Why is it that we have to put up with fake Dems in our midst?

[tavalon]

Like Zell on Earth and Joementum. I mean, isn't there a time when we can just show them the door and even plant our PC boot on their butts? I haven't seen anyone ever thrown out of the Democratic party and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

[LynnTheDem]

1. We gotta put up with several fake Dems on this board, too

And that also sucks.

I absolutely approve of the Dems being the "big tent" party, but I'm really leaning now towards cleaning out the Dem OFFICIALS; I still say we should be the big tent party for any & all CIVILIANS, but the Dem OFFICIALS need to be upholding DEM platforms or get the f*ck OUT, imo.

[Capn Sunshine]

64. LOL that's the first thing I thought of too

Part of the territory I guess

[Just Me]

91. I agree. BUT the neoCONspirators are the greatest enemy to defeat.

It's not just DINOs who are being challenged,...RINOs are, too!!!

Frankly, we are ALL being challenged to take a stand for what we REALLY believe, what we REALLY want as our "values",...the simple, basic "values".

[Nite Owl]

2. One thing that I hope Dean does

is take away any funding for them. If they are going to vote with * then they shouldn't be taking our funds.

[Norquist Nemesis]

39. Money talks!

I agree. The only thing the troubles me about it this (in the long run) is the deep pockets that RNC has their hand in. A friendly little chat on the golf course or at the weekend duck hunt can put some dollars back into the coffers. Then we've another rogue voting anti-Democratic in an attempt to save his ass with another term.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. That is a big myth

Dean is not going to have any sort of veto power over who get money. Incumbent Senators like Lieberman have established lists of donors who have been giving to him for years independantly of the party.

Even members running for open seats will get most of their money from sources other than the DNC. Both the House and Senate Democrats have their own campign committees which are financially independant of the DNC. Charles Schumer and Rahm Emanuel will be the ones deciding who gets that money.

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. Zell basically threw himself out.

As far as I'm concerned, Holy Joe gave himself the "kiss of death" last week. But the ones who need to be thrown out now are From, Reed, Will Marshall the PNAC'er and Marshall Wittman with a resume that includes virtually every right wing hate group on the planet. No tolerance for these traitors, period.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. As much as Joementum sucks, he very actively supported Kerry

Which, in my opinion, means that he is for advancing the ideals of the democratic party and not those of the GOP. The people (and more specifically the Democrats) of Connecticut should decide whether he is fit to serve as a Democratic US Senator from Connecticut. Sorry but I think that until Joe shows that he is clearly working to help the GOP win, pushing him out is no better than the Club for Growth trying to push out Chafee and Specter.

[Guaranteed]

5. Well, you have to put that up against his actual votes, though.

Yeah, it's great that he supported Kerry, but if he doesn't VOTE with Kerry....how useful is he? Shouldn't we get someone that will both support our presidential nominee, and vote like it?

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Once again, that's for the people of Connecticut to decide

They've chosen to elect him and he's chosen to caucus with the Democrats. What do you want to do with him exactly? Do you want Harry Reid to say that Joe should be barred from the caucus because he votes with the GOP too much? I don't think that we should start barring people from our caucus (especially considering our minority status).

In addition, I see it strategically. For example had Brad Carson, Dan Mongiardo, Tony Knowles, Chris John, Ernskine Bowles, and Inez Tannenbaum, Tom Daschle, and Betty Castor been elected to the Senate over their GOP opponents, they most certainly would've voted with the repukes on many votes. However, had this been the case, the Democrats would've controlled the Senate by the same margin that the GOP does now, meaning that we would have 10 seats on the Judiciary Committee and they would have 8 instead of the other way around. Pat Leahy would be chairman of the Judicary Committee not Arlen Specter. With this being the case, Alberto Gonzales wouldn't have made it to the floor for a vote and thus would not be Attorney General. Fillibustering judges and the "nuclear option" would no longer be an issue because we could kill them all in committee (something that Bill Frist claims is perfectly acceptable). Oh yea, and how about all of these investigations that we'd like to do on Bush. The Senate Majority Leader has the power to call for many of these investigations, the Senate Minority Leader does not.

Oh yea, how about this atrocity that Bush is calling a "budget". You can bet that it wouldn't be seeing its way out of the Senate budget committee without serious revisions if we controlled the Senate. Not to mention that Democrats would actually be ALLOWED to sit on the conference committees if we controlled the Senate.

