|
making the claim that a Congressmember should vote in lockstep, as Republicans do, with their Party?
I've read the statements of several of the 39 members who voted against the bill. Many of them had very good reasons for doing so. Having those doubts about any piece of legislation, should a Congressmember go ahead and vote for it anyway?
I would rather ane elcted official voted for what they believe is right, than because of party pressure, or donations from big corporations.
Many Republicans had doubts about the War in Iraq, however because they did not dare go against the party, all of them voted for it as they were ordered to do, not be their constituents, but by their party. Imo, that is a real threat to democracy.
Not all of them were Blue Dogs and not all had the same reasons, not all even had principled reasons, as Kucinich and Baird did eg.
Blue Dogs have been supported by the DLC wing of the party, Rahm et al. So there's no point in Move-on et al complaining about them, while they are taking their orders, and moneythe Rahm and the DLC and while access to inside Washington has become more important to them than issues.
Blue Dogs will vote against progressive issues, that's a fact. But the Dems said we needed to support them, now they're complaining about them. Makes no sense to me. Get them out of the party instead of whining about them. But Rahm will not do that, will he. He loves his Blue Dogs, gave them a seat at the table but not progressives.
As for the others who have progressive principles, I don't understand at all the vitriol against them. They are who we need and I support every one of them who stand up for those issues Democrats say are important, but don't always act that way.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
