The tactic of picking and choosing votes - stop using it here.

[leyton]

A lot of people who are here who are pissed off about us being in the majority are condeming our Senators for their vote on Gonzales or Rice, as if their vote made a difference. This is strangely akin to the GOP tactic of cherry-picking votes to paint Kerry as soft on defense or someone who loves to raise taxes.

How about we stop assassinating our own? To criticize a vote is one thing, to condemn a Senator and to dismiss the rest of his record one the basis of one vote - the rationale for which you may not understand - is another.

[havocmom]

1. I'm gonna make some popcorn while you put on some flame proof suit

this might be fun

[Vincardog]

2. We have to become the opposition 24/7 no more appeasement

WE have to call out everyone who supports and there by endorses the war criminals.

[bryant69]

3. I'm in agreement

But I would prepare for a bit of heat.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. How rational of you

I commend your effort.

[moggie12]

5. I think people should say what they think BUT

I don't like the name-calling and the refusal to consider tactical or other reasons certain Dems may have for their votes.

It makes me wince when I see people calling Democrats, "chickensh*ts", "whores", and other names. Disagreement is fine but I'd prefer it be kept on a civil, mature level.

[Generator]

6. It's not just one vote

It's a pattern of behavior.

Obama is too new, he doesn't have a pattern of behavior to judge him on one vote, I agree.

With someone like Hillary Clinton, say, I don't like what I see from her-and frankly her husband has been rubbing me the wrong way for YEARS. (no pun there folks) She is exhibiting a pattern of behavior I don't find helpful.

See-it's MY VOTE and my opinion, and you may call it assassination-(strange pick of word) but I would call it where your passion lies.

I detested NAFTA, I used to be a low wage service worker. I remember standing and waiting for the bus after a long day/night at work and seeing the headline of Clinton letting it go through. And right there and then I stated I wouldn't vote for Clinton again. And I didn't. It meant that much to ME.

If a vote for Condi is your deal breaker, so be it. Who are you to judge? Are you the Democratic police or something? I don't get it. Oh I know if Clinton is gone we won't have anybody to REPRESENT us. Thanks for the laugh.

[leyton]

7. I'm not the Democratic police, and you may certainly have a litmus test

like NAFTA. But I suspect that most people's litmus test is not voted up/down on Condi Rice - in four years, will that be how we judge Barack Obama? I think not. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman, yes, because that's a pattern with them. But the cherry-picking from people here is unrealistic, and I am referring specifically to the condemnations of Obama and Salazar.

[havocmom]

8. There's cherry pickin' and they there is letting Congress Critters know

we are watching and plan to hold them accountable. They need to be reminded who they answer to in no uncertain terms or this isn't a representative democracy.

The neocons use strong arm tactics and we can't just stand by, sending polite requests then ignoring bad votes.

I agree Obama needs to be allowed some time, but the old hands in DC have a record and if the record shows a tendency to bend over for an agenda which endangers the well being of most Americans, I say nail their asses to the shed until they get a clue that we mean to change the direction of policy.

If they don't get a clue, they get fired. That simple.

Rice was NSA when we suffered a terrible attack which SHOULD NOT have come as a surprise to anyone in her position. Senators voting to give her a PROMOTION for that gross dereliction of duty are guilty of dereliction themselves.

Ditto the man who worked to make excuses for the use of illegal means of dealing with detainees and prisoners. He should be considered for a visit to the Hague, not AG of the US.

[Sapphocrat]

9. Gee, guess I'm in the clear then...

The only Democratic senator I truly (and actively) condemn is one of my own: DINO Feinstein. Cheerleading for Killer Kondi aside, one can't dismiss the rest of Di-Fi's record... like, oh, voting for the Un-Patriot Act, and voting in favor of invading Iraq... and all the while admitting that she was voting against the wishes of her constituents, 'cause she's a big, smart, in-with-the-in-crowd V.I.P. who knows all sorts of stuff we stupid little peons don't (and then replying to us with the same, self-righteous, meaningless canned form letter).

I think those of us who paint DINO-Fi with big, red horns get a free pass on this one.

Come to think of it, is it "assassination" to condemn any senator who voted yea on all of the Big Three Bush-Kissing Votes (Patriot Act, Iraq war, and Condi's confirmation)? How many "bad votes" does it take to establish oneself as an Anti-Democrat?

And how far back does one need to dig through a voting record? Just as an author is only as good as his last book, it seems to me a senator is only as good as his/her most recent term. Otherwise, we wouldn't be deciding whether or not to vote them in again every six years, would we?