Would You Support Your Congressperson..Even If He/She Votes Dead Wrong?

[Mr. Ected]

When I listen to the RW hacks on the radio, they admit that the Republican Party is failing. They admit that their elected officials are acting in a distinctly un-Republican way. They berate them to change.

And then they offer their support. Simply because "a bad Republican is better than ANY Democrat" (excepting Joe Lieberman, of course).

DU, are we any better? Will you continue to support Democratic Congressmen and -women who supported the Iraq war in the first place...and have now capitulated to the pressures of the WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Let's face it: most of those Democratic Congresspersons supporting the war initially did so for POLITICAL SURVIVAL. They knew in a post-9/11 world, their dissention could come back to haunt them in the 2002 midterm elections. So they turned their backs on their constituents and voted to support Bush in his mad rush to attack Iraq.

Now, they've done it again. Afraid of the political backlash of cutting funding to the war, or demanding a timetable to return our troops home, they again defied their own electors and made Bush a victor once again.

I'm ashamed of the lack of backbone of our Congress. I'm ashamed that they again have allowed the will of the people to be superseded by the fear of losing power.

Are they still better than Republicans? Yes.

But Lord help us find better Democrats to replace these weak-kneed capitulators.

[mmonk]

1. I have in the past. But those that are continuing the wrong path, no.

I will say my congressperson voted the right way on Iraq.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. My favorite Cindy Sheehan quote:

"Why should we support Democrats who support the war? Because they aren't Republicans who support the war?"

[Cults4Bush]

8. Oh yessss I do love that one.

..but outlining the hypocrisy of vaunted and lauded political hero(ines) is a one way ticket to having everything thats happened in this admin laid at your feet for even suggesting voting other than D... such vicious hypocritical cycles illustrate fanatacism, ego, greed and more. Cindy was and is still right.

Peace to you as always :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Peace to you too!

:)

[TwilightGardener]

9. Because there are other things than the war, Mrs. Sheehan

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Actually, to Cindy, war is THE issue

and the root of our problems in the USA.

[ShortnFiery]

17. "Because there are other things than war ..." Tell that to the parents of dead or sick troops? n/t

[TwilightGardener]

22. I stand by my statement--as much as I am opposed to the war, it

will be resolved in some way, at some point. But a Repub majority would sting us on everything else. I have never been a fan of hers, anyway.

[ShortnFiery]

29. "it will be resolved in some way, at some point" HOW MANY LIVES are worth a MAJORITY? n/t

[Cults4Bush]

25. Its bait SnF, dont bite off anymore :)

You know how it goes.. Im sure .

Peace:)

[Forkboy]

30. The apologists are just as cowardly.

I pray I never need any of them watching my back.I'd likely end up with a knife in it.

[BobRossi]

3. Nope

What makes them any different from the repugs?

[Nite Owl]

4. No n/t

[Clovis Sangrail]

5. NO n/t

.

[magellan]

6. No.

And I'm sure I'm not the only Independent who feels that way. No more voting for the "lesser of two evils" when it only equals "more of the same". I'll abstain, thank you, and I honestly don't give a flying fuck what Dem apologists have to say about it. The FEAR tactics they use to compel people to vote Dem make them as bad as the Repugs.

With the exception of Kucinich, DEMS HAVEN'T EARNED MY VOTE.

[napi21]

7. It depends on how OFTEN my Rep/Sens vote against my preferences.

Unfortunately, I don't have much option to make a decision because my guys are ALL PUBS! I ALWAYS vote against them!

I remember though, a long time ago when I lived in Pa. there would always be campaigns to "vote the bums out!" They used to put "Incumbant" on the ballot beside the candidate's name. The anti incumbant ranting go so bad, they stopped doing that, and that was a very long time ago.

[sdfernando]

10. I'm not sure I can anymore

The little voice in my head is telling me to walk away and go 3rd party. I've been reluctant to do that in the past because it usually helps the repubs....but if the end result is the same, dem or rep, then why continue to support them????

[BlooInBloo]

13. Fuck no! MY congresscritter has to do EVERYTHING **I** want or else they're WORTHLESS!!!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

14. Yes - i plan on voting for the Republican next time - might as well go all the way.

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. No. I don't vote for collaborationists in murder.

[onenote]

21. would you vote for anyone who supported the timetable legislation?

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

16. No, and I didn't vote for him in Nov. 2006.

I didn't vote for him in 2004 either.

My congressman is Dan Lipinski from IL-03. He got his seat because his father, William Lipinski, more commonly known as "Bungalow Bill" decided in August, 2004 that he was going to retire. Of course, the powers that be in the Cook County Democrats took "Bungalow Bill's" advice and appointed his son, who hadn't lived in the district in years, and ran him against a non-existent Repuke opponent. BTW, Bungalow Bill voted against the IWR in October, 2002.

In November 2005, a bright young man named John P. Sullivan decided that he was going to run against "Danny Boy" in the IL primary in March of 2006. John Sullivan was/is a prosecutor in the State's Attorney office in Cook County, IL. His main reason for challenging Danny Boy was the fact that a lot of people within the district were pretty outraged at how Danny Boy got the seat in the first place.

In December of 2005, another candidate decided to throw his name in the hat as well. This candidate was John T. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, in 2004, had thought about running against Bungalow Bill as a Republican, but he changed his mind because of "family reasons".

Bottom line, John T. Kelly was a "sham" candidate, put in the running by the powers that be in the Cook County Democrats. I know Mr. Kelly personally, and believe me, this guy is as dumb as box of rocks. He did what he was told to do: he split the vote between himself and John Sullivan and of course, Danny Boy won the primary with no problem.

The 3rd Congressional District in Illinois is a totally safe seat for the Democrats. If the Pukes were able to run Ozzie Guillen from the White Sox, he'd still lose.

Daniel Lipinski is a complete DINO. He's anti-choice, anti-stem cell research (even though he has juvenile diabetes), anti-immigration reform (he refuses to meet with any of his constituents who differ from him on this), voted for that obscene Bankruptcy Bill in 2005, and on and on.

Will I vote for him in 2008, NO. I won't vote for the candidate the Pukes run against him either, if they can even find anyone to do it.

Lipinski is going to be the Congressman from my district until he retires or dies, whichever comes first and then the same process will happen all over again.

[onenote]

18. "the will of the people"

That, more than anything, is the problem, imo. The OP claims that Congress has allowed the will of the people to superseded by the fear of losing power. But that gets in inside out. It is fear of the will of the people that has resulted in the compromise. Yes, a majority of the public opposes the war and supports setting a timetable to get the troops out of Iraq. But at the same time, a majority opposes an immediate cut off funding. Illogical? Maybe. But that appears at the moment to reflect the "will" of the people. And the support for a funding cut off is hardly distributed evenly around the country. There are many Democrats in red-leaning districts/states that are not ignoring the "will" of the electorate when they support the current funding proposal.

In order to find "better Democrats" to replace the current members of Congress, you are going to have to find more voters who want the same thing that you want.

[bonito]

19. No.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Hell no!

I vote for whoever will represent my issues. If a person will not represent my issues, I will support someone who will.

That is, after all, THE WHOLE FRIGGIN POINT OF A DEMOCRACY. Isn't it?

[NewJeffCT]

23. There are levels of support, however

I gave to both my current rep (Chris Murphy) and my previous rep (Joe Courtney) in the 2006 campaign season. Not huge donations, but a few hundred dollars. (I moved between districts here in CT earlier this year)

If either of them votes for this bill, then I will not donate to them this year or next. Murphy, especially, ran against the war and is now waffling.

I will still probably vote for him, but he will have lost my donations.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

24. We need to get MORE people calling & e-mailing them for their bad AND good. I have an e-mail chain.

Obviously - the same person calling over and over again isn't as effective as different people calling.

I also try to call when they do something right. I've called Crist's office to thank him for a few things and they told me I was the only one they heard from that was on the other side.

[porphyrian]

26. It depends on what you mean by "support."

I'm not giving them money, but I don't think we should have to buy our representation - that's the problem with the system already, I'm not going to perpetuate it. Besides, I'm broke as hell, and they'll have to take a number if they want money from me.

If you mean support like, "Go, Politician, I support you!," hell no, not if they don't represent me. Politics isn't football, and I'm not simply rooting for my team. That said, the members of the republican party have collectively proven to me over my lifetime that none of them represent me and most likely none ever will at all, given their party line. However, that doesn't mean the other team automatically represents me or my interests, they usually don't.

I vote. And, every single time I've done so in my life, with the exception of some primaries, it has not been for my favorite candidate, but for the least of the pieces of shit offered up for me to choose from. Since I can't run myself, my choices are pretty much limited to not voting at all or voting who I think sucks less. Is that support?

[LeftishBrit]

27. Depends...

If the leaders of the 'left-wing' party are awful, and if the leader of the right-wing party either has no chance in hell or is only moderately to the right of the left-wing leader, and if I had an excellent third-party candidate in my constituency with a real chance of winning (since 1997 the 'incumbent'), then I would not vote for either of the main parties. Actually that is my real-life situation and I don't. Didn't even vote Labour in 1997.

On the other hand, if Thatcher was still PM, and voting for an unsatisfactory Labourite was the only way to get her out, then I'd go with the unsatisfactory Labourite.

At present, it seems to me that you are more in the second situation than the first. Except that Bush is even worse than Thatcher, if that's possible.

[DrDan]

28. hmmmm . . . would I support Tom Feeney . . .

gosh, I need to think about that

[sallyseven]

31. I don't need to make that decision.

I live in Mass and my congressman and senators will vote no. But I will say any democrat is better then any republican because republicans have a damaged brain. They get this at birth. Nasty and mean.