. But no matter what - I have to vote for my party because ultimately it's not about the bragging rights of saying "I voted for Michael Berg (or insert name of your local indie candidate) but "I helped to oust the republican majority by voting democrat". The later will help our party 110% more!

[HardRocker05]

121. Removing the repugs is no different than "removing Sadaam Hussein." If

we have no better alternative to put in place after the removal, then we gain nothing. Now, i won't go so far as to say that dems are no better than repukes, but if they continue to fall for the lure of the imagined, tiny, incremental gain by voting for "safe," "anybody but the republican" dem candidates, they will lose in the long run. This party needs some ideas and some backbone desparately, and they had better get it in a hurry, or i guarantee you that the outcome of elections 2006 and 2008 will be just like 2000, 2002, and 2004. Republicans will win, whether legitimately or not, and democrats will grow even more cautious, fearful, and impotent.

[Moochy]

139. Better Alternatives

"If we have no better alternatives to put in place..."

Here are some better alternatives that the Democrats can only do if they control the majority of seats in each house:

Oversight.
Impeachment.

:applause:

[helderheid]

10. of course I'm recommending.

[Phillycat]

12. In PA, they have a "Straight Democratic ticket" button

Push it and go!

[catmandu57]

14. They just took that option away from us here

That's how I've voted in the general election since I can't remember, go into to booth find the straight dem option mark it and go, now I've got to jump through a hoop oir two just to get my ballot and no straight ticket voting.

[SeattleGirl]

15. You're absolutely right, Will.

We have to look at the larger picture, not just individual candidates. The larger picture is the most important. Taking back the house is vital.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Well said William and I totally agree.

Too often, I think we let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Kicked and recommended

:kick:

[jus_the_facts]

17. another reminder......and reality check......

....through the eons of time *politics* hasn't done much at all toward the enhancement or advancement of *civilization*...but yeah let's not give up hope that somehow *our side* will win and acutally do anything to improve the state of this fucked up world.

[ulysses]

91. hah!

Touche'!

[LincolnMcGrath]

18. Premature Electoral Objurgation?

Let the Primary season run it's course, then re-post this excellent rant. :thumbsup:

[WilliamPitt]

19. You are quite correct

Thanks.

[Guy Fawkes]

20. I refuse.

What's the point in electing someone you don't like? What's the point in voting for someone you don't agree with? It isn't the "responsible" thing to do, it's the flock-mentality thing to do. I'd rather vote for a liberal Green than a conservative Democrat any day of the week.

The "Founding Fathers" didn't even like the idea of political parties; they'd rather you vote according to your political ideals than according to some label.

[Phillycat]

23. Wait, let me settle in here.

:popcorn:

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. I disagree in most cases. Fight it out in the primary process,

get involved locally, run for office, whatever.

That being said, A Dem majority is critical, and any other party vote in this fall's bellwether election is a vote against progressive values.

Thankfully, other party votes have been trending downward of late.

[Guy Fawkes]

26. It's only a majority in name...

if the elected officials aren't in line with core democratic ideals.

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. Who among them is without fault?

Even Dennis K has sided across the ideological divide from me on occasion, and his record is one of heavy progressive credentials.

[Guy Fawkes]

54. Plenty of politicians aren't perfect...

but I'm talking about people who consistently vote with the opposition. If a democrat were to vote against the party 100% of the time but still win the nomination for the party (let's say it's a very conservative state), I wouldn't vote for them. I don't care if they call themselves a Democrat.

Consider the phrase "wolf in sheep's clothing."

[LincolnMcGrath]

59. I challenge you to a duel!

All kidding aside, I would have a very hard time finding anything positive about the Zell Miller of the last decade, but I can't rule out voting for him in a primary if he won the nomination.

[Guy Fawkes]

66. I put this to you (All of you):

If Adolf Hitler ran as a Democrat and won the party nomination- but still believed in nazism and all that- would you vote for him simply because he claims to be a Democrat?

[WilliamPitt]

69. Godwin's Law

"There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such deliberate invocation of Godwin's Law will be unsuccessful."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[Guy Fawkes]

71. Nice use of Wikipedia....

How could anyone argue with a bunch of crap that users make up totally at random?

Fine: what if it was Rick Santorum, running as a Democrat? What if George Bush ran under the Democratic banner, but was still the same guy? Would you vote for them based solely on their title?

[WilliamPitt]

76. Yup

If voting for Rick Santorum chased Bill Frist out of the ability to kill or redirect good legislation, if voting for Rick Santorum would help ensure that another wingnut isn't tossed onto the bench when Stevens steps down, if voting for Rick Santorum would give good people subpoena power to truly investigate the war and Halliburton and Plame and everything else, then I would pull that handle and sleep like a goddam baby that night.

We don't always get what we want, and somewimes we have to compromise in order to achieve a greater good. An inability to do this indicates an absolutist mindset that will forever keep your views and desires locked in a closet.

[Guy Fawkes]

80. You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

It doesn't matter what "party" has a majority. Let me repeat that in bold: It doesn't matter what "party" has a majority. It matters what political ideology has the majority. A liberal majority would get subpoenas and put other liberals on the bench- not a majority of a specific party.

Stevens was a republican, he was put on the bench by a republican president. Same with Souter. It didn't matter what party they were- they are liberals.

[LynneSin]

87. No Guy - you don't get it. You think this is just all about "ME"

It does matter, there is a reason and the democratic party does NOT revolve around the ideas of just 1 person - the "ME". You just refuse to take your blinders off and look at the big pictures.

God, I would LUST for John Conyers to be the chair of the house Judicary Committee. That's a liberal wet dream with that concept alone. How about Henry Waxman as the Committe Chair for Government Reform - think about the juicy hearings that guy will have on Cspan in the main committee room - not squirrel away in some undersized utility room. Think of John Murtha as the chair of the House Appropriation Committee - along with some power to possibly end the war the guy could make sure that our soldiers have the equipment they need to properly do their job.

And that's just the house - I haven't even started with the Senate and the possibly of a Judicial committee that'll stop activist judges so we don't have to worry about filibusters and 'gang of 14' since the judges will never leave committee.

I feel bad that you can only think about the bad democrats that taint our party and refuse to take off the blinders and see what a Majority will actually mean. There are plenty of amazing democrats that we heap with glory everyday that have the possiblitity of a Committee Chair majority where THEY make the decisions and not republicans who will just bury this stuff.

As Will so thoughtfully said - we have to stop thinking with the "ME" mentality because we will continue to lose. We have to think of "WE" and realize that in order to get some really good stuff we'll have to put up with some bad in the process. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

[Guy Fawkes]

96. WE are the borg.

I know, let's all be the same and think the same and vote the same! I'll make the magical koolaid! OR... we could think for ourselves. And instead of wasting votes on a straight-party ticket, we could actually vote in liberals and progressives! Wow, what a change THAT would be!

Read my lips: majority of the party doesn't matter if the elected officials aren't liberal. A conservative Democrat, even if they're Majority Leader, will do the same thing as a normal Republican. I'm not proposing you don't vote for democrats. Only that in one or two (TOPS!) instances- depending on where you live- it may be better to vote for a 3rd party candidate.

[LynneSin]

97. Sorry the only borg I see is you

And I read this thread knowing that the majority of the posters understand and are not buying your line of crap. That's what it is - crap. It's the "I don't care it's all about ME ME ME and the rest of the country can suffer just so I feel I can sleep better at nights that I voted to make ME ME ME feel good"

That's exactly what I'm reading. As I've said a dozen times in this thread alone - A republican on it's absolutely best day is still worse than a democrat on it's worst

[Guy Fawkes]

105. Do you have any idea what I'm even talking about?

Do you understand the things that I've been saying, or do they go completely over your head? This isn't about "ME ME ME" and it isn't so "I can sleep better at nights."

Let me start over in simple terms...

Two party system bad: politicians don't follow their political parties. Ideology is all that matters. Vote based on ideology and record, not what party a person belongs to.

For the record- and this is really bugging me- "A Republican on its best day is still worse than a Democrat on its worst" is a stupid idea and a talking-point. You not only give no evidence to back it up, but you couldn't possibly have any: due in part, to the existence of moderate and liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.

[LynneSin]

109. I'm going to say this and then I'm leaving

(only because I have plans tonight and I'm already late)

You and I see 2 different sides to the same coin.

You see that there are bad democrats (and there are) and your concern is that even though we have to work with the flawed system that we have and that we do need a democratic majority - that's it's not worth risking it there was a feasiblity to put one of those bad democrats in charge. I know that you support the democratic party but you're not willing to accept the risk of those bad democrats

On the other side of the coin is me - who also knows that there are bad democrats but would rather risk having them in power than the republicans that are currently in charge. And yes, some of them will get committee seats and possiblity majority positions - however one only needs to look at the committee assignments to see the host of really good democrats in position for a majority chair seat if we get the win.

Both plans are risky, but I've six years with republicans in charge and I just can't see it getting any worse. And I look at the committee assignments and I do not see one democrat in a position that could have a poor affect on things such as the war, environment, choice and a host of other issues (and yes, I know Lieberman would get Gov't Affairs - that's the bullshit chair assignment where you put someone who ranks a chair seat but you don't want to cause any major damage. And to give credit to Lieberman - he's the one that initiation the California Energy Hearings which helped reduce the price of Energy in California and probably caused Enron to go belly up).

You and I just have different ideas of what we're willing to risk and not risk.

But the thing is - we'll never know what we can and can't do if we don't try and get that majority including sticking with the democratic straight ticket if necessary. You walk your own path and are willing to take the risk even though you know the system is flawed (and haven't realized that 3rd party candidates essentially have made no change in the direction of the party they are aligned with).

So be it! Go forth and vote 3rd party

And btw before I go I'm going to say it again in really large, big letters

"A Republican on its best day is still worse than a Democrat on its worst"

That's Lynne's talking point - I stole it from a coworker who was a bit of an asshole but the quote was very usuable in it's concept

[redqueen]

181. ...

:applause:

[Major Hogwash]

127. They don't have a Progressive Party in my state.

So, that kind of narrows it down to the Republican Party and the Democrat party.

There is, of course, all the other parties that get 15 votes split between them every election.

[tavalon]

184. In time, when we are firmly entrenched in the majority

Then it will be time to route out the useless and even dangerous ones, while still maintaining our majority with all of the important thengs we can do as the majority. If we go off half cocked now because we cant see the big pictures, there will be no big picture to work with.

[LittleClarkie]

142. It's like people are saying that the majority doesn't matter unless

all the Dems in question pass the purity test.

The Southern Dems in particular are going to have a time of it if that's the case.

I see that the poster you're responding to has involked the Borg.

But I'm left wondering, if we're not the Borg, why we expect our Senators to be Borgs, never disagreeing with each other. Why must they all follow the same ideology? We don't.

Yep, getting things like Conyers as head of the Judiciary instead of my asshat Rep Sensenbrenner would be wonderous.

[Laurab]

147. You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

I DOES matter what party has a majority. This is not like other times in history, where there was, perhaps - a moderate republican in office. Some bipartisanship. No, this is more like a dictatorship, and the ONLY way to get our country out of the hole we're in is to get the REPUBLICANS out of the majority.

Some people don't want to get it. I just don't get THAT. Anyone who takes their vote away from a dem to vote their "conscience" or whatever, is giving a vote to the repukes. Dems are the ONLY viable alternative we have right now.

Putting something in bold doesn't make it true. Today, in these times, it DOES matter. It matters very much. If you don't want to get it, I guess no one is going to be able to make you, but it's really very easy to understand. We are powerless to do anything to change this country, and will remain so, unless the democratic party regains the majority.

[LincolnMcGrath]

117. You did not just play the Hitler card did you?

:silly:

[LynneSin]

42. You're absolutely right HOWEVER......

First, even a Lieberman sides with us on very important issues including the ENvironment, Choice, Labor, Healthcare and even Civil Rights. His voting record with democrats is over 70% of the time which is STILL better than any republican out there. So even if Lieberman were to win the primary, I'd rather have a 70% democrat than a 0% republican.

[Warren Stupidity]

128. Lieberman is a real problem.

Unlike his redstate counterparts, Lieberman is a blue state senator who has rather consistently undermined progressive issues and more importantly EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION to the Bush Cabal over the last six years. The voting record argument is pretty much crap. He is an enabler of the worst sort, and he is despicable for what he has done.

So quite frankly, especially given the fact the Lieberman registered today to run as an independent should he lose the primary, I see no reason why he should be treated to the normal 'fight 'em in the primary, join 'em in the election' rule. Loyalty is a two way street and Joe has made his choice clear: he is not a member of the Democratic Party, he is a member of the Lieberman Party.

Will Pitt's point is in general correct. A Democratic majority in either house will enable the good Democrats to investigate the criminal activities of the Cabal with subpoena power. On the other hand if I were a Connecticut voter I would have a very hard time marking my ballot for Lieberman and I can fully understand those who would not. The redstate Democrats get a pass from me on this - while they piss me off I continue to be willing to believe that they cannot win elections without holding the positions they hold.

[WilliamPitt]

27. Voting, in this day and with all that is happening,

is not some self-congratulatory exercise. The fact that you used "I" in your statement above tells me that you miss this point. It isn't about you feeling good about yourself, about your desire to stand out as an individual, or about avoiding some kind of "flock mentality," whatever that means. It's about cleansing the institutions of government of some of the worst people who have ever occupied it.

If participating in that by voting for whomever will best get that done, if participating in an exchange of majority power across the board, is not something that makes you feel good, then I get the sense that nothing in the world can or will ever make you feel good.

[Guy Fawkes]

29. "whomever will best get that done"...

You forget, some democrats are just as bad as some republicans. Would you vote for Zell Miller simply because he is a democrat? You say, "go after them in the primaries!" But what if he wins the primary and gets the party nomination? Should someone vote for Zell Miller simply because he won the party?

No. A majority is empty if those elected don't agree with the party line.

[Bill McBlueState]

31. He didn't forget.

I assure you, the OP did not forget about Zell Miller when he posted. Democratic control of Congress means Democrats get control of committees and get to decide when legislation and nominees come up for a vote. The voices of fringe figures in the party do not dominate this process.

[Guy Fawkes]

34. "Fringe figures" can easily take control

In a committee, the most senior member of the majority party in that committee (confused yet?) leads the committee. So if you have 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans, the senior Democrat will usually lead the committee. Political viewpoint has nothing to do with committee leadership, it all comes down to how long you've been in the Congress.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Guy Fawkes]

43. Amazing debating skills you have.

"You're wrong, go kill yourself."

Zell Miller is just an example. I could've said "XYZ Conservative Democrat," it amounts to the same thing.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Guy Fawkes]

48. No, you've missed the point again!

Let's say there are three candidates: An ultra-conservative Democrat, an even worse Republican, and a moderate/liberal Green. I would vote for the green, because I agree with them- NOT BECAUSE OF THIER POLITICAL PARTY. Until people can get over the bullshit labels of political parties, we'll be stuck with politicians we don't agree with.

[WilliamPitt]

55. I think we just disagree

because my thinking goes this way...

Let's say there are three candidates: An ultra-conservative Democrat, an even worse Republican, and a moderate/liberal Green. I would vote for the conservative Democrat, because he or she will be one of either 51 or 218, depending on the chamber, and because voting for that crappy one will empower the three dozen others who are excellent and worthy of support.

The "bullshit labels of political parties" thing you have going is a tough sell for me, simply because I am not one to dismiss something that undeniably exists because I don't like it. The parties are there, they aren't going anywhere, and wishing them away won't help.

[Guy Fawkes]

58. Political parties have changed

Politicians used to do one of two things: 1)always vote with their party or 2)Split from the party. That's changed: politicians nowadays stay with the party and just vote differently.

Your '218' idea is utter bull: while the majority has a great amount of say-so in what party makes up the majority on a committee, it is still possible that a conservative Democrat could lead. And because seniority is often the deciding factor in who leads, you could easily have a conservative Democrat become the Majority Leader.

[LynneSin]

92. So you're basically saying you don't give a shit if Conyers has power

because that's what you're taking away. You eliminate every other possibly thing out there for why we should fight for a democratic majority except John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and you still have more enough reason WHY what Will says makes since.

John Conyers + House Majority Chair = Subpeona powers since he needs a majority to get it. And the fact that all democrats of his committee have shown up for these hearings that have good meaning but no chance of actually making chance since republicans won't attend and have the majority - you just don't get it.

Second best reason, btw is Henry Waxman - Government Reform committee chair

[LynneSin]

171. You have this fantasy that Lieberman is going to rise up and take over

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/d_three_sections_with_teasers/committees_home.htm
http://www.house.gov/house/CommitteeWWW.shtml

Here's your committee, pretty much the person sitting in the minority seat PROVIDED they are re-elected would take over.

It's a sad day you'd worry about the fringe taking over when we would have the likes of Conyers, Waxman, Murtha, Leahy, Kennedy, Kerry etc taking over some important committee where we could actually make a difference. As for Lieberman - he's given a committee seat that pretty much is an overlap position for all the other committees (meaning if he hadn't started the California Energy Crisis hearings there was another committee that could have done it).

To assume the fringe would take control if the democrats got the majority pretty much means your eyes are closed now to who is running the Senate and House now.

[LSK]

32. if electing Miller gets Conyers chairmanship

And then Conyers can SUBPEONA people like Rumsfeld and Rice and Cheney to TESTIFY WHILE SWORN IN about things like the DOWNINGSTREETMEMOS then yeah, I would vote for Zell Miller.

[LynneSin]

89. My god I get goosebumps thinking about it

How anyone cannot see that is beyond me!

[LynneSin]

93. BTW here's one for you: Henry Waxman, Government Reform Chair

[gully]

189. Indeed - "Conyers" is more than a label.

And so are the vast MAJORITY of Democrats.

[WilliamPitt]

36. Yes yes yes

Some of them are awful so chuck the whole thing.

I don't get this thinking. Work with me here. Seeing John Conyers become Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is:

a) A good thing;

b) A great thing;

c) So awesome I can't even think straight.

d) All of the above.

The answer is "d."

Unfortunately, we all don't live in Michigan, so we can't all vote directly for Mr. Conyers. We have to vote for whomever is in our district, and voting for whomever is in that district will help secure the majority, which will put Conyers in that chair. So, in effect, you are voting for Conyers no matter whom you vote for.

Oh, and there are 435 House members. If 218 of them are Democrats, we get Chairman Conyers, and we can bury the shitheads among the other 217.

This isn't rocket science, Guy. Blowing shit up is only good when it accomplishes something. Otherwise, you're just making a mess and getting people killed.

[deaniac21]

53. There is no 'I' in team however there is a 'me'.

Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else.

[Major Hogwash]

98. Naw, that's not necessarily true.

Even if someone as low as Joe Lieberman was re-elected, the power would shift to the Democrats.

That's what the intent of this thread was, to remind us of the power shift to the Democrats this fall.

If, on the other hand, we follow your argument to its conclusion, nothing changes - because you think some Democrats are as bad as some Republicans.

But, and if that is the case - why post at Democratic Underground, where perhaps the majority of posters here are Democrats?

[tavalon]

196. Wrong

Tha majority matters here, even if some Zell Millers get elected. Conyers-Judiciary. A democratic majority can and I suspect, will, impeach those in desperate need of impeachment. A Democratic majority in the Senate can and will likely find to convict. It's the numbers that can save our foundering Republic. When we have that rescued, we can and likely will eject the Zell Millers who lended their D but not much else of use.

Our Republic is in its deathroes and that calls for less than personal purity choices. Your feeling good about your choices doesn't likely help save our Republic.

[LynneSin]

40. We need both Short Term AND Long Term plans

I agree with what you're saying but how am I improving the country with this mentality of "I'll team them a lesson and not vote for them". I'm not sure how we are improving the country, our party and the overall welfare of our existance by enabling the Republican party.

I find a very annoying trend happening in Pennsylvania where people are starting to refer to Bob Casey Jr. as a "Conservative Democrat". If you actually look at Casey's issue page you'll find that he's really only conservative on one issue (Abortion) and even then no where near as Conservative as the option - Rick Santorum (Casey still believes in federal funding for family planning and the rights for Birth Control and EC).

But by painting Casey as a "Conservative" it's meant to alienate voters from him and hopefully to a 3rd Party candidate in which Santorum has personally come out and said "We should all help get on the ballot".

Who benefits from the "Conservative" tag and putting a 3rd party candidate on the ticket? In Pennsylvania it would without a doubt, be Rick Santorum. Hell, I'm suprised he hasn't hired a bunch of temps and paying them $1/signature to get the 67k signatures needed to put the Green Party candidate on the ticket. (I'm not kidding - Santorum has says he wants the Green in the race but nothing about libertarians or other conservative 3rd party candidates).

Short term we need a majority because right now, if every democrat decided to vote for all the issues we were most concerned about - nothing would change, hell there probably wouldn't be a debate on the main floor but instead lost in committee somewhere.

You can't think of voting for a candidate about yourself but for the greater good which is getting control and putting good liberals as WP mentioned in control.

[Guy Fawkes]

45. This is where small political parties come in...

What people fail to understand is that small political parties do something very important in the current political party system. Small parties get issues that some Democrats consider unimportant into the public light. The environment, seatbelt laws, etc. These things wouldn't be talked about if not for the people who belong to small parties and the people that vote for them.

A vote against one or two conservative (and I mean real conservative) democrats isn't going to kill a "majority" control. If a Green party candidate won a seat in Congress, would it kill us? What if s/he was the only liberal running against two ultra conservatives? Party labels are totally worthless in American politics, because politicians no longer always vote on straight party lines.

[WilliamPitt]

46. Call me

when your small parties can carry one (1) Electoral College vote.

Until then, I'm sticking to the places where change can actually be affected.

[LynneSin]

57. No they don't - don't fool yourself with that misconception

We keep living in this dreamworld where everyone is an online advocate involved with websites like DU and participating in online polls like one at CNN where Lamont was 80% vs. Lieberman's 20%. I got a serious wakeup call when I swore up & down that Dean was going to get the nomination but the reality is there is more than just us who goes out and votes.

There's a whole sector of America who considers their computer (if they have one)nothing more than a conduit for Sports Scores, email, music downloads and porn surfing. It's improving but not statically strong enough to correlate what happens online politically to what happens in reality

You talk about Seat Belt laws but that was Ralph Nadar as a consumer advocate NOT as a Green Party candidate who helped push those laws through. Big difference between the two. And you neglect the concept of advocacy as a way of making a change and for some bizarre reason assigning those changes to 3rd Party Candidates. Thanks for nullify all my hard work out there.

I have no problem with Greens winning seats in Congress - hell I wish we lived in a country where democrats & greens were fighting for the majority and the republican party was fighting for 5% of the votes needed for federal funding. But this is reality and we have an electoral system where 3rd Party candidates were nothing more than spoilers. Perhaps if we had the majority or at least a democratic president who knows what the word "VETO" means then I might consider voting 3rd candidate here and there. But we have neither which means what I believe in isn't as important as the greater good.

You may think I'm some democratic "YES" gal out there demanding "VOTE DEMOCRAT OR ELSE" but truly I say I'm not. Ten years ago I had no problem supporting 3rd party because at least I had Clinton has a fail safe especially with my pet cause of choice. But to think like that today is foolish because we have way too much to lose.

[Phillycat]

63. Great post.

:thumbsup:

[Guy Fawkes]

65. The president shouldn't matter.

We have three branches of government, each with checks against the others. This is called the system of "Checks and Balances." Do I need to teach High School government here? If the congress is controlled by liberals of any party, it doesn't matter if the President is a conservative or not.

This was the original intent of the "Founding Fathers," for it to be liberals vs. conservatives, not Democrats vs. Republicans or XYZ party. Political parties DO serve some purpose- but they also hinder our democracy by messing up the representative process. If nothing else, this is a Representative Democracy- which means the people we elect should represent our views- not our political party.

[LynneSin]

70. So where are the "Check & Balances" now

:shrug:

I mean, the President appoints a conservative nutjob to the Judicary position and congress, with a Republican Majority, green lights him/her

Sure, one could say "Hey, thanks to the Gang of 14 we didn't even bother filibustering" but what we overlook is the Gang of 14 becomes nullified since none of the seven democrats on that committee will ever see (or currently serve) on the Judiciary committee. We won't have to worry about floor votes on these judges when the Leahy controlled Judiciary committee back in 2001-2 blocked over 10-12 activist judges during that time period. And all of them voted against Alito, which meant nothing because there are more republicans on there than democrats.

BTW, there are 7 democrats on the judiciary committee but back when there was 8 - John Kerry was that 8th person.


So explain to me why I should vote 3rd party when there are very very few 'Checks & Balances' since the whole thing relies on the filibuster, which even that has it's limits. I would rather have a majority with democrats controlling the committee and cherry picking the issues they want to vote on instead of the republicans

[Guy Fawkes]

74. Intent, not practice.

The system isn't perfect, that much is obvious. But the system of Checks & Balances can be restored if the majority in any one branch of government differs from the others. If there was a liberal majority in Congress, not a "Democratic" one, we wouldn't need to worry. Don't ever, ever confuse the words "liberal" and "democrat." Not all democrats are liberals- some are just as conservative as Ann Coulter.

[LynneSin]

75. Name one who is "as conservative as Ann Coulter"

Zell Miller does not count.

Because just about any that you posted I'll still find all the proof to invalidate that claim ESPECIALLY if it's Joe Lieberman as your example.

Just because they do not support you in 1-2 issues doesn't make them an Ann Coulter.

And you're right about the system not being perfect - but should I vote 3rd candidate now to help keep the system off-kilter?

[Guy Fawkes]

81. I don't have to list them: they have a website.

Just like there are "Log Cabin Republicans," there are "Blue Dog Democrats."

http://www.house.gov/cardoza/BlueDogs/bluedogs.shtml

[LynneSin]

85. So everyone one of them votes 100% republican

Please, don't make me laugh as I disapprove of that.

Hell that gal out of South Dakota was supported by Emilly List - a very progressive cause.

On a republicans absolutely BEST day and a democrats absolutely WORST day - the democrat is still the better choice. And everyone one of those democrats you listed will still align with Nancy Pelosi and the democrats should we get the majority.

PLUS every one of them will help towards the majority giving people like John Conyers and Harry Waxman very important committee seats.

I just don't understand where you're coming from - it's almost like you would prefer enabling republicans because not one of your points actually passes any muster. Stop thinking small picture and start thinking big picture and you'll understand where many of are coming from.

[High Plains]

194. That gal out of South Dakota, Rep. Herseth, is terrible.

She's my congressperson and votes wrong on most issues I care about. I would vote for someone to replace her if there were a primary challenger. But there's not. She'll get my vote this year, but fuck it after that if she doesn't change her ways.

[mcar]

99. Excellent post!

You and Will are right on with this. I just don't understand why people don't get it.

Priority #1: Get the repubs out of power

Then worry about ideological purity. Get the dems in power and see the Zell Millers and Joe Liebermans shunted aside (I realize Miller's not there anymore but you get the drift). Even a Lieberman in a Dem majority senate would be agreeing with the dems, not kissing He Who Shall Not Be Named.

[Just Me]

143. If we fail to unite, now,....the consequences are grave.

Frankly, we should be uniting to destroy the Republican in order to open a window to another path. As if there is an alternative? Reason and reality must be our guide or,...all passions and visions may perish.

[Hippo_Tron]

164. A Green Party candidate can't win a seat in congress this year

It is doubtful that in any house race a Green Party candidate will even get more than single digits. If a Green Party candidate had a genuine chance at a House seat or two, I would say go ahead and vote for them if they are good candidates, because chances are that they would caucus with the dems anyway. But at least for now, the two major parties are going to be the only ones with seats in congress.

BTW, the Greens don't only challenge conservative democrats. They put up a serious challenger against Paul Wellstone, who was the most liberal member of the senate by far. Just because they may be more liberal than the Democrats and Republicans doesn't mean that they aren't also motivated by gaining power as well.

[Canadiana]

106. You are right.

I've read this whole thread. WillPitt is correct in that this time, YES you should vote for a dem no matter what....because we know, at this point, that getting the democratic majority is much more important than keeping one Lieberman level bad democrat out.

HOWEVER...the very notion that this should be a rule is absoutely insane. What if next time there were 5 very bad (ie. republicanish) democrats....and they got voted in because they ran as democrats and we must all vote democrat no matter what. The next time there might be 8....and so on and so on. Yes, this may seem unlikely, but if anyone knows a thing about philosophy, thought experiments are sometimes important to making underlying issues clear. And the origial post should specify that at this point in time, yes voting all dem is extremely important....but Guy Fawkes sees the underlying danger in blindly following the name democrat as a rule.

[rucky]

122. But, but...if we get rid of parties, candidates would have to talk about

ISSUES?!

The horror!

[HardRocker05]

123. Right on. nt

[kapkao]

150. silly parliamental terrorist, 'always about which turd stinks the least(nt

[Hippo_Tron]

155. George Washington didn't like political parties

The rest of the founding fathers started the two party system as we know it.

[Pachamama]

24. Thanks for the reminder Will! I'll put it in my Daytimer for Nov. 1st so

that I remind myself why on Nov. 2nd I'll be voting for Dianne Feinstein as I gag at the same time....

:hi:

[sportndandy]

28. Why not vote Republican then?

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals do the right thing for the right reason. I would rather vote for my enemy whose intentions are clear, then a supposed friend who hides his intentions.

Look at my representatives:

Biden: a great voting record that is built on horse-trading. His record may seem liberal, but on key issues he goes conservative in exchange for liberal votes on losing issues. Thats hypocracy.

Carper: at least he's up front about being one of the most conservative dems in the senate. on the plus side he is moving up the ranks of the DLC.

Castle: a moderate republican who talks like a moderate and votes like a moderate.

So I should keep the hypocriticaly conservative dems and get rid of the honest moderate republican. And you wonder why the dems only get votes in reaction to Bush policies. They will never inspire until they stand for something. Voting Democrat when the dem doesn't stand for anything is the reason why the dems are republican lite.

If the dems want to stand up and say "a vote for dem is vote for impeachment" then I am on board. If they plan on avoiding the impeachment or the subpoena issue during the campaign, but plan on bringing it up if they win, then they will alienate a large chunk of voters who will feel like they were sold a bait and switch. So if they don't run on it then they shouldn't do it.

[Bill McBlueState]

35. yes, you should vote for conservative Dems over any Republican

The fact that a liberal would consider otherwise suggests a need to learn more about how Congress works.

It comes down to this: Do you want guys like Frist and Hastert in power, or guys like Conyers and Frank?

[LSK]

30. can this be made a sticky??

To keep reminding people what we are trying to do?

[drm604]

33. K&R

It's sad that this actually needs saying, but it does and you say it very well.
:toast:

[lonestarnot]

38. I'd vote for a squirrel if he was on the ballot as a dem!

How's that Hairy Bastid?

[WilliamPitt]

41. Sacked out on the couch

Last Thursday he reached out through the window screen and dragged a chickadee into the apartment, and then proceeded to shred the thing in my living room. He's fine.

[Tulum_Moon]

49. I don't care what they do

As long as I see that "D" behind the name. Hell I'd vote for Charlie Manson if he were running against *. At least he understands universal health care. And would straighten up th prison system!

[teriyaki jones]

47. K&R - n/t

[Lindacooks]

50. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!

This should be on the front page of DU, and permanently posted at the top of GD.

[LynneSin]

51. It's the COMMITTEES not the Floor where we can change America!

I think that's the biggest problem we have when it comes to this election - we only look at what happens on the floor and use our yardstick measurements of "How Democratic are you" with what happens on the floor.

Here's the fact - Majority Control not only controls what bills will be debated and voted upon on the Senate/House floor (floor being the main voting area where everyone conveins and votes) but it also determines what bills get debated in committee and actually find their ways out of committee or gets buried.

I can't find the thread about about 3-4 months ago there was a DU front page report about how 90% of the bills voted on the Senate Floor were Republican written bills. Democratic Party doesn't even get a chance to make a difference because everything they write tends to get buried in committee and diluted with amendments that the very voting on what seemed like a good idea ends up distorted.

When Leahy had control of the Judiciary committee, no activist judges made it out because the Democrats in Judicary are handpicked by Leahy to work together and keep activists of the bench. You don't see a Lieberman, Nelsons or their likes on the Judicary. In fact here is the list of the "Gang of 14" democrats vs. the Judiciary Committee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14
Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Ken Salazar, Colorado

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm
Patrick Leahy, Vermont
Edward Kennedy, Massachuseets
Joe Biden, Delaware
Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin
Dianne Feinstein, California
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
Chuck Schumer, New York
Dick Durbin, Michigan

No overlap and even Schumer and Feintein are strong against activist judges. (hell weakest one in my book is Feingold who supported both John Ashcroft AND John Roberts). BTW, there use to be 8 - the 8th was John Kerry.

Here's another interesting tidbit - when Bush first stole the election in 2000, the beginning of 2001 saw a major energy crisis in California where the rates when through the roof and Bush refused to do anything about it - cited it was a 'state problem'. The Government Affairs committee handles oversites and other oddities where the government might be taking advantage of regular folks. When we got the majority back in May 2001, it was the GOvernment Affair committee that opted to investigate the California Energy crisis which soon after the cost of energy went back to normal and Enron went belly up.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=About.Membership

Yeah, that now minority chair was the one in charge and responsible for that!

Think Committees - that's where we can change america!

[stepnw1f]

56. Ahhhh Sanity

Nothing is perfect so out the window goes purity anyways...

We need to come together to defeat the GOP. We cannot afford being picky anymore...

[Patiod]

61. Hold your nose and vote Casey, pro-choice or not

Not voting = voting for 6 more years of Santorum.

At least Casey doesn't want to curb access to birth control in addition to abortion.

[Phillycat]

64. Yep. I will be.

Unfortunately. :puke:

[LynneSin]

72. Why should I hold my nose?

Outside of Choice (and even then not as hard-core anti-choice as Santorum - Casey does support birth control, EC, funding of family planning AND stem cell research), Casey is about as progressive as the rest of them. He's not Russ Feingold but I don't think he'll be a Joe Lieberman either

[Cleita]

62. Yes, my Democratic candidate who is running for an

entrenched Republican seat in the House is an ex-Republican who is fed up with the Republican Party. Also, she isn't a neo-con and holds liberal views on health, education and social security. She will get a lot of people's votes on both sides of the aisle I hope. Her opponent is a man who has been groomed by the retiring incumbant, a complete corporate whore.

[Sammy Pepys]

67. I'll vote for the candidate....

...I feel is best suited for the post. Naturally, this will be a Democrat, but I will never ever vote for someone by virtue of the party they happen to belong to. You've got to earn my vote...I'm not going to give it to you just because you have the right letter behind your name.

That's how we've gotten into this mess to begin with.

[Reckon]

68. Excellent post!... I agree completely!.... K&R.. eom

[mdmc]

73. We are not as evil as the republicans!

vote us! vote us! Oh how the mighty have fallen. It is hard to believe that we are the party of RFK.

[WilliamPitt]

77. Indeed

It is sad and true, but desperate times require such measures.

[mdmc]

84. i hear ya bro

the chair of our local committee just resigned ... gonna go green... :shrug:

[The Gunslinger]

78. I'm supposed to vote for a piece of crap................never!!!

How many of theese piece of crap Dems like Lieberman have consistantly voted for the Republican agenda. The hell with that. You are voting for a cantidate a person first. What good is it voting for pieces of crap if they are just bringing the country more to the right in the nome of the left. I really hope Ned Lamont gets elected. It's time to empower the young true left Dems, instead of being safe and voting fot the team, that is supporting the rightist agenda.

[mcar]

101. They vote for the republican agenda...

...because the republicans are setting the agenda and they want TV time and big wet ones from the guys in charge. They would vote for the democratic agenda if the dems were in charge and setting the agenda.

Seriously. Does anyone really think that a conservative democrat would caucus with the republicans? Does anyone really think that a conservative democrat would vote with the republicans if the repukes were out of power?

Yes, they may cast some votes to protect their conservative base, but that is not the issue - it's overall control and setting the agenda.

[Hippo_Tron]

156. I'm 100% behind Ned Lamont as well

However, should Lamont lose the primary I am going to do what Lamont himself is going to do and support Lieberman. Lieberman sucks but it's better to have his vote for Harry Reid than it is to have Alan Schlesinger's vote for Mitch McConnell.

[fishnfla]

79. Attack the post, not the poster

vote for the candidate, not the party.

My right to vote is a sacred and cherished right.Mine, not yours, not anyone else's. Spare me your reminders.

[AbbyR]

82. I've read through the whole thread - would I vote for Pryor?

The Hitler reference is silly, but if, in the general election in November, Mark Pryor, of Gang of 14 fame, were to be running against a Green I loved and any Republican, I'd go for Pryor in a minute. I detest Pryor's voting record, but we have got to get back at least one house of Congress, and I won't throw away my vote (Diebold might, but it won't be me.)

I truly believe we are running out of time to save our country.

[WilliamPitt]

83. "I truly believe we are running out of time to save our country"

Exactly, precisely correct.

[Zodiak]

88. An excellent example

Pryor is one of the worst Senators we have....bottom five.

But we have to take Congress and commit beyond that. It is not longer to preserve ideology...it is preservation of country.

Some people may not like this, but it is the patriotic thing to do. I would like to think that Jefferson would agree with me.

[cry baby]

108. Exactly, even Pryor is unlikely to vote against a Dem agenda

on the floor or in committee if Dems are in the majority.

[LynneSin]

95. FYI - Gang of 14 is NOT on the Judiciary committee

Nor would Leahy even imagine putting any of them on the committee. When we lost a seat in 2004, the person who gave up the seat was John Kerry - so I'm guessing he'd be the first brought back to the committee.

If your vote for a "Gang of 14" democrat means helping us get the majority then that means you'll have Patrick Leahy and the Judiciary committee making the decisions on activist judges and there ain't a thing the "Gang of 14" democrats can do about it since none of them will ever see a seat on that committee

[Major Hogwash]

104. Tell me more about the Gang of 14.

Who are they?

Is there a list here of them somewhere?

Weren't they Senators who were NOT running for re-election this year?

Except for Joe Lieberman, isn't that pretty much true of the Democrats who were in the Gang of 14?

Weren't the rest all from so-called "safe" seats, with not much opposition?

[LynneSin]

110. I gotta run but you can search in on Wikipedia

take care

[Major Hogwash]

126. Okay, thanks for the pointer.

I will still give you credit for pointing it out, though.

[Major Hogwash]

153. Nelson of Nebraska and Byrd of West Virginia were the other 2 Dems

That are running for re-election this year that are part of the Gang of 14.

I never considered Byrd a moderate though, so it was weird to find out he joined this little group.

And Nelson is one of the most conservative Democrats there are in the Senate.
He's another DINO, but at least he isn't a darned Republican.

[Hippo_Tron]

157. Not to mention that Nelson is NOT on the judiciary committee

His vote for Alito won't matter once we have the majority back.

[Major Hogwash]

159. I didn't mention the Judiciary committee, though.

I was curious about the Gang of 14.

And I didn't know Nelson was one of them.

[Hippo_Tron]

162. I was following up "At least he isn't a darned Republican"

I was saying that another positive thing about him is that he isn't on the judiciary committee.

[Major Hogwash]

165. Well, I apologize for using such crude language in that post.

Because next thing you know someone will accuse me of swearing on-line.

LoL

[Hippo_Tron]

168. I'm sure the NSA's language police are watching as we speak

[LynneSin]

176. Byrd floats around from one extreme to the other

he'll stand up in front of the senate waving his little book copy of the constitution and giving shit to republicans who tear it to shread but then you turn around and he's voting against choice and writing discrimination into the same constitution (gay marriage ban).

[Zodiak]

86. I make no bones about the fact that half of our Senate

are gutless turds when it comes to caring about the little guy, but I agree that the time to make them feel electoral heat is the primaries. The old guard Democrats tend to be more progressive (with notable exceptions), and it is they who will essentially run the show.

It will still not be enough, but it will be a start. To reverse direction, one must apply the brakes first. A Democratic congress will do such a thing.

But ...

I agree that owning committees is a good thing and Democratic bills have a chance to come to the floor, however, I have performed an analysis that shows that about 40% of our Senators vote in favor of Bush policies greater than 50% of the time when they come up for passage on the floor. We will still have the hurdle of an overhwhelmingly conservative Congress on the whole. The result will be a "do nothing" Congress if the bills that come to the floor are progressive.

I find it absolutely deplorable that so many Democrats cannot vote for party core values when it really counts. This is unacceptable.



This issue needs to be addressed as soon as possible. A democratic Congress means nothing if we do not exert grassroots pressure on our worst offenders and force a coalition strong enough to halt the Bush nightmare. We have a chance with the Democratic Congress, but it is by no means a "silver bullet".

I think the Leiberman challenge is an excellent chance in persuading some errant Democrats to come back home, stop listening to "handlers", and embrace party principles. The plaform for the power struggle is appropriate, as well...the primaries.

[Fermezlabush]

90. Well, yeah, but only after the primaries...

Until then, go Tassini, Lamont and any decent challenger to the status quo.

[lpbk2713]

94. Exactly. That's what the other side did.

They voted for the dumbest dipshit they could find just because he had name identity and it got them the White House.


Vote Democratic. Then worry about tweaking and fine tuning after the election.

[Fermezlabush]

107. Actually, that's not what they did. They installed the dipshit and stole

our votes. But that's another debate. Just saying, not really a good example.

[redqueen]

180. If you go back to the 80's, when the right got mobilized, that is exactly

what they did.

they vote for the repub, no matter what.

[Hippo_Tron]

163. I don't think you will find anybody is dumb as Bush running as a Dem

And if you do, let me know and I'll have a seperate discussion with you on the merits of voting for that candidate.

[ulysses]

100. yup. I voted for Zell in 2000.

Here's to voting for the piece of crap!

[Hippo_Tron]

158. Zell is an exception

And in 2004 he started sitting in Republican caucus meetings instead of the Democrats' meetings. Had he run again in 2004, I don't think that most Democrats would have condoned his re-election.

[Klukie]

102. Remind away......

This needs to be posted every week until election time to help persuade the nonconformist in all of us that this may be the single most important vote in American history. I would gladly vote for my dog if it meant restoring the fragile balance of power that this country must have to survive. Thanks for the wisdom.

[philly_bob]

103. Yep. Vote Democratic then, post-victory, switch to a progressive party.

Currently my plan is to vote mindlessly Democratic -- hey, Lieberman, no problem! DLC, no problem! corporate influence, no problem! -- until Democrats achieve some position of power proportional to their numbers in the voting population and the nightmare era of election fraud is over. Say 2 out of 3 of House, Congress, Presidency.

THEN, I will switch to a progressive party, where I will probably feel much more at home anyway, and apply continuous pressure on the Dems to keep them honest.

(Besides I suspect progessive party parties are much more fun.)

[never cry wolf]

111. Oooohhhh, I am getting aroused just thinking about it

Subpoena power to John Conyers, Henry Waxman and Barney Frank.

This regime's worst nightmare!

[Arkham House]

115. A Dem victory this fall would be like a remission from cancer...

It would give us time, and it would give us a fighting chance to save the Republic. A fighting chance is all anyone can expect in this life. The underlying crisis remains--Bush himself is a symptom, not the disease...but a Dem victory, now and in '08, would be like a healthy dose of chemotherapy. And it gives us that *chance* we need... I might add, the voting fraud is important, and we must be vigilant. But I think the greater problem is "legal" voter suppression, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, the voter suppression in Dem areas, above all the lunatic gerrymandering, which is turning our elections into a joke. Sooner or later, we must do something about this, as a people...and in the meantime, fight like hell...

[kapkao]

116. this a sad joke, jah? (nt)

[proud patriot]

118. I shall remember that when I cast my vote for Feinstein

Remind me which Comittee John Conyers will
be chair of ....

:loveya:

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

120. You mention the 'C' word WIll

and that is what we all need remember, compromise. It is the how this countyr came into being. It's how we will survive these trying times. We must work together to defeat the greater evil......

[eek MD]

125. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it...

We hear the same thing in every single election, whether we have control of congress or not. If it's not "We have to take control of congress", then it's "We can't afford to lose control of congress". And all it does is brings us more and more mealy mouthed moderates who are built to appeal to the "right-wingers".

I will be holding my nose and voting for our (D) even though he's quite a righty by comparison to other (D)'s (I'm in a state which could have a big impact), and I understand where you're coming from, and why you're saying it....but you're wrong. Nobody should be telling someone to vote for a candidate who is against their interests, if there is a better candidate running. Leave it up to each person to decide. We're adults, not lemmings built to do the bidding of the party bosses. There are safe states where people are able to make a protest vote against some of the more odious dems out there, and I say more power to those people...

[Melissa G]

137. Right now is not the time to vote against a single odious DEM..

First we get control and then we selectively work to get rid of DINO's as a democratic party!!
We just did that in Texas with the jerky DINO's who bailed on us during re redistricting. We did that in the primaries which is where that strategy belongs.

We get control of the committees first and THEN take out known DINO's with better candidates in the next primary.

That gets us somewhere! Where we are NOW as a nation sucks BIG TIME! We cannot afford anymore repub, empire building, environment destroying, deficit soaring, anti-choice BS!!! This is not a sane option!

If you think your Dem representation sucks then YOU run for office or find us someone better to occupy the Dem slot. That could improve things rather than wasting a much needed Dem vote.

But hey, if you can't see this.. make a republican happy..go ahead and throw away your vote.

[eek MD]

170. There are such things as "safe states/districts"

If you're in a state/district where there is an DINO running, and there is almost no chance that they're going to be beaten by a candidate to their right on the issues.....what's so bad about voting for a candidate that's running to that person's left, such as a green party/indie candidate? Please tell me what's so awful and terrible about that? The only thing that voting for a DINO in such a situation would accomplish is to re-enforce the opinion that that there aren't many of us "lefties" out there. Most of us out there aren't idiots. We know if we're in a state/district where it will be a close call between the (D) and the (R) or not, so stop treating us as if we're not allowed to have minds/opinions of our own.

I'd say that YOUR approach would make republicans happy. After all, I'd imagine republicans enjoy feeling as if they live in a country where even dems support all of their ideas in lockstep.

[Melissa G]

185. Sorry, eek, i realize that i had conflated you with a different poster,

As long as we are sure we are not losing a dem ( a bit risky IMHO, I'm thinking Nader here)..sure move the party to the left. Heck, back when there were the seven little dwarves (Mondale won) i was a Simon delegate because i thought he was the best choice.. there were just enought of us in my precinct to get us one rep and i was it.

But until Dems have a majority, we need to focus and get one whatever it takes!

[Poiuyt]

129. Can't be said often enough

[Pale Blue Dot]

130. I'd like some clarification.

Who decides, or knows, who will be the choice that helps us keep "majority control". Should I ask you first, Will, if it's OK if I vote for Ned Lamont? And if I honestly believe that Lamont will help us win the Senate in '06, is that me talking? Or am I "burnishing liberal credentials"?

These kinds of threads are dangerous. We are all smart people here. We know what's at stake. We can debate the issues passionately, and try to convince each other to see our side. But don't tell me I can't vote for a Democrat I believe in. Because maybe, just this once, it's you who has it wrong.

[WilliamPitt]

131. "Because maybe, just this once, it's you who has it wrong."

Um...dude. Any thread in GD where I (or you or anyone) post an opinion always comes with the possibility of being wrong. That's the thing about opinions, really. You just stated something incredibly obvious an a rather strident voice. The sky is blue!

[Melissa G]

138. Primaries are different than the General Election.. A primary is where

we fight our idealistic fights.. Will's post as someone else noted would have been better if all the primaries were past...

[Pale Blue Dot]

140. Agreed nt

[Hippo_Tron]

160. There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting Ned Lamont

I am behind him 100% in the primary. But should he lose the primary I am going to do what Lamont himself is going to do and support Lieberman. Likewise, should Lamont win the primary, I am going to tell any dems that might be supporting Lieberman that they should be supporting the dem nominee because control of the senate is more important than one senator.

[DisgustedTX]

132. We will vote in TWENTY FOUR BUSINESS HOURS

:rofl:

[Major Hogwash]

167. And this has to do with what?

Oh, I see.

Let's rehash that every time Will makes a post here, so we can run him off the board.

I don't think that'll work.

[nuxvomica]

133. so much depends

upon

a black man
from michigan

getting the power
to subpoena

against the white
chickenhawks

(apologies to William Carlos Williams)

[GeorgeGist]

134. Reminds me of what John Dean was just saying on KO...

about authoritarianism.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

135. Good post Will.

[Cha]

136. Too bad

lieberman doesn't agree.

[tomp]

141. do me a favor, will.

remind the democratic party that the last three elections were stolen through election fraud.

btw, i've asked around this board and have yet to receive an answer: why are the democrats as a party not addressing election fraud? maybe you have an idea.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. I voted against DiFi in the primary

And I'm holding my nose & voting FOR her in November.

[Hekate]

145. Excellent reminder, Will. Luckily for me, my Rep is a great gal. nt

[AuntiBush]

146. Thanks for that Kindly Reminder, Will!

Voting Democrat, straight down the Diebold touch screen. Why? Why our state!?! Nevertheless, most all I know are either majorly disgruntled Republicans. And, they're either voting for Democrats (any) or not voting at all (a rare few). And everyone else is voting Democrats - period.

That's how fed-up people are in my state.

[philosophie_en_rose]

148. Electing Senator Bumblefuck (DINO) empowers Senator Liberal (D)

We can talk pretty about liberal ideas, but failing to get a majority makes it meaningless.

And let's not count our DINOs before they're hatched.

[Major Hogwash]

154. Yeah, but at least we don't have a Hatch in our party!

Who protects drug smugglers who happen to be personal acquaintences of someone he knew!!

I think Olbermann was the only one who brought that story to light.

[redqueen]

182. succinct! love it!

:thumbsup:

[dweller]

149. well, somebody needs to remind Joe.

Lieberman just filed the papers to run as an independent

not like it's latest breaking news or something...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2380917#2381175


dp

[whirlygigspin]

152. Help Save Democracy-- kill a voting machine

ok, try it your way again, Kerry style in 2006.

but if the dems don't take the house & senate in 06, don't expect the 'fall in line routine to work in 2008

[Hippo_Tron]

161. What do you suggest we do about William Jefferson (D-LA)?

I don't live in his district but I'm about 10 minutes away from it. The guy is an embarrassment to the party and is seriously hurting our chances in November. Luckilly I don't have to face the possibility of rewarding him with my vote, but if I did have to, I would honestly have to consider whether it was in the best interests of the party to do so. Do I vote for him because his seat in congress is valuable for the dems or do I not vote for him because his liability outweighs the value of his seat?

[sellitman]

172. I have a dilema...

I agree with your post 100% but...

I live in CT

If Lieberman looses in the Primary and runs as a third party "Democrat" , do I vote for him in the general election? Even if the Republican has "no chance?

If so then his ploy of going around the will of the people worked. Which really bothers me.


I know the answer....I just don't like it.

I don't have a big enough clothespin.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

175. Thomas Jefferson kicks in his opinion.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

As a free and moral agent, I agree with Tom.

[laruemtt]

177. not jumping on that bandwagon again.

i was cured of that need to vote partyline when kerry rolled over and played dead in 2004. my conscience appears to be the only thing i can control anymore.

[Laurab]

186. This is just such basic common sense

that I can't believe people are actually arguing about it. One could reasonably assume that they must be happy with republicans controlling all three branches of government.

[redqueen]

191. Well said!

:kick: :)

[SharonRB]

187. As usual, Will, you have captured it in a nutshell

Taking back Congress is the number one most important thing right now.

[Marie26]

190. So, vote Dem? nt

[DisgustedTX]

193. We ALL shout SH! for editorial comments

If only we could get the TRUTHOUT! :rofl: