Why you should hold your nose and vote for a DINO in the general election.

[pnwmom]

No matter what.

Look at the vote lineup in the latest Supreme Court decision on the military tribunals. 5-3. It would have been 5-4 except Justice Roberts recused himself, since he had already voted (in line with the minority) previously. This is an example of what our future may hold. One more seat on the Supreme Court is all they need to do practically anything they want.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who voted with the majority, is 86 years old. Bush could very well have a chance to appoint his replacement in the next two years. Our ONLY hope is to have a majority in the Senate in order to defeat the worst of his nominees.

So if you are thinking about sitting out the election because your Democratic candidate failed you on Iraq, or NAFTA, or -- how ironic -- on the cloture vote for Alito's nomination -- think again. You, and your principles, could be increasing the chances that Bush will put a lock on the Supreme Court that could last for a generation or more.

[mhr]

1. This Kind Of Equivocating Is What Got Us Here

Sooner or later the democrats have to become relevant again.

Equivocating won't do it anymore.

[ixion]

10. yep, you got it

ever since the emergence of repuke lite. :grr:

[pnwmom]

18. Ever since the emergence of broken machines, deceptively designed ballots,

hanging chads, and Republican-made electronic machines. On top of purged registration lists, uncounted provisional ballots, etc., etc.

But you'd rather believe the Republican position that the Democrats lack enough support.

[ixion]

23. uh, no, I developed that opinion all by myself, by observing

the actions and behaviors of those running for office.

[pnwmom]

29. Is there a particular Democratic candidate you're talking about?

Because I usually see the name-calling directed at Clinton, Cantwell, Feinstein, and Lieberman. The first three, however, are actually among the most progressive in the Senate.

They also happen to be women, which makes me wonder is this is why so much animosity is directed their way.

[Zodiak]

120. No

Cantwell and Feinstein are towards the bottom.

I track these things.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist/1

[MercutioATC]

12. Exactly!

What good is the "D" next to their name if they don't represent us any more?

[pnwmom]

22. Which Senators are you referring to specifically?

And do you require them to support you in every vote they take? And do you realize how hard it is to please ALL of the Democrats ALL of the time? Because Democrats don't all fit into the same little box?

[MADem]

67. Who's US??

"WE" are a big tent. We have conservatives, moderates, liberals, and uber-liberals in our mix.

Check the voting records of some of your heroes and villains. You might be surprised at the ones that you think are so progressive, but they in actual fact, are not.

[pnwmom]

15. Stolen elections are what got us here. Gore won, without question,

and I'm convinced that Kerry did, too.

[Clark2008]

48. So, what would you have us do?

Vote for the Republican in the general election?

I can understand sitting out a vote if it's not even close, but, in my state the only Democratic challenger, Harold Ford Jr., a DINO on economic issues and a semi-corporate DLCer, is neck-and-neck with any of the three Republicans running, according to polls. Liberal Democrats aren't even visible in Tennessee - not in the political power structure, anyway (there are, of course, many liberal Dems who vote).

To me, a vote for Ford is a vote for Kennedy to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Now, in places like Connecticut, I don't understand why there is even a right-leaning Democrat. Those are the places where we need some out-and-out left-wingers to help drive the Senate back to, at least, the middle from the far stretches of the right wing in which is currently resides (with the help of some DINOs, I might add).

I hate the DLC, don't get me wrong. I think it's disingenuous, for example, to call DLCers moderate. One can be a moderate Democrat without kissing the asses of large corporations, which is what the DLC does. They're not necessarily moderate - they're corporate shills. However, in my own state, I'd rather have a semi-DLCer (Ford is more liberal on certain social issues than the DLC is) who I agree with about 50 percent of the time than a Republican whom I'll agree with MAYBE - and only if he's a moderate Republican - 10 percent of the time.

It's a conundrum, but I don't see another way out.

[pnwmom]

55. I'm with you. Fifty percent versus ten percent isn't close.

And the gap may be even bigger. Here's one comparison of the Senators' voting records on progressive issues.

http://www.progressivepunch.com/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=62&y=4

On this ranking, 39/44 of the Democrats scored a 75% or better on progressive issues.
45/55 of the Republicans scored below 15% on progressive issues.

[NativeTexan]

104. Relevant ...YES.....Stupid...NO! Getting out to VOTE is a GOOD started!!

If our folks sit at home, it doesn't matter a damned what we think, agree with, disagree with, like, hate, need to change, who is on the SCOTUS, when we leave Iraq, if we bomb Iran, if we face down North Korea, or just let them be!

OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM, besides just having elections stolen, is lack of turnout! I realize turnout was much larger than usual in 2000, but I got to tell you, that wasn't saying much.

WE HAVE MORE TO GAIN BY VOTING AND MORE TO LOSE BY NOT GETTING OUR VOTERS TO THE POLLS than do the Republican's! They have ONLY flourished by our indifference about Congress since 1994!

[LWolf]

146. Yes. n/t

[Southsideirish]

171. That's what they always tell us. I'm sick of working and voting for

candidates I cant' stomach.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Unless there's a viable Dem challenger - like Ned Lamont in CT...

NGU.

[pnwmom]

9. That's why I specifically referred to the GENERAL election.

[Ian David]

3. A DINO will vote with Bush and the Repukes anyway...

The only difference is, the DINOS take money from the DLC and the State Democratic Parties.

At least, we won't have to subsidize any more LIEbermans.

DINOS take Democrat money and vote Repuke. The only time the "D" next to their name matters is when they put their hands out for money.

What we need is for the Democratic leadership to tell them that if they're going to vote like a Republican, they have to run as a Republican and get their money from the Republicans.

That's something that Ed Schultz needs to think about when he says, "It's all about winning."

Winning WHAT?

Who cares how many players are on your team when you have guys shooting on the wrong goal?

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Seriously. Why do ppl insist the DINO will side with Dems on anything impo

[skipos]

16. Why do ppl call them "DINO"s when they are better than any repub?

It is so funny when DUers bitch about people Nelson of NE being a DINO, yet the republicans bitch about how he is "another Kennedy." So what party should he be in? One thing is for sure, NE loves that guy. His approval ratings are about as high as they get.

[pnwmom]

26. You're right. Nelson seems to be doing a good job representing the people

his state, which is not exactly a hotbed of liberalism.

It is even funnier when they call Hillary Clinton a DINO, though, since she's one of the most progressive members of the Senate.

By the way, I never use the word DINO myself. But I was directing this thread to those who do.

[MADem]

65. He certainly is a conservative Democrat, but that said

he is representing HIS constituency. They agree with his stance and that is why his approval stays high. I find that when people bitch that "So and So doesn't represent OUR values" what they really mean is "So and So does not represent MY values."

Here are a few good points about Nelson:
Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)

Supports More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)

Opposes privatizing Social Security. (Sep 2000)

Strongly favors requiring companies to hire more minorities. (Sep 2000)
Supports "Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws". (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)

So, if those are a person's pet issues, that person LOVES the guy. Of course, he's on the other side of the street for other matters, but it really all comes down to "where you stand is where you sit" when deciding who you like, and who you excoriate.

Of course, given where he is from, he's a fan of STAR WARS, he likes the death penalty, he voted against raising the minimum wage, he's not pro-choice at all, he voted for the Cheney energy policy, and of course, he voted for the war and the Patriot Act/extension....but that plays where he comes from. He's representing his people, not us: http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/Ben_Nelson.htm

[skipos]

68. Voted against raising the minimum wage? Are you sure?

That issue just came up in the senate and I remember distinctly not seeing a single democrat vote against it. In fact, I think republicans were criticizing Nelson for voting for increasing the minimum wage. "See, he is just like Ted Kennedy?" and whatnot.

Otherwise, intersting post.

[MADem]

74. In MARCH 2005, yes he did--but it's an ELECTION year, you see...

See the link I provided upthread, and scroll down to JOBS:

Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Rated 62% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a mixed record on union issues. (Dec 2003)
State instead of federal rules for animal operations. (Nov 1999)
Immediate federal assistance for farm crisis. (Sep 1999)

But see, that's what "enforcing party discipline" can do. I harp about this a lot, and some folks (not you, mind) just will not get it. They have an ideological attitude, instead of understanding the realpolitik aspect of congressional service. All politics is LOCAL, and if we have no shot at winning, or we don't have a need to make a point, the Senators/Reps are free to do their own thing and 'pander' if you will, to their constituency! You can be sure the business owners (and contributors to his campaign) in his state wanted wages low; and they will forgive him for his vote because it ended up being merely symbolic.

He was free to vote his mind in 05, and he DID, but Reid leaned on him this go-round to provide a STRONG Democratic united front in this election year. Why? Because it is a bread and butter issue, and it sounds good to be able to say that ALL DEMOCRATS SUPPORT a DECENT wage. And of course, had he not complied, his campaign coffers would be considerably lighter, and Howard Dean wouldn't be returning his calls for cash from the national office as quickly as he would for some others.

[pnwmom]

85. And I think that's what Cantwell did on the Alito cloture vote.

It would have meant taking a symbolic vote -- because Alito wasn't going to lose in the long run, no matter what happened to cloture -- and associating herself with the losing side. By voting against cloture (but also against Alito's confirmation) Cantwell could position herself a little more to the middle without it actually affecting Alito's nomination.

[MADem]

87. Yep, it's all tactics and strategy

It is difficult for some to step back and look at the entire "battlefield" as it were, and see why some congresspersons take the votes that they do. But they're on a high wire, between their caucus on the one hand, and their constituency on the other. Piss off the caucus, and you can't run those reelection ads because you ain't gettin' any DNC dough. Piss off your constituents, and they're pulling the lever for the other clown, or staying home.

I wish the purists would step back every so often, and see how the game is really played. We all may want it to be different, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

[rhett o rick]

153. You state that Cantwell, by supporting Alito, was positioning herself

a little more to the middle. That implies that she was on the left and needed to go to the right to get to the middle. She has never been on the left. Her failure to listen to many of her constituents and supporting Alito just reaffirmed her position on the right. Also her support of the Neocon War.

I think Cantwell is a corporatist.

[pnwmom]

72. And Nelson's presence keeps us one vote closer to a majority in the

Senate, with all the power that that entails.

Would people rather he lose -- as a result of staking out too many positions to the left of his constituency -- when the winner would be a Republican who represents NONE of their views?

I have a lot of trouble with that kind of thinking.

[MADem]

77. You and me both!!!

And hey, if they want a say in how the guy votes, they need to vote for him, and they can only do that if they live in his state. Like I say, all politics is local!

And a good majority leader will enforce party discipline when it counts...!

[Hippo_Tron]

96. Bob Kerrey also represented his constituency...

And was a lot more liberal than Nelson

[pnwmom]

101. Good for Kerrey for pulling that off.

But I still don't blame Nelson for representing his state. And he does it as a Senate moderate, by the way, not as a conservative. There are 55 Senators who are more conservative than he is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kerrey

"As a Senator, Kerrey had a relatively liberal voting record despite the fact that Nebraska is one of the most conservative states in the union. He was one of only a handful of senators, for example, to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Kerrey also led the opposition in the Senate to the proposed flag burning amendment, which failed to get the necessary two-thirds majority needed for passage. His record on economic issues was mixed but generally liberal. He voted against phasing out many farm subsidy programs, lawsuit reform measures such as the Private Securities Litigations Reform Act, and he was one of the twelve senators to vote against the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995, a welfare reform bill vetoed by President Clinton. Kerrey's record on environmental issues and taxation was more moderate, and he was a strong supporter of free trade and limiting the size of the federal government."


And check out Nelson's record on wwwprogressivepunch.com

Ben Nelson votes with the progressives almost HALF of the time (in 48% of the votes).
By contrast, of the 55 Republican Senators, 45 of them take progressive positions less than 15% of the time.
Not one Republican Senator is as progressive as Nelson. Chaffee (at 44%) and Specter (35%) are the closest. Again, the vast majority of the Republicans vote progressive positions less than 15% of the time.

[Hippo_Tron]

142. My point was greatness vs mediocrity

To me, Senator Nelson is quite possibly the epitome of mediocrity within the democratic caucus. Voting records and scores are a great analysis, but elected representatives are supposed to do more than cast votes. They are supposed to speak out when the time comes and in this case that involves challenging this administration. Jack Murtha is also doesn't have a great progressive score (although it's higher than Nelson's according to your website) but he is a great Congressman because he speaks the truth and he stands up to the President. Nelson has kept silent time and again on these issues because he's afraid that speaking out will harm his re-election. Kerrey was a leader and Nelson is a mediocre backbencher who has done almost nothing worthwhile in his six years in the senate.

I'm not saying that people in Nebraska shouldn't vote for Nelson, because it's obvious when you look at people like Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, George Allen, John Cornyn Saxby Chambliss, Rick Santorum, and Bill Frist, that you can do A LOT worse than him. Also, unlike in Connecticut, no progressive has even stepped up to challenge Nelson for his seat. But Nelson isn't the type of person that whose lead we should be following if we want to win in red states. He's mediocre at best and Nebraska could do and has done much better.

[MADem]

102. Kerrey had decisive war credentials, though, and the one leg to prove

it, while the present incumbent never served, IIRC. He rode out Vietnam in college, then grad school, then law school.

OTOH, Nelson was a known quantity to the voting public, having been governor before he went to the Senate.

[pnwmom]

106. Kerry was Governor, too, from 83-87. He was Senator from 89-2001.

[MADem]

110. I know, but my point, (which I didn't make but that was in my head)

was that Nelson was a known quantity. You can forgive trespasses and pecadillos, and even the odd tendency to stumble slightly to the right at times, if the candidate is likeable, has done a credible, reliable and steady job, AND is a familiar face.

Eh, it's late--guess my telepathic skills weren't strong enough to enable you to read between my lines!!!

[pnwmom]

112. I think I understood you all right . . . except I guess I didn't.

Kerrey was ALSO a known quantity, since he also was Governor before he was Senator. So what you were thinking was . . . ?

[MADem]

114. Heh heh...I always regarded NE as a kinda populist place

Salt of the earth, and populist. Some of Ben's positions are a bit conservative, but his heart is in the right place on the issues that matter to the locals. I always got the sense that Kerrey was an easier sell there than Nelson. In other words, Kerrey didn't have to put as much effort into winning the folks over...

[pnwmom]

115. Well, the war hero thing IS kind of a big deal . . .

so Kerrey probably had the Nebraska battle half won as soon as he arrived.

[ShortnFiery]

128. I've lived in Nebraska and still have family there ...

If you have NOT lived in Nebraska, you don't have any idea WHAT exactly encourages voters.

We are not all hayseeds there and your assuming that we're all thrilled with either his or Nelson's leadership is very ... uh, seriously DLC (superficial) of you.

Stop! We will (the base) vote for the vast majority of Democrats, but HELL NO! Not Biden, Feinstein, nor Nelson.

Get real - because of some of you touting the "big tent" aspect, The Democratic leadership will not do a DAMN thing without the Presidency. And you know it! We can't come together on jack squat. Perhaps we should make our tent a little smaller to push out the interests of large corporations?

[Hippo_Tron]

143. He was also an exceptional politician and charismatic speaker

And I know that people like Bob Kerrey don't come up every day, but it seems to me that part of the problem is that Democrats run a lot of Nelsons for office and not enough Kerreys. Also, part of the problem is that it's harder for someone like Kerrey to climb the ranks in politics in a red state because the GOP has a much firmer grasp on state governments in states that they used to win presidentially. This is why I get really mad when people criticize Dean's 50 state strategy. We could win a senate race in pretty much any state with the right set of circumstances and the right candidate. It's a lot harder to get the right candidate when democratic officeholders are an endangered species in that state.

[MADem]

149. And a kazillion girlfriends!!

Didn't he squire the likes of Linda Ronstadt and Debra Winger about town?

I agree with what Dean is doing, FWIW. We've got to be everywhere, and aggressively so.

[emulatorloo]

30. A DEM MAJORITY MEANS DEM COMMITTEE CHAIRS

as long as repugs have the majority, they have the chairs, they set the agenda.

Google Senator Pat Roberts and Plame or Iraq Phase 2 and tell me why I shouldnt lose my purity so that John D Rockefeller can take his place as head of the intelligence committee.

[pnwmom]

32. Please, please, lose your purity!

:hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

131. Exactly. At the very least, it's a numbers game. nt

[Pithy Cherub]

42. It makes them feel better so they can try to make people vote

in the way they see the world. If you have a record and it's not what I voted for - don't expect my vote in the future. That's the bargain and I'll be upholding my end. :evilgrin:

[pnwmom]

57. How do you expect to EVER find anyone to vote for then?

No one will agree with you on EVERY vote that occurs.

And your "bargain" is a devil's bargain, you're right about that. If you don't get everything your way, you'll let the country go to hell.

[Pithy Cherub]

134. My choice on whom to vote for is not your business.

You don't get to be authoritarian and sanctimonious in selecting everyone else's choices for voting. Too each their own - your influencing abilities could use some serious diplomacy skills. :evilgrin:

[pnwmom]

7. Many of the people DU'ers like to call DINO's aren't DINO's at all.

Like Maria Cantwell, Hillary Clinton, and Diane Feinstein -- who are all actually progressives. But you have to read their voting records to know that, and many DU'ers don't seem to want to be bothered.

[MADem]

13. Well said

Too many, I fear, read crap written by GOP flaks and take it to heart. They don't take time to look at the full record of the politician inquestion.

If moderate progressives are getting crapped on, it's because the GOP FEARS THEM...

[pnwmom]

33. Right. Ted Stevens isn't come here to fight Cantwell because she's a DINO

He's coming because she's been fighting him and representing the interests of people in our state and anyone else who cares about the environment.

[Clark2008]

51. Well, my problem with Sen. Clinton isn't her voting record,

necessarily (even though she could do better on her Iraqi positions).

My problem with her is that she can't flip any red states. There's too much gynophobia in this country, especially while the country's at war (either real or imagined).

[pnwmom]

56. That could be a good reason to back someone else in the Presidential

primary, but not the general election.

And not the Senate primary or general. Right?

[Ian David]

79. Hillary isn't quite a DINO, but she sure as hell isn't progressive. n/t

[pnwmom]

105. People who have researched her whole voting record know otherwise.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

"On the Issues" describes her as a liberal populist.

www.progressivepunch.com

"Progressive Punch" says she takes the progressive position 92% of the time, which puts her ahead of 90 other Senators, including the vast majority of Democrats.

[Ian David]

147. Is Hillary Clinton a Liberal?

comment | posted July 22, 1999 (August 9, 1999 issue)
Hillary's No Liberal
Wendy Kaminer
The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990809/kaminer

comment | posted July 22, 1999 (August 9, 1999 issue)
Hillary--NY Progressive
Ellen Chesler
The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990809/chesler

Keep in mind those were both written back in 1999- Pre-Iraq, Pre-Patriot-Act, Pre-John-McCain-consorting.

Rasmussen Reports Inc.
Hillary Meter
37% Say They Would Definitely Vote Against the Senator in 2008
June 28, 2006

Our latest Hillary Meter survey finds that only thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans would definitely vote for Senator Hillary Clinton if she were the democratic nominee for President. Meanwhile, 37% would definitely vote against her and 27% say it would depend on who she is running against. In our last Hillary Meter the number that would definitely vote against her was virtually the same. However, in this poll she did show a four point improvement in the percentage of Americans that would vote for her. (see trends)

Rasmussen Reports began conducting the Hillary Meter surveys every other week in early 2005. At the time, the Senator was making a concerted effort to develop a more moderate political image for herself. In January of 2005, 51% of Americans viewed New York’s junior Senator as politically liberal. That number dropped quickly to the 45% range by mid-year. Since then, however, the number viewing Clinton as politically liberal has remained quite stable.

This month, Rasmussen Reports Premium Members will see state-by-state results for 2008 match-ups between Clinton and GOP hopefuls John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. The two Republicans will also be matched against former Vice-President Al Gore.

Today, 46% view Clinton as politically liberal, 33% see her as a moderate, and 8% say she’s conservative. While a plurality of Americans view the Senator as politically liberal, she has encountered criticism from liberal activists recently for her position on the war in Iraq.

Collectively, today’s Hillary Meter places Senator Clinton a net 55 points to the left of the nation's political center. Two weeks ago, she was 53 points to the left of center.

More:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm



Semi-related:

Most liberal senator

<snip>

National Journal: Most liberal senators, lifetime voting
1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt

More:
http://mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com

For what it's worth, I find a hard time imagining a Repuke I would vote for if Hillary were running against them.

The very few Repukes I actually respected at one time or another (McCain, Specter, Chafee and Powell, for example) have been all become irredeemably tainted since 2000.

[ChipsAhoy]

81. But many of them ARE! n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

132. True. Mine, however... nt

[Clark2008]

50. Well, now that's a fairly good argument, but it still doesn't

address the point that if we get a majority - even if the "D"s next to some names aren't exactly accurate, like in Leiberman's case - then we get subpeona power and chairmanships.

[pnwmom]

58. AND with a majority we can reject people like Alito and Roberts.

[ShortnFiery]

124. Wrong! They could have Filibustered Alito - and they should have done it!

If another SC Justice is replaced, we will set Civil Rights BACK 50+ years.

THANKS gutless wonder Senate Democrats. :puke: IF EVER there was a genuine reason to Filibuster, Alito was the nomination. I guess the chicken-shit Senate felt guilty about making that shew of a wife of his CRY? POX told them that they did and they laid DOWN. Although the rest of the THINKING public knew that it was orchestrated to a tee. :thumbsdown:

Newsflash! Our Democratic Representatives work for US! (the people)

Not much will change because they are also bought and sold by CORPORATIONS.

Unless we replace Corporate Representatives with "we the people" ones, it's FASCISM for a long time in the USA. We are already there. :(

[Ian David]

78. What if people like LIEberman don't vote for the subponaes?

Having a "D" next to your name doesn't mean anything if you take "D" Money and cast "R" votes.

Imagine a whole congress full of Byrds and LIEbermans and Zell Millers...

Would we still have "won" anything?

[pnwmom]

89. The majority leader decides who leads what committee and doesn't

have to appoint anyone who is going to cause trouble. If Lieberman can't be trusted, he won't be left in a position of trust.

And why should I imagine a whole congress full of Byrds and Liebermans and Zell Millers? That won't happen, unless the Republicans firm up their grip on the election machinery.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. Lieberman doesn't make the decision, Pat Leahy does

Pat Leahy will become chairman of the judiciary committee and his committee will be responsible for most of the oversight hearings as well as approving judicial nominees. Certainly we can all agree that Leahy has outstanding progressive credentials. Lieberman and others can bitch about the hearings all he wants (although I hope that we will have Senator Lamont instead of Senator Lieberman after this election) but he can't do shit about it. Leahy will be able to hold whatever hearing and subpoena whatever witness. That's the way congress works. The other members of the committee in order of rank are Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, and Durbin. All of these Senators are progressive at least on matters of the judiciary.

[pnwmom]

103. Thanks for the info, Hippo_Tron.

[LynneSin]

122. You do realize that if we had the MAJORITY!!!

it would be a moot point on how a moderate would vote for a judge since none of these activist judges would get out of Committee

:eyes:

[skipos]

4. I don't need to hold my nose to vote for a dem ever

I always vote, and I always vote for the best candidate. For many years, the best candidate has always been a dem.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[skipos]

11. The name is familiar.. what's the story? nt

[Ian David]

17. Yes, Yes... I am your Google-Slave...

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:RECn-RRKXJAJ:www.inbrockton.com/forum/forum_posts.asp%3FTID%3D2195%26PN%3D4%26TPN%3D1+mark+chaupette+christine+canavan&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:NDYYLc3jWYcJ:69.24.70.75/forum/forum_posts.asp%3FTID%3D2195%26PN%3D6%26TPN%3D3+mark+chaupette+christine+canavan&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3


Gay marriage issue divides Canavan, Chauppette
By Paula Vogler/ Correspondent
Friday, October 22, 2004

The article you requested is now archived or expired off the site.
State Rep. Christine Canavan, D-Brockton and Brockton Republican Mark Chauppette differ on the gay marriage amendment but both support the New Bedford/Fall River line. Canavan and Chauppette are vying on the Nov. 2 ballot to represent Easton in the 10th Plymouth district. ...

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:3VBJvLyULR4J:www2.townonline.com/easton/localRegional/view.bg%3Farticleid%3D110161+mark+chauppette+christine+canavan&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10

[pnwmom]

35. She also is pro-choice and anti-guns. Unlike the Republican.

[Ian David]

82. Chaupette was only semi-anti-choice

He had a complicated set of criteria for when he though abortion should be limited, but was otherwise more-or-less pro-choice.

But Massachusetts was not (and still isn't) a handful of votes away from banning abortion. They were (and still are) a handful of votes away from banning gay marriage.

I figured (and still believe) that in Massachusetts, marriage equality is more at risk than reproductive rights.

A Progressive Republican who believes in Marriage Equality vs a pro-choice DINO beholden to the bigots... especially in a state where there are fewer Republicans in office than there are bathrooms in The State House. One progressive Republican would do a lot less damage than one right-wing DINO who can hide behind the cloak of calling herself a Democrat.

And I am so glad that Phil Dunkelbarger is running against Stephen Lynch in the Primary.

[MercutioATC]

14. I voted "R" in my city's last Mayoral election.

Sometimes, the Republican is the better candidate.

[skipos]

20. Not in any election I have ever participated in.

Anyone who likes Bush INC enough to stay in his party is going to have one large strike against them in my book.

[MercutioATC]

27. Sometimes, the Repub is still the better choice.

I could have voted Dem and doomed my city to financial ruin. I chose not to.

I could have voted Dem and sent the message that it's O.K. for a Dem to make outrageous claims (lies) to garner votes. I chose not to.


...and what pisses me off more than anything else is that the Ohio Democratic Party endorsed this guy just because he was a Dem. They could have refused endorsement, but they didn't. It's this "Support ANY Dem" sentiment that's gotten us where we are...

...I choose not to play their game.

[skipos]

34. No, it the republican majorities and our republican president

who have gotten us where we are. There is nothing wrong with supporting your dem in the primary and supporting the dem candidate in the election WHEN HE IS BETTER THAN THE REPUB. Fortunately, the dem is better than the repub in 100% of the 2006 senate races. I don't know enough about all of the house races to say, but I have never seen anything to indicate otherwise.

Republicans stand for: out of control spending so someone has to raise taxes later, increased government involvement in our personal lives, focusing on stupid issues like flag burning amendments and gay marriage, not giving 2 shits about the environment, tax cuts for the rich, keeping our poorest workers under the poverty level, etc.

You can find some democrats who are for some of those things, but you will find that most republicans are for all of those things. Even the least destructive republican in the senate, Lincoln Chafee, has seen what republicans do and has no problem attaching his name to their cause. A vote for him is a vote for a republican senate majority, and all the shitty things they will continue to do to America.

[pnwmom]

41. Well said, skipos.

[pnwmom]

40. Yuck. I was all set to support you . . .

and then I read that you live in Ohio, home of Ken Blackwell.

Anyone who would run as a Republican in that state cannot be trusted.

[MercutioATC]

49. That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with...

Given a choice:

City X is a well-to-do outer-ring suburb. It has excellent city services and excellent public schools while maintaining one of the lowest property tax rates in the area. City X has attracted a new $450M retail/office/residential development without granting any tax abatements, which will add considerably to the local tax base. City X also has done extensive long-range financial planning, allowing it to save money for needed projects in good times and pay cash for said projects as they're needed, minimizing interest expenses. City X has the highest bond rating of any community in the state. Downside: Schools are facing a deficit.

Candidate #1: Mayor of City X for 20 years. Numerous awards for leadership and administration. Advocates maintaining the status quo, because it works. Also shows the ability to think outside the box by suggesting that the city buy 40 acres of unused land from the school district with the understanding that the city will leave it undeveloped and will resell the land to the district at any time for the same price it paid (the city can't legally give or loan money to the school district...this is, in effect, an interest-free loan).

Candidate #2: Coming off failed political bids in surrounding communities, Candidate #2 moved to City X and ran for Mayor. Advocates a tax cut that rating agencies have said would cause them to lower City X's bond rating. Originally opposed Candidate #1's plan to buy school land, but supports it since running for office. Engages in a campaign based on two elements, tax cuts and misrepresentations of City X's cash reserves.

Which would YOU vote for?

[pnwmom]

52. I guess in that case I would want to dig deeper into the issues,

but I see your point.

[MercutioATC]

64. BTW, Candidate #1 did win the election in a landslide.

The city is Westlake, Ohio (my city :woohoo: ) .

The Ohio Democratic Party endorsed Candidate #2.


I hear what you're saying, but I believe that sometimes the Republican IS the best candidate.

[pnwmom]

70. I give up. You're right.

But I hope you're not feeling the same about the Federal elections that are coming up.

Whoever people vote for in the Federal primaries, or the local elections, I still think everybody should restrict themselves to voting for the Democrat in the general election for Federal office.

[MercutioATC]

83. I'm torn...not on theory, but on principle.

I agree that there's much to be said for the practical argument...a Dem majority in Congress, committee appointments, bringing Dem legislation to the floor, etc. There's no doubt that that's an important consideration.

The reason I'm torn is that I see so many of our own Democratic Congressmen who seem more interested in playing the D.C. games and honoring inside-the-beltway rules of decorum than making change...and I see it getting worse. We are not being served by our party.


The way I view it (my apologies for the melodrama, but the medical analogy seems, to me, the most apt):

The current Democratic power structure is the host.

Their behavior is the cancer.

Sometimes, minor corrections can be made to check cancer. That time has passed.

I believe we have to realistically consider more aggressive methods of treating the disease. Will this harm the host? Certainly...but I believe its the only choice we have left if we want a party that truly represents us.

The treatment as I see it? Ideally, a multi-party system, but that isn't going to happen any time soon. Realistically, I believe our best option is to:

1) In primaries, vote for the best Dem candidate, regardless of electibility.

2) In general elections, vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. If faced with the choice of the lesser of two evils, abstain or write in a candidate.

I realize this seems extreme, but (if you're in the quandary I am) given the fact that our leadership isn't representing us and given the fact that we keep voting for them anyway, what other way is there to solve the problem?

Cancer treatments are painful. Sometimes, they even kill the patient. However, left untreated, the cancer will kill them anyway.



(If you (anybody who reads this) want to complain about my premise or my use of cancer as an analogy, save your breath. If you'd like to logically discuss the issue, I'd invite feedback.)

[pnwmom]

90. Do you have a Democratic Senator or Congressperson whom you will

not be voting for in the general election, or is this theoretical?

[MercutioATC]

111. I don't know yet.

Sherrod really pissed me off with the way he entered this race. He's done nothing since to disabuse me of the notion that he's just one more part of the machine.

As I mentioned, I'm torn on this issue. At this point I honestly don't know how I'll use my vote.

[pnwmom]

116. Well, I know you'll keep pondering, and not go off half-cocked.

I mean . . . I guess I don't KNOW, but you don't seem like the kind to do something out of spite.

:hi:

[MercutioATC]

133. Nope. I'm not rushing into a decision...

...and I do have four months to figure it out...

:)

[pnwmom]

38. A local election is different, and I should have made that clear in

my original post.

[pnwmom]

36. I should have made it clear that I was talking about federal elections.

[pnwmom]

8. I agree skipos. The decision is rather clear-cut.

Unless, perhaps, you're really a Green.

[lastknowngood]

19. I wont waste my vote on one. They always vote repug anyway

n/t

[emulatorloo]

25. See my post 24 - Dem majority means DEM COMMITTEE CHAIRS

which means, among other things, the Bush/Repug house of cards will crumble in the face of DEMS WITH SUBPOENA POWER.

[pnwmom]

37. Who is the "they" ? I see so many name-callers refer to various

Senators and Representatives as DINO's -- when the candidates are actually progressive.

Actually, there's little overlap between the two parties anymore. Much less than there used to be.

http://www.progressivepunch.com/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=63&y=10

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. The time to fight DINOs is in the primary

If they are nominated, then we must back them or suffer the consequences. In my case, this would me a Talibornagain for Senator (Jim Holt), and we don't need one of those representing Arkansas, imho.

[pnwmom]

39. Thanks ayeshahaqqiqa.

I hope most Democrats and progressives end up feeling as you do.

[emulatorloo]

24. WAKE UP PURISTS! REPUG Committee Chairs are a HUGE PROBLEM also

Committee on Energy National Resources - chair Pete V. Domenici DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING

Committe on Intelligence - chair Pat Roberts main job seems to be COVERING UP FOR THE LIES AND FAILED POLICIES OF BUSHCO

If Dems win a majority in November, those odious chairs are out of thier jobs.

And please don't tell me that Dem heads would be no better. Because John D Rockefeller would be investigating Bush's Iraq lies, not covering them up/

[skipos]

28. Hey, you are being logical. We don't take kindly to logic in

our circular firing squads.

[emulatorloo]

31. LOL - as you can tell it is an obsession of mine

:toast: :patriot:

[CTLawGuy]

43. send an email to Joe Lieberman

about committee chairs. He's the one who is going to bolt the party because he won't win the primary.

[skipos]

47. I have been a defender of Lieberman for many months

not because I am a fan, but because I respect the right of dems in other states to nominate democrats that I am not exactly crazy about. Nebraska dems chose Nelson and Wisconsin dems chose Feingold because they felt he represented them the best.

However, this talk of a Lieberman independent run really pisses me off. If he runs as an independent, that would show that he only cares about democrats when they nominate him, and doesn't respect their opinion when they don't. I guess we will see.... If Joe wins the nomination, he has my support over the repub, and Lamont wins he will have my support over the repub and anyone else who runs against him.

FWIW I think there are lot of people who, like me, tolerate Joe now, but will not tolerate an independent run.

[pnwmom]

59. That's basically how I feel, too. If he throws himself overboard,

I'm not throwing him a life preserver.

[pnwmom]

53. Could he do as Jeffords did, and announce that he was voting

with the Democrats, which would allow them to still form the majority?

[emulatorloo]

71. last I heard, he wasnt -- AT ANY RATE, PLS VOTE FOR THE DEM eom

[CTLawGuy]

119. oh that is not for certain

I will of course vote for the dem, but Ben Nelson won't. I heard he is supporting Lieberman no matter what. I'm going to go nail it down and then post about it.

[Hippo_Tron]

99. You forgot James Inhofe

Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, also doesn't believe in global warming.

[LWolf]

155. There are purists, and there are purists.

I'm your "purist:" one who won't compromise on issues.

You are my "purist:" the Party purist who will put party power and manipulation before the issues of the people.

[CTLawGuy]

44. Are you the same people who tell us

"don't waste your time getting rid of DINOs (in the primary) when that money and effort could be going to defeat republicans?"

cause if you are, please tell us how we are supposed to get people in office who represent us? If we can't vote third party, and its a waste of money to have a primary, how the f are we supposed to do this?

[pnwmom]

60. Go ahead and work for someone else in the primary, if you honestly

believe that person is more electable (as the Lieberman opponent may be). Or even if you want to tilt at windmills.

But please don't hand the GENERAL election to the Repubs on a silver platter.

As Nader did in 2000 when he deliberately chose to run hard in Florida.

[CTLawGuy]

121. why is electability the end of politics

you are stuck in the DLC mindset that the goal of politics is to win.

I am voting for the candidate who I think would best represent my views in the senate. Electability doesn't mean anything to me.

[ShortnFiery]

129. Bravo!

My beliefs and sentiments EXACTLY:

"I am voting for the candidate who I think would best represent my views in the senate. Elect-ability doesn't mean anything to me." :applause: :yourock:


This type of DLC bullying didn't even work to Flip "The Greens" in the 2000 Presidential Election.

If you think this verbal thuggery, threats and "bandwagon appeal" will work for the base of Democrats who have consistently swallowed our pride for over 6 years now, then you have mistaken us for REPUBLICANS.

We have a mind, therefore your guilt tripping will not work for the lion's share of true blue base Democrats. When you wash out the Corporate DLC branch, then ask for our loyalty and it will be given. Until then, you're on your own and only causing more "hard feelings" with such a hard sell tactic.

[Silent3]

140. Oh, yeah, I'm so glad that "bullying" didn't work...

...that the Greens stood their ground on principle... and we got Bush instead of Gore. Yeah, that worked out really well. :eyes:

Not only have did we suffer the immediate bad consequence of getting Bush, but whatever "signals" the Greens hoped to be sending to the world and to the political establishment to somehow change politics in the future, or to somehow "teach America a lesson" through the pain of the consequences of getting Bush, never came through either.

So, other than their ability to feel self-righteous as the country went to hell, what on earth did the Greens gain by not letting themselves be "bullied" by those who told them a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush? The people who told them that turned out to be ENTIRELY CORRECT.

As for the world "bullying": If you think that someone telling you that your voting strategy is ineffective or even stupid, and that urging you to vote differently than you might have otherwise constitutes "bullying", you've got skin that's way too thin.

Republican activists "challenging" Democratic voters at the polls. Wrongly disenfranchising thousands of valid, and disproportionately Democratic voters, for the purported purpose of stopping felons from the voting. THOSE are what I would call bullying.

What's going on here is not bullying at all, but a desperate plea that Democrats get smart about voting, think about bigger consequences for everyone more than self-righteous purity, and vote strategically to get the best possible results.

Yes, voting for a DINO in the general election, if that's the best Dem you've got once the primaries are over, is much, much better than voting for a write-in, a third party, or just staying home and not voting at all. No matter how often a DINO votes like a Republican, if it's less often than a real Republican that's better than having a real Republican. And the all-important matter of control of committees should not be underestimated. Even a nearly Republican DINO will help us get committee control into Democratic hands, and will prevent that DINO from even having the chance to vote on things sent to the floor on Republican terms.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. The DINO you and I have in mind had the opportunity to fillibuster

Both of the really bad eggs that you refer to. She didn't.

Given the choice between candidate "A" who won't vigorously oppose "the worst of his nominees" and candidate "B" who will vote for 'em, how is the topic of judicial candidates germane?

Thanks to DINOs we'll continue to get the worst of the worst unless we retake the house and senate.

I'll vote for Maria in the general, but the vote will have little to do with court appointments, because she won't vigorously oppose anyone.

[pnwmom]

61. If Cantwell had been part of a Democratic MAJORITY, neither Alito nor

Roberts would have been confirmed. The majority would have simply voted against them.

As it is, she did vote against confirming them.

Kerry and Kennedy tried to drum up enough support for a filibuster, but it was a lost cause -- even with Cantwell's support, we didn't have the votes needed to succeed with a filibuster. So you can blame her for not latching on to a losing cause, if you want. But even if she had voted against cloture, Alito would still be on the Supreme Court.

[rhett o rick]

152. Well stated lumberjack. nm

[ginnyinWI]

46. Of course. A DINO is better than any Republican. n/t

[pnwmom]

107. Unfortunately, a fair number of DU'ers appear to disagree with you.

[OzarkDem]

54. I don't have to - all our Ohio Dem candidates are good

I'm happy to vote for them and happy to volunteer and donate, too. :dem:

[pnwmom]

62. That's music to my ears.

:nopity:

[welshTerrier2]

63. "You, and your principles"

well, there you go again ...

how about talking about those Democrats who have sold us down the river ... when do we start weeding them out? we certainly don't do that by voting for them no matter what they do ...

i'd like to win too but it seems to me all your way buys us is more of the same ... the problem isn't voters and their principles; the problem is those candidates who don't care about those principles enough to represent our views ...

demanding "blind loyalty" is done, dead and over ... stick a fork in it ...

the answer to your polite request to get in line and play ball is: no thank you ...

[pnwmom]

66. We don't start weeding them out until we have some more grass in place.

And we're still working on that.

In the meantime, at least they provide some ground cover and help to hold the foundation in place. Maybe even prevent some landslides.

Which of the Democratic Senators do you find so loathsome, by the way?

[MADem]

69. You know, that is a GOOD question!

I'd like to know who all these loathsome DINOs are, myself. And I'd also like to know which congresspersons are viewed as "above reproach!"

[welshTerrier2]

75. since you're asking ...

i didn't use the term loathsome and i don't really like the term DINO either ...

if you're really interested in my "i won't vote for them" list, here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2701939&mesg_id=2701939

[MADem]

76. OK, so you are a ONE ISSUE VOTER

You insist that your candidate not support the war. Other issues don't matter? An antichoice, five dollar minimum wage, privitizer of Social Security would be OK with you?? Because you will almost NEVER find a candidate who agrees with you on every issue.

I sometimes think you have to trust in the legislature to push and shove the executive branch, and the executive to push and shove back--the politics of compromise at work, and play. They haven't done it lately, because the GOP owns it all, but if we can take back the House, and/or the Senate, and get the Executive branch, we CAN have our cake, and at least be able to eat half a slice.

But then, I'm a pragmatist.

[welshTerrier2]

80. yes, we're all pragmatists

and if you want to call me a one issue voter, fine ...

there are many issues i support that i would use to rule out a candidate ... if that's one issue voting, so be it ...

and btw, out of Iraq in one year? you can't be serious ... i hope you read Dahr Jamail's article ... if you think he's telling the truth, it becomes pretty clear the Senate Dems are not ...

[MADem]

84. I didn't say anything about getting out in a year, you must be confusing

me with someone else on this thread. But I do have an opinion on that matter.

I do think we'll NEVER get out of there without a Democratic majority in at least one chamber, and we'll definitely get out of there if we get both of them--it's all in the committee assignments, and no matter what the Monkey WANTS to do, if Ways and Means, Appropriations, the HASC and the SASC don't wanna continue on, our children are COMIN' home.

Congress does have one important advantage, and that is a great big paw on the pursestrings.

Monkey will be forced, in order to avoid complete humiliation, to kowtow to the UN, and I'm sure our Democratic Congress would happily authorize supplemental funding for a multinational peacekeeping force, if the Iraqis aren't ready to stand up when we say to hell with it and stand down.

[welshTerrier2]

86. no, i realize you didn't

i didn't mean to create the impression i thought you had said that ... i was speaking more generically about the Senate Dems ...

my pragmatic "script" is that the best chance we HAD to end the war sooner was to put huge political pressure on the republicans this November ... the "end the war in a year" and the "we can't set a timetable" Democrats have blown that completely out the window ...

they continue to ignore the anti-war wing of the party ... don't expect any cooperation without a compromise ...

i'm going to start a new thread in a bit that links to a video that describes the inevitable collapse of the American empire ... i hope you check it out ... i'm still watching the video ... my view of things is that the only chance for real change, before it all explodes, is to tell the American people the truth and hope for the best ... the incremental, "we can't do anything until we have power" changes will take too long ... i think we need to move much, much faster than conventional electoral tinkering will allow ...

i'm calling on the Democratic Party to tell the American people the truth because i think that's the last possible force, if awakened, that can save us ... but that's all seen as crazy, left-wing "purist" talk ... well, maybe it is ... it's how i see the world and i see the Democrats playing political games and letting the nation remain asleep ...

[MADem]

88. Well, when you go to vote, if you go to vote

You need to understand that when you vote for the Democrat, even if you don't agree with the one or ones running in your district or state, you are also voting for a Democratic majority, and you are by extension voting for Democratic chairpersons on all of the committees that decide how the money is spent, what the agenda is, and what bills will be put before their respective bodies.

Even if you are pulling the lever for someone you don't like all that well, you are benefitting the reps and senators that you DO like who will end up on key committees as a force for good.

[pnwmom]

95. How do the "end the war in a year" Democrats NOT put pressure on the

Republicans? I don't get it.

Democrats who voted against the Kerry/Finegold resolution may have taken the pressure off the Republicans -- but some of them voted for it. Why would you oppose them as Presidential candidates?

[pnwmom]

94. In what sense are you a pragmatist?

[pnwmom]

91. Okay, your expression was "sold us down the river," which is a reference

to slavery, which I would describe as loathsome behavior.

Looking at your referenced post, I still don't know who's on your list, except that you're (rightly) upset with people who voted for the Iraq war resolution. Which was most of the Democrats. Does that mean you would vote for none of them?

Cantwell, for instance, was still a fledgling Senator, just having begun her first term when 9/11 happened. Is she to be blamed because she listened to Democratic leaders like Kerry and, like them, decided to trust Bush on this?

[welshTerrier2]

73. i didn't use the term loathsome

i will not be voting for any Senate Democrat who runs for the Presidency ... their position on Iraq is an absolute disgrace ... they are lying to the American people and playing political games and it's unconscionable ...

things need to change in the party and threads like this that essentially call for blind obedience are not constructive ... if you want unity and loyalty, as i do, it has to be EARNED ... we cannot continue to put forward candidates who keep voting for bush's imperial war, who vote for more globalization, who vote for imperial presidency Supreme Court justices and who are obviously either blind or complicit to the war being waged against our democracy ...

i'm not hearing a whole lot of truth on most of these issues and it's not OK ...

and let's not get into all that purist nonsense ... i'm more than open to compromise and negotiation ... when i hear jackasses like Schumer saying he'll stick with Lieberman even if he runs as an independent, it's clear your post is directed at the wrong audience ... if Mr. Schumer wants my vote, he'd better start talking about the values and positions that Lamont is raising ... especially on the war ... but the DSCC and the DCCC doesn't give a damn what i think ...

no, without a real intra-party dialog, the too far to the right Senate has lost my vote ... i'm a "Progressive Dems in the House" Democrat from now on ...

[pnwmom]

92. Are you saying that even in the 2008 general election you won't vote

for Democratic candidate who is in the Senate?

I still don't understand how helping the Republicans to win by withholding your vote from the Democrat is going to further your cause.

[pnwmom]

93. Selling people down the river is worse than loathsome, historically,

so I was taking the edge off your comment.

[ShortnFiery]

125. THEY sold US down the river by allowing Alito to become a SC justice n/t

[Strawman]

98. In a general election, sure

But in the primary, I'll be voting for the best candidate in the field based upon past performance and their positions on thie issues. Period. And it won't be anyone who could be called a DINO.

[pnwmom]

108. How do you decide who is a DINO? Just wondering.

Other than Lieberman, I mean.

[ShortnFiery]

127. You know it when you see THEM and they are paid off by corporations

Example: Biden voting for the Bankruptcy bill is a DINO.

[Terran1212]

100. Why we should form popular movements...

...to build leaders who represent US and can take our government back into peoples', not money's interests:

so we don't all fucking die.

: )

[pnwmom]

109. Popular movements are good for pulling us in a better direction -- as long

as the rope doesn't snap. When people leave the party because their candidate didn't win, or sit out an election, then the rope has snapped.

[MercutioATC]

113. Yes!

I agree.

(I've spent 10 minutes trying to improve on your reasoning "so we don't all fucking die" but I can't...)

[LynneSin]

123. Great - how many more years of Republican majority should I suffer though?

What we should do is build a majority. Once we have the majority then we start moving the part to the left but at least have control so the place isn't falling apart like it is now.

I don't know about you BUT I DON'T WANT THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS IN CONTROL ANYMORE

[Terran1212]

135. No one wants that!

But we want better alternatives, and we need them, for the reason I again state:

so we don't all fucking die.

[LynneSin]

139. Then we need both a short term and long term plan

I went to a book signing for "Crashing the Gate" by the bloggers from MyDD and DailyKos. Their book talks about taking back the democratic party; moving it to the left. But when they spoke, they spoke of reason - we can't just start shoving people out right now and this Novemeber at the general election we're going to have to make some tough votes for the greater good.

But the Connecticut situation should be a prime example that we can be competitive in the primaries. I mean, for all the bitching people do about the Nelsons (NE and FL) and a slew of other democrats - many of them ran unopposed or there was nary a blip in competing against said 'bad' democrat.

Short term plan should be getting the majority - but long term plan should be rebuilding the part and NOT from the top down, but the down up. You know how republicans took over this country - because they started to run candidates for every race out there especially ones that have major influence over the local communities like school board and town council. School boards use to be the liberals breeding grounds but in the last 20 years the conservatives have taken over and have used their ideology to influence a new generation.

We need to start running candidates for every race that we can not only to win local influence but to start building stronger candidates for bigger races. We also need to make sure we have candidates for EVERY house & senate race PLUS start pushing primaries against democrats that are too moderate.

But when all of this is said and done and when the general election comes around - we need to vote for the guy with the "D" next to his/her name because it's not about "ME" it's about "WE" and "WE" need a majoity if we even want to attempt to make a difference with this country

[Terran1212]

144. I believe Dkos has been a co-opted wing of the Democratic Party

They now host events with Hilary and Harry Reid and it seems they want to lose the independence of the left.


I agree with most of your overall message, though.

[anewdeal]

117. (D) is just a letter

alone, it is absolutely worthless.

[ShortnFiery]

126. Agree!

I was so angry at "The Greens" in 2000 and 2004, but they were right!

With some minor social support exceptions. And believe me they are getting more inconsequential each and every day. The Democratic Leaders are also "paid off" by the large Corporations.

WELCOME TO FASCISM!

Sorry fellow American Citizens, but this country has already reached FASCISM. If we ever get our Democratic Republic back, it will be a miracle and will take decades. :cry:

[ClassWarrior]

158. Not to the other (D)s who derive power from a possible majority.

Think Judiciary Chairman John Conyers.

NGU.

[rman]

118. "nibbling around the edges of the conservative block"

"Secure the base, then organize the non-voting populations"...
"We're not going to gain anything by nibbling around the edges of the conservative block."


Wrong About the Right
By Jean Hardisty and Deepak Bhargava
The Nation, November 7, 2005
http://www.publiceye.org/hardisty/wrong_about_right.html


discussed here:
Great Article on Building the Left by Learning from the Right
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2702753

[JerseygirlCT]

130. Never fear. I won't be voting for our DINO in the primaries

(Or don't expect to), but I'll vote party-line in the fall. (Except for my local rep. He's an ass, and I WILL NOT vote for him. I'll abstain or write in someone instead).

[Totally Committed]

136. Hold my nose and vote for a DINO in the GE?

Been there, done that... election after losing election, year after disappointing year, decade after f*cking decade. And it's never done a bit of good.

Nope. Never again. Not for any reason.

TC

[paulk]

137. LOL! What a brilliant plan!

What do you advocate instead?

Vote third party?

Vote Republican?

What are you "totally committed" to, anyway?


Other than filling up DU with negative shit like this day after day?

[LWolf]

156. I advocate this:

My vote is earned, not owed. Not to a party, not to a party member.

To earn my vote, the candidate must have a record, in word and deed, of supporting the issues that bring me to the polls. A record I am satisfied with.

If a candidate has not earned my vote, he or she will not get it. Period.

If no one has earned my vote? I'll write in someone who has, which is a more responsible use of my vote than enabling those who haven't.

[Totally Committed]

157. Sounds good to me! eom

TC

[onenote]

160. why don't you just write in your own name every time?

that way you would ensure that you've supported a candidate who supports the same issues as you, and you'd have exactly the same impact on the outcome of the election...

[LWolf]

164. I'm not running for office.

I already have a job. A job in which my service is just as important to the general public as an elected position, imo, if not as well-paid.

If I write someone in, it will be someone who is ready and able to serve.

Please notice that I took your question at face value, and answered it as such, since you didn't indicate :sarcasm:.

Honest, straightforward expression of a position is refreshing.

[paulk]

162. actually, a "responsible" use of your vote

is voting in a way that can effect change. Sometimes that means voting against someone.

Sometimes it means voting for someone you don't particularly care for.


Our system has flaws, the largest being that we realistically have only two options.

Though you dress up your opinion in righteousness, it is ultimately a selfish and self defeating way to use your vote.

[LWolf]

163. Having cast votes

against, rather than for, people for almost 30 years, I'm aware of what you are saying. I'm saying that, after 30 years, casting votes against people did not effect the change I worked for. 3 decades. In 3 decades, I cast a vote FOR one person. ONE. In 30 years. Every other vote was "against" the opposition. When a strategy doesn't work, I move on to something else. That's not selfishness, self-righteousness, or self-defeating. That's common sense. It's also choosing not to enable one of our system's flaws by perpetuating it.

[paulk]

165. how is it common sense to throw away your vote on a candidate

who has no chance of winning, no chance of affecting change? There are only two strategies in our system - that's the cold hard truth of it.

After what happened in 2000, after Nader, how anyone could hold your opinion is beyond me.

You're not "enabling" our system's flaws, you're enabling the the greater of two evils. There's always a positive, if not locally with a poor Democratic candidate, then nationally where that "D" helps empower other DEMS by giving them a Congressional majority.

Feeling the way you do, I don't understand why you choose to involve yourself in politics at all.

[onenote]

166. what i don't understand is voting for a non-candidate?

writing in someone who isn't running doesn't seem to accomplish much..not sure if it even "sends a message" that anyone will pay any attention to...

[paulk]

167. I'm dumfounded by it

if 2000 didn't show the absolute stupidity of third party or write in voting, what will?

it's beyond me that this sort of thing is even still being discussed.

and the whole "sends a message" thing.... sends a message to who? Helping elect Bush is sending a message to the Democrats? It's the cutting off your nose to spite your face school of thought.

[LWolf]

169. To answer your question/s:

Change isn't accomplished by voting against a candidate I don't like, thus enabling a candidate who does nothing to effect the change I want to vote for. Since the change doesn't happen, perpetuating that pattern of voting perpetuates lack of change.

That's the cold hard truth.

Only two choices? I don't see it that way. That's political propaganda that maintains the status quo: we're not moving forward on issues. I see that every last voter has more than 2 choices. That's the real issue here; two parties using the propaganda of fear to control and limit choices, thus maintaining a dysfunctional power structure.

"Choice" is not a one way street. I have choices about where to bestow my vote, or not. Parties and candidates have choices about whether they want to work for my vote, or not. If they choose not to earn my vote, they don't. It's that simple, and it's ok for them to decide that they don't want, or value, my vote. I respect their right to choose, as I expect them to respect mine.

I'm not enabling a damned thing. No con, or neocon, will get my vote.

I choose to involve myself in politics for these reasons:

1. It's my right.
2. It's my responsibility to make sure my voice is heard, regardless of whether anyone cares, or agrees, or not.
3. If I don't, THEN I've enabled the status quo.

[paulk]

170. you reject the idea that voting for a Dem, even one you find

reprehensible, isn't worth it if even if that vote helps the Democratic Party gain a majority in Congress, which would give them the power to control the Congressional agenda, and which would put Democrats whose positions you do agree with in committee chairmanships - and therefore with the power to effect the change you do want?

Is it your opinion that the two parties are the same? That it makes no difference who is in power? It seems to me that is what you are saying, in a broad sense.


----------------------


I find your approach to politics flawed. It is a selfish, in the true sense of the word, way to approach democracy. Your vote, for what you may think as a "dino", may not benefit you - but, it could very well benefit me. Why? Because my representative (Diana DeGette) is very much a progressive, and with Democratic control of the HOuse - control that your vote could help provide, she could get the House to move forward on the stem cell research bill she authored. And, who knows, that, and other bills authored by progressives, could benefit you.

[LWolf]

173. I never said I rejected the idea of voting for a Dem.

That's your spin, as are the rest of the assertions in your post.

I reject the idea that I vote for someone because of the "D" rather than because his/her record has earned my vote. I just got done voting for several key Dems in my local election last May, and I'm sure I'll be casting votes for more this November. Those that have earned my vote to my satisfaction.

While recognizing the points you are attempting to make, I think I've already stated that 3 decades of this sort of trade-off voting, regardless of who may have chaired committees, did not effect the kind of change I'm looking for, so I'm not going to do it any more. I think that is eminently logical: if it isn't working, do something different.

Do I think the two major parties are the same? Not at all. If I did, I wouldn't have spent 3 decades denying Rs and supporting Ds and independents.

I do think that both parties are corrupt, and that the party power structure, and the power holders in that structure, are placed higher on the priority list than the people they work for, and the issues that matter to those people. I do think that the major players of both parties have been bought, and are too influenced by corporate and other well-heeled donors.

[ClassWarrior]

159. Not even for Judiciary Chairman John Conyers?

Not A BIT of good?

NGU.

[MODemocrat]

138. I've held my nose in many cases, for I will never vote Republican

No matter what, I'll take my chances on a mediocre Democrat over any Republican. Republicans do not stand up for the people as they are elected to do. They just poo poo the constitution, and change the laws to fit their crimes.

At one time I had respect for the republican party, but that has all gone out the window since BUSH.

[roseBudd]

141. I'd vote for a bolgna sandwich if it had a D after it, I will not vote G

[AtomicKitten]

145. The term DINO

can be applied to voters (just as it is applied to politicians here at DU) who take their marbles and go home.

Primaries are the time for balls-out efforts to put in place candidates that represent the general consensus of their constituents, democracy at its finest.

I would not waste my time trying to cajole and coddle and persuade people that are unable to accept the very essence of democracy played out in the primary process, that the majority rules. I won't waste my breath (or my fingers as it turns out here) explaining how democracy works. This is where purism butts heads with pragmatism and, hell, just common sense. To withhold participation in ousting this corrupt Republican regime at the ballot box is the epitome of screwed-up priorities.

Flame away. I'm used to it and I endure it gladly.

[emulatorloo]

148. kicking n/t

[Bridget Burke]

150. That's no problem in Texas....

Some of our Democratic candidates are not very liberal. But the Republicans range from frightening to totally worthless.

Even if I'm told we "don't have a chance"--I'll continue to vote Democratic. And I won't flush my vote down a 3rd party commode.

[rhett o rick]

151. Maria Cantwell has done nothing to prevent the current SCOTUS makeup.

What good is she? I know we need the numbers. Be good little Demo's and vote for the D. Kinda like the Repub's vote for the R. I will but it will hurt.

How will we ever get rid of these Dino's??

[SaveElmer]

154. I object to the term DINO...in virtually all cases...

We deride Ben Nelson and praise Lincoln Chaffee...

Yet Ben Nelson's voting record is far superior to Chaffee's

The only folks I consider DINO's are those that actively advocate of aid in the election of a Republican candidate (Zell Miller, Randy Kelley, Ed Koch etc)

Ben Nelson is not a DINO he is a Democrat.

[onenote]

161. well said

[samsingh]

168. better a dino in a democratic controlled house or senate

than a repug in a repug one.

a dino in the former still gives us control of many, many committees.

[VirginiaDem]

172. Throw the shoe on the other foot...

What makes you more afraid: Republicans united to vote for anyone but the Democrat or Republicans voting for third parties or sitting it out because they are sick and tired of RINOs and want to vote their conscience?

As for me, I am delighted by the latter.