[Chipper Chat]

8. Which adds fuel to my point that we should stop prognosticating

for 2008 and concentrate on the mid-terms in '06.
Take back the Senate! (Bush would be a DEAD lame duck).

[Guaranteed]

13. No, he shouldn't be barred from anything, but if he's voting with

the Republicans, then, like you said, those from Connecticut should get rid of him.

[blondeatlast]

22. I say if he votes against the party line more than 50% of the time,

no money or volunteers from the party.

Let him run as an I and see how he does. I think we'll all be happier then.

[Guaranteed]

52. That's extremely low. nt

[blondeatlast]

61. But it's a SOLID stopping point.

I'd like to see it more like 65-75%, but if you can't hang with the party at least half the time, you need to be forcefully shown the door for certain.

[Guaranteed]

66. Damned straight about that.

I'd go even higher, honestly. But you're clearly giving them plenty of leeway.

[CTyankee]

26. Here in CT

we've got a great Democrat, Dick Blumenthal, our activist state AG but he seems more intent on becoming governor. I like him because he is strongly pro-choice and very, very smart. Little side note: his father in law owns the Empire State Building.

[Quixote1818]

49. He is not doing that.

http://www.adaction.org/2003senatevr.htm

[Guaranteed]

51. On foreign policy, he is.

He is with THEM.

[MisterLiberal]

74. YAY

You go BullGoose!

DINOs SHOULD BE EXTINCT!

The problem is easily solved by having the leadership reject him in his next election and put a real Democrat in the race.

If the DNC acts like it is helpless then we need new leadership. I'm glad we got Dean in there. He will make changes.

[theboss]

55. The funny thing is, Joe DOESN'T VOTE WITH THE GOP

That's the myth that is spread here.

[Guaranteed]

67. Joe gets KISSES from the Chimp after the SOTU.

We know what his foreign policy position is.

[MisterLiberal]

73. GRRRR

This is what angers me so much. "Just because he caucuses with the GOP too much".

THAT MAKES HIM A REPUKE! Just because he puts a D on the front of his name doesn't make him a Democrat! The leadership needs to let Joe Know that the D STANDS FOR SOMETHING.

[ultraist]

86. Erskine Bowles LOST! His campaign theme was: Mr. Bipartisan, didn't work!

Burr ran ads showing him with Clinton and Bowles' statement, "it's not about Democrat or Republican..." appeared very disingenious. Bowles said he wont run again.

[Quixote1818]

45. He does vote with Kerry. Take a look:

http://www.adaction.org/2003senatevr.htm


Their are plenty of other Dems who vote less with Kerry than Lieberman. Take a look at Edwards for instance.

[Guaranteed]

47. I know that Lieberman votes with us a lot on economic issues.

But, as far as foreign policy goes, this guy is the SHITS.

[Quixote1818]

50. I agree with on that.

[ultraist]

87. Edwards voted straight Democrat in 2003, the year you linked

What are you talking about? Granted, Edwards missed quite a lot of votes due to campaigning but during his first few years, he had a 99% voting turnout. The average for his term was 85% turnout.

Edwards and Kerry's voting records are nearly identical. Lieberman has been a Senator for a lot longer. What percentage of his votes for REPUKE?

Lieberman was on tv shows during the campaign talking up how well Bush was handling IRAQ! Give me a break!

[RealDems]

10. Yeah, but the problem with that is...

that people like Lieberman give the Republicans a measure to call Real Democrats far leftists. They all do it -- Sean Hannity will say that Joe is the only reasonable Democrat... Rick Lazio even suggested the Dems make Lieberman Party Chairman! It's the same thing as when the Republicans would peel off Zell Miller and call their bills "bipartisan" because of his support. Our Democratic pretenders, for some reason, are much more visible than the Republican pretenders like Chaffee. You never hear a Democrat argue that Lincoln Chaffee is the only reasonable Republican.

[Guaranteed]

14. Yup. They undermine the whole party

and our message.

But, hey- we're inclusive. Even fascists can join our party. That's...just...cool.

[blondeatlast]

23. Why do we care what the opposition thinks? Believe me, the Rovian

machine doesn't give a damn what we do.

We are lost to people like Hannity. He and his ilk should be a non-issue, for the most part.

[ewagner]

29. Well said......

remember that we keep taking boxing golves to a knofe fight....Repubs will never play fair.......winning is all that matters.

[Guaranteed]

48. But it's interpreted as weakness. It gives them the opportunity to say,

"Look! Even Lieberman, one of their OWN, doesn't agree with them! They must be wrong!"

CLARITY OF MESSAGE.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Kerry did the SAME THING with Lugar, Hagel, and McCain

Do you see them trying to outst those guys?

[Guaranteed]

85. The clarity of their message isn't being injured because of

those Senators.

Those Senators are also in the minority- the "radical" wing of the Republican party is in the majority, so they don't have to worry about those damned moderates affecting things too much. We, on the other hand, have about a 50-50 split, right now, I'd guesstimate.

[me b zola]

59. Perception is everything....

..until voters engage their brains and begin to think for themselves.

[Guaranteed]

62. That is only done through leadership.

They won't do it on their own. We have to drag them along.

[RealDems]

71. Believe me -- I have no interest in pleasing Sean Hannity...

My only point is that with Lieberman in the Democratic Party, it creates an almost natural triangle (and I'm no fan of triangulation). If Lieberman is the "moderate" in the Party, and Boxer is the "left" wing of the Party, then the establishment is somewhere in between. If Lieberman weren't in the Party, and the "moderate" wing were defined by someone slightly to Lieberman's Left (Biden? Dodd? Clinton?) then the establishment shifts to the middle of Biden and Boxer. Right now, the center of the Republican Party is much further Right than the center of the Democrats is Left. People like Lieberman, Nelson, Bayh, Miller, and to a lesser extent Feinstein, are responsible for this imbalance.

[Hippo_Tron]

84. Not true, Kerry very often referenced McCain, Hagel, and Lugar

And how they agree with him that Rumsfeld sucks and that Bush's war policy is a failure.

[Guaranteed]

6. Careful, if you start standing on principle AND get angry at those

who don't, you start getting called a "purist."

[LittleClarkie]

11. Depends on the principle. "Purging" is not a Dem principle.

Inclusiveness is.

Zell made his decision. So did McCain, who had a chance to be non-partisan with Kerry, but chose to let Bush suck out his soul with a kiss.

Joementum campaigned for Kerry. He made his choice, tenuous though it may be. If the folks in Connecticut think it's not enough, he'll be history. Until then, I will accept him as part of the official LC Dem Party Back Watch.

Campaigning for Kerry and not Bush is the difference between him and Zell in my eyes. Zell is truly only calling himself a Dem so that he can be the GOP's token Democrat. I agree with the poster who says this is our line in the sand. You campaign for a Republican president, then YOU are a Republican. I don't care what you are calling yourself, you are NOT a Dem. That is the final straw. That and the fact that the old bastard gave an award to the Smear Vets for their "good work" during the campaign.

So...
Zell has outed himself. Bye bye bozo.

Joementum remains as long as he's still fighting on our side, at least at campaign time. But he is very close to going darkside. I hope he doesn't teeter completely.

[Guaranteed]

12. Well, just because you believe in purging non-Dems, it doesn't

mean you're not a Democrat. I mean, you don't even have to believe in our principles to be a Democrat....

?????


I don't think the most important thing to keep in mind is who someone is endorsing. Votes are what matter. Principles, beliefs are what matter. Lip service to a candidate is beside the point.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. You don't have to agree with

the Democratic position on all issues to be accounted a Democrat, you just have to share 51% of them. Joe Lieberman presumably scores somewhere in the fities or sixties, and Zell Miller somewhere in the thirties of forties.

Purging the party of the 50 and 60 percenters would result in a party that would govern better if it ever got the chance, but it would never, ever get to do so.

And bare in mind that even as you're advocating the purging of those less ideologically pure than you are, there's always someone further left calling you a sellout yourself.

[LittleClarkie]

38. the ultimate irony

The purger gets purged. Aye, there's the rub.

[Guaranteed]

41. My thought is that 51% is an awful low expectation.

We can do a lot better than that. More like 85-90% at LEAST.

[LittleClarkie]

56. I guess it depends on what we're talking about

If we're talking about putting up strong candidates against them and voting them out, then yeah, that's cool.

But what is the original poster talking about when he/she asks how long these people are to be "tolerated." We can't stop people from saying they are Dem or Repub, regardless of what we think of them. Even out of office, we will have to "tolerate" certain people who label themselves Dems. Even now, Zell is like an albatross. We want in the worst way to say "We break with thee" but the SOB still insists on calling himself a Dem.

So how do you tell someone who calls themselves a Dem that they're not?

Or are we really and truly just talking about voting the bums out. In which case all this purge talk could have been avoided if that point had been made clear. It's just bizarre to talk about getting rid of folks from the party otherwise.

And as Zell has shown, even out of office they can be a pain in the ass. So whatchagonna do.

[Guaranteed]

63. We're talking not only about voting them out,

but also about publicly denouncing them as non-Democrats.

I know of no mechanism for "kicking them out." But a public denounciation should be enough. I don't think Lieberman is NECESSARILY at that point, but he definitely needs to go. We've all had enough of him.

[LittleClarkie]

70. Apparently we "all" haven't had enough or there wouldn't be a few

sticking up for him on this thread.

Once again, WHO makes that determination. I don't think Harry's gonna do it.

And unacceptable to who. Left, right, middle? If it's mostly the left wing, then they have to realize that there are other elements in their party, and not everyone is sick of Joementum.

[Guaranteed]

75. Yeah, not everyone's sick of the fucking Iraq War, I guess,

huh?

[LittleClarkie]

78. Gee, I'm kinda diggin' it myself

More death, yeah!

Leibermann, to some people apparently, is more than an IWR vote on legs. I don't know. I'd have to see the rest of his record.

[Guaranteed]

79. Nah, he's the real-deal. I can't imagine a Bush administration

foreign policy he wouldn't support.

Invade a country that didn't do anything to us? Sure!

Torture innocent Iraqis? Go for it!

Undermine the Democratic message? You bet!

ATTACK IRAN? To be continued.....

*ominous music*

[theboss]

69. Lieberman's probably an 80....Zell...I have no use for...

I was willing to deal with him when he caucussed with the Dems. Now, he's dead to me.

[blondeatlast]

24. But in Joe's case, we may not like this, but we have to weigh

that against losing the Senate seat, especially in times like these.

Lord knows I'm no Joementum fan, and at another time, I'd say give him the boot. But now?

I dunno, I just dunno.

[Guaranteed]

42. We don't have to lose it. Just run another Dem against him

in the primary.

[LittleClarkie]

37. You leaped over your own logic

You said be careful or someone would call him a purist. You made talk of purging sound rather heroic somehow because the person was "standing on principle" if they advocated it.

We have to decide which ones are our core principles and who is not following them. Does working for the party (stumping for the candidate is more than "endorsing") make you a Dem. Well, it would seem to have been Joementum's choice.

And that, more than your vote, is what makes you a Dem. And if you demonstrate that choice by doing stuff for the party, then you're still a Dem.

If you demonstrate an opposite choice, such as working for Bush and giving medals to Smear vets, then I don't care what you're calling yourself. You're not really a Dem.

We shall know them by their works, and stumping for the candidate shall be counted as righteousness in the eyes of the party, I should think.

The problem with purging "non-Dems" is deciding who is a non-Dem. Who should have that power? Who would you trust to have that power?

And it also occurs to me that "purging" is not a Dem principle that I know of. So rather than being called a purist, perhaps the poster calling for the purge would be the one who is being the "non-Dem". But don't worry. We won't purge them. We don't do that kind of stuff. We're Dems.

[Guaranteed]

40. I'm playing games with the logic.

It's a logical paradox when you start saying things like "Dem's don't purge." It's actually hypocritical. That was the point.

And- his works ARE his votes. That's his job.

[LittleClarkie]

57. Part of his job

And if his constituents decide they've had enough, he'll go bye bye.

And, whether anyone likes it or not, still call himself a Dem. Are you going to tell him he's not>

I don't see the paradox. Because Dems don't purge, this person can still call himself a Dem. But he may not be representing core Dem values sometimes if he talks of purging. Kinda like Joementum.

[Guaranteed]

65. The paradox is:

Why the hell am I supposed to take this "Dems don't purge" doctrine seriously when we don't repudiate those who vote with fascists?

Since when do we have principles, since we won't get rid of those who refuse adhere to them, out of COWARDICE (in my estimation), a very large percentage of the time?

That's just one way of putting it, but it's the most to the point.

[txaslftist]

33. Does Bush really have a satanic, mind-altering kiss?

First McCain, then Joe Leiberman...

Could it be that he really is the anti-christ?

[Guaranteed]

44. Honestly- that kiss is up there with giving a keynote speech.

Maybe not QUITE as bad- but that's pretty damned bad.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. There ought to at least be a rule...

that once you've delivered the keynote at the OTHER Party's convention, you're fucking gone.

[Generator]

53. Thankyou!

If the party had any guts it could have drawn up that rule on the eve of the RNC convention. Give 'em our number. We know hardball isn't that hard to figure out.

[Lexingtonian]

15. It's a symptom, really

The problem is where to draw the cut-off line, and that makes for a whole series of problems about where and what the center is.

I don't like seeing people tossed overboard for just not sharing the groupthink, or not subscribing to fullblown ideologies. I think we can punt some people for falling into the other side's groupthink and (to some degree) ideology, when it's clear that the person really doesn't agree with the central Democratic principle(s)-whatever they may be.

And...these are politicians. Many or most of them don't believe much of what True Believer grassroots activists or their voters do, at least not in detail. Partly out of greater wisdom, partly out of unwillingness to suffer without necessity.

Personally, I like to think that the Democratic Party represents the side that takes group equality seriously as a political principle of governance and accepts this aspect of the Modern Age. I like to think that all Democratic arguments root, finally, not in liberalism per se or mere Left antagonism with the Right but in an idea of justice. That is, in wanting to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment (Section 1) in letter and in spirit, in social and in economic dealings in the public square. I think partisan differences are largest and most serious about this one piece of the Constitution, the warfare initiated in other parts is only derivative and unimportant by comparison.

If there were a Democratic consensus to something of the kind, that would give us a measure against which to hold Miller and Lieberman. Absent consensus of the sort Lieberman can hang on far too easily.

[Guaranteed]

16. Post of the day.

Very well said. :)

[blondeatlast]

21. It's quite a quandary, but one of the tough questions we're going

to have to address.

Why should any Dem money or volunteer time be going to Zell? I think nearly every DUer will agree it shouldn't.

Leiberman is a tougher challenge. Is it worth it to lose his seat in the Senate to make him toe the line?

I can't answer that, I really can't.

[lewiston]

18. Joe

is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

[blondeatlast]

20. Nice knowing you, too. nt

[lewiston]

25. Lighten up dude...

It's a line from the Manchurian Candidate. You should get out more.

[blondeatlast]

28. Oops, I did know that. Posted pre-caffeine.

Weak, I know, but it's all I got.

(Dudette, btw)

[lewiston]

30. Dudette

it's all right...I shouldn't have been such a smart ass.

[blondeatlast]

19. The National Committee should cut off all funding for Zell, especially.

He's a bona fide traitor to our cause. Even if we lose his seat, it's no loss.

If they can be shown to regularly oppose what most of the DNC membership supports, they should be refused the teat of the National Committee, and let the states and local parties decide what they want to do.

No funds for Zell!

[YNGW]

27. There's nothing wrong with Joe Lieberman

Skinner said:

"I don't think we need to get rid of the Lieberman avatar.

He's not perfect, but he is actually more progressive than he gets credit for here on DU. Based on the comments here, you'd think he was the worst Democrat in the Senate, when in reality his record puts him somewhere in the middle of the pack. Makes me wonder why he gets all the attention, actually."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x29296

Skinner's right. And those of you who disagree can kiss off.

[rman]

32. Lieberman may be more progressive then Bush,

but that's not hard to do.

"I am right. And those of you who disagree can kiss off."

[YNGW]

36. If you don't like Lieberman...

...and you consider him to be practically a conservative, you can take it up with Skinner. But Skinner's right, Lieberman is much more progressive than he's given credit for here. I don't get all this Lieberman bashing either.

[LittleClarkie]

60. You know, I've never looked at his record

I need to.


I think some people around here live and die just by certain votes and nothing else. We need to take these people as a whole. Some didn't like Daschal, but didn't take into account all he was doing for Native Americans. Some were glad to see him go, but we lost a good advocate there.

[Quixote1818]

46. Well then why don't you want to get rid of Edwards and Ben, Nelson?

They vote less with Dem's than Lieberman does. Also the two Senators from Louisiana.

http://www.adaction.org/2003senatevr.htm

[ultraist]

89. That is BS! Why are you distorting FACTS?

"Judging by National Journal's congressional vote ratings, however, Kerry and Edwards aren't all that different, at least not when it comes to how they voted on key issues before the Senate last year. The results of the vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5. But Edwards wasn't far behind: He had a 2003 composite liberal score of 94.5, making him the fourth-most-liberal senator.

Edwards is NOT as moderate as LIEberman and besides, Edwards is NO LONGER A SENATOR!

[DaveinMD]

97. according to ADA

that's Americans For Democratic Action, Lieberman had a higher rating than Edwards.

Edit

I see you linked lifetime records below. I had only found the 2002 and 2003 records. Regardless, neither of them are DINOs.

[txaslftist]

31. we don't. Run other candidates and vote them out.

[McCamy Taylor]

34. Thats what primaries are for...

[cestpaspossible]

35. Find a primary candidate and throw the bums out.

[theboss]

54. I wish people actually looked at Lieberman's record

The attacks on him are just unbelievably unfair.

[John_H]

58. The only attacks on lieberman that are unfair are

the ones that say he's a rethug clone. He's not, obviously. What Joe Lieberman is, though, is one of the most enthusiastic practitioners of both "my politcal agenda before my party's" (thwarting multiple investigations of chimp as senate gov. oversight chairman to avoid a "sour grapes" charge that could have hurt him in 04) and that his views on Iraq were both wrong and politically calculated.

[Iggytop]

68. OR

The rethugs could buy off the Half Dems and then we would have a hard time in the senate , with judges etc..... Not that it isn't already happening :-(

[theboss]

72. Why do I feel like Trotsky?

I'm concerned.

[Guaranteed]

76. You shouldn't. Saddle up.

This is a war. We're not fucking around anymore.

[TheOriginalAmerican]

77. No.

We don't want to make being a Democrat too exclusive because that would make our party smaller.

Republicans haven't shown certain people the boot, and look what has happened. We have all sorts of pro-choice, anti-war, pro-civil unions, and pro-gun control Republicans. Those are people who could come over here one day. Dissent in any party is a good thing. It helps keep a party from becoming too dogmatic, and it helps makes a party more inclusive.

Actually, I don't think most of the Dem party is leftist enough. I'd like to see more of them act like the Greens. Imagine if I kicked out everybody I didn't like much.

[Guaranteed]

80. Those Republicans are only with them because they're winning.

They also bitch quite a bit, and we use it against them every chance we get.

[TheOriginalAmerican]

81. The point is...

they're changing the Republican Party from the inside.

[Guaranteed]

83. I don't think I see that.

I think they're just along for the ride, to pick up whatever crumbs they can find.

[Padraig18]

88. Joe Lieberman is not a 'fake Dem'

He is hawkish on foreign policy and national defense, but he's quite liberal on virtually everything else. He gets high ADA ratings.

[ultraist]

90. Edwards was considered the FOURTH MOST LIBERAL SENATOR

94.5% composite, DESPITE the lies Quixote has posted.

What is Lieberman's composite? When all people see is his pandering to Bush, talking up how well Bush is handling Iraq and kissing him, what do you expect?

If you have facts that show otherwise, post them.

[Padraig18]

92. Since you asked.

http://www.adaction.org/Campaign2004/VotingHistory/votinghistory.html

He's only 8 points behind Kucinich.

[Padraig18]

93. Kick. n/t

[ultraist]

94. ADA Lifetime Voting Ratings: NO MORE LIES, here are the FACTS

Sen. John Kerry 92

Rep. Dennis Kucinich 86

Sen. John Edwards 85

Sen. Joseph Lieberman 78

http://www.adaction.org/Campaign2004/VotingHistory/votinghistory.html

[Padraig18]

95. Gee, that's exactly the same link I posted.

What an amazing coincidence.

:eyes:

[ultraist]

96. THAT'S WHY I POSTED IT!!!

;)

Thanks for the link.

[Padraig18]

98. Oh, OK.

I was confused.

:hi